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
⌀ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
tt0106333 | Baazigar | A boy named Ajay asks a doctor to come see his mother Shobha (Rakhee), who is unconscious. Ajay promises Shobha that he will get revenge on the people, who are responsible for making them cry. The deaths of Ajay's father (Anant Mahadevan) and baby sister have made Shobha fall unconscious.
Years later, Ajay (Shah Rukh Khan) meets Madan Chopra's (Dalip Tahil) daughter Seema (Shilpa Shetty). Ajay cozies up to Seema, and she falls in love with him. Meanwhile, Ajay pretends to be Vicky Malhotra to create a good impression in the minds of Chopra and his younger daughter Priya (Kajol). Ajay keeps his affair with Seema a secret, under the impression that Seema too doesn't let anybody know she is in love. When Chopra decides to get Seema married, she decides to elope with Ajay. Ajay takes advantage of the opportunity and tricks her into writing a suicide letter.
Later, on premise of getting married secretly, Ajay calls Seema to the office for marriages in Bombay. He takes her to the terrace and suddenly pushes her down, using her suicide note to close the case as suicide. Chopra hastily has the case closed to prevent any further embarrassment. Ajay uses Seema's death to gets close to Priya and Chopra. Priya, however, suspects that her sister didn't commit suicide. With help of her college friend and police inspector Karan Saxena, she investigates the matter secretly.
Ravi, a friend of Seema, who had a crush on her, tells Priya about Seema's secret lover. Ravi finds a photo of Seema and Ajay together at a birthday party but is killed by Ajay. Ajay forces Ravi to sign a suicide note, making Priya and Karan believe that Ravi must have been Seema's lover and murderer. Ajay began a double game whilst keeping both the parties in dark. When Ajay puts contact lenses in his eyes to use his fake ID Vicky again, it's revealed that Madan is the person responsible for making Ajay and Shobha cry.
The next day when Ajay sees Madan's chair at Madan's company, a flashback is shown.
When Ajay's father Vishwanath Sharma, a reputed businessman, discovers that his manager Madan is embezzling money under his nose, Sharma has Madan thrown in jail. After Madan completes his jail term, he re-approaches Sharma and asks for forgiveness. Vishwanath rebukes him, but his wife Shobha takes pity on Chopra's daughters and pleads to her husband. Chopra is reappointed in the company. However, Chopra has come back to exact revenge on his former boss. Slowly, but surely, Chopra regains the confidence of Sharma. One day, when Sharma has to go for a business tour, he hands over power of attorney to Chopra so he can run the company in his absence. Chopra, who has been waiting for such chance, usurps Sharma's company and becomes its de facto owner. Sharma learns of this treachery, by which time his family is ejected from their home after Chopra takes a loan out in their name. More tragedy strikes the Sharma household when his newborn daughter dies of fever and Sharma himself dies of a heart attack while trying to buy medicines for her. Devastated by the turn of events, Shobha goes insane, while Ajay decided to avenge the wrongdoings by making Chopra pay what he deserves.
Later, Priya and Vicky coincidentally meet Seema's college friend, Anjali at a jewelry store. Anjali thinks that she recognizes Vicky. When she finds the photo as well, she calls the Sharma household during Vicky's and Priya's engagement party. Vicky intercepts the call, impersonates Chopra, and arrives at her place. He throttles her, stuffs her body in a suitcase, and throws it in the river. A man and his dog find the body soon after. Priya and Karan realize that the murderer is still alive. Meanwhile, history repeats itself, with Chopra handing over the power of attorney to "Vicky". Ajay decides to hasten up his plans on learning that Priya and Karan are bent on finding the killer.
Ajay's plan hits a glitch when he and Priya run into the real Vicky Malhotra, Ajay's friend whose identity he had taken. Priya becomes suspicious and decides to contact this Vicky. After returning from his business trip, Chopra is shocked to find that the company is run by a Sharma group. Ajay reveals the truth to Chopra and kicks him out of the company after humiliating him.
Meanwhile, Priya learns of Ajay's true identity from Vicky and rushes to Ajay's home in Panvel. She is shocked to see a poster of Ajay and finds a marriage locket with photos of him with her sister. Ajay comes home, where she confronts him with his misdeeds. He tells her the whole story, and she is dumbstruck by what her father did to Ajay's family. Although Ajay killed innocent Seema, Priya has sympathy for Ajay. Chopra arrives at Vicky's house with his henchmen to kill Ajay and exact revenge. Ajay goes outside to see some cars coming to his house and is shot by Chopra. After seeing Ajay being beaten by Chopra and hearing Chopra's name being repeated, Shobha regains her sanity and runs to her son's defense. Ajay starts bashing Chopra's goons and overpowers Chopra. Despite the circumstances, Karan and Priya sympathize with Ajay.
In a standoff with Chopra, Ajay spares his life. Chopra impales Ajay with a long iron bar and laughs about his victory. Ajay begins to laugh maniacally as well and rams the bar into Chopra's stomach, with both plummeting from a high wall, killing Chopra and mortally wounding Ajay.
Ajay makes it back to his mother who finally recognizes her son. Ajay promises her that he's gotten revenge for their family misfortunes and reacquired everything that was meant to be theirs — now wanting only to rest peacefully in her embrace. Priya and Karan watch despondently as Ajay dies in his mother's arms at peace. | murder, violence, revenge, flashback, tragedy, romantic | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0160394 | Ichi pondo no fukuin | The protagonist of the series is Kōsaku Hatanaka (畑中 耕作, Hatanaka Kōsaku), the pride of Mukōda Gym (向田ジム, Mukōda Jimu) for the most part. He went pro in only two bouts after leaving high school, and his strong punches are universally recognized by his opponents. While he is a natural at boxing, he can't control his voracious appetite. Not surprisingly, Kōsaku eats anything and everything. As a result, he has been forced to change his weight class since high school. Going from flyweight, all the way up to feather weight, something his trainer tells him he doesn't have the frame for. On top of this he accepts challenges from higher weight classes, giving his coach (and himself) constant trouble.
Into this picture steps Sister Angela (シスターアンジェラ, Shisutā Anjera), a novice nun who takes Kōsaku on as a personal project, determined to set him on the right path and break his habit of gluttony. She constantly encourages him, making sure that he stays in shape while staying away from food. Unfortunately, closeness can sometimes breed feelings of affection, which Kōsaku begins to develop. Even worse, Sister Angela realizes she is beginning to have the same problems as well. | violence | train | wikipedia | null |
tt1179794 | TiMER | The conceit of TiMER is that a wrist implant is available that counts down to the day when the user will meet his or her soulmate.
Oona, a Los Angeles orthodontist, has a blank timer, meaning her soulmate is not equipped with one. Searching for her soulmate, Oona brings her latest timerless boyfriend to get a timer installed, but the timers do not match and they part ways.
Oona's stepsister and roommate, Steph, has a TiMER indicating that she will not meet her soulmate for over 15 years. Steph's lifestyle includes one-night stands with men whose timers are about to expire, and she encourages Oona toward similar behavior.
Oona gravitates toward Mikey, a young grocery store clerk who encourages her to live in the present. Mikey’s TiMER only has a few months left. Steph meets Dan, a newcomer to Los Angeles, and invites him to her bar intending to introduce him to Oona, who does not show up because she is with Mikey. Steph and Dan flirt. Dan confesses that his wife died; he does not have a TiMER because he believes she was "his one".
When Mikey meets Steph and the sisters argue, Mikey reveals that his TiMER was fake: a programmable sticker. Oona is angry but realizes she was more herself with him because of it. With Oona's 30th birthday approaching, she feels pressure from her mother to find her soulmate. Steph and Oona decide to have their TiMERs removed claiming that they are moving on and the results no longer matter.
Steph has hers removed and is visibly relieved. During Oona's turn, her countdown abruptly starts, signifying that her soulmate has gotten a TiMER. It indicates that she will meet her soulmate the next day. Steph encourages her to remove it anyway, but a conflicted Oona decides to keep it. An angry Steph leaves Oona to think it over.
The next day is Oona and Steph's birthday, and their parents throw them a party, inviting Mikey and Dan. Steph and Oona, still fighting, arrive separately. Oona looks for Steph, but sees Dan. Her TiMER goes off, because Dan purchased a TiMER: being with Steph made him not want to be alone. Mikey runs off before Oona can talk to him, and Oona finds Steph and Dan arguing. The sisters fight and Oona leaves.
The next day, Oona visits Mikey and shows him she had her TiMER removed and says she does not care about the results. Mikey is grateful for the gesture, but insists that the results matter and they say goodbye. The next morning Steph reconciles with Oona. Oona goes for a run at the track later than she usually does, and runs into Dan practicing with his relay team, learning they use the same track, but at different times. They part with the promise of meeting again. | romantic | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0107665 | Needful Things | A new shop named "Needful Things" opens in the town of Castle Rock, Maine, sparking the curiosity of its citizens. The proprietor, Leland Gaunt, is a charming elderly gentleman who always seems to have an item in stock that is perfectly suited to any customer who comes through his door. The prices are surprisingly low, considering the merchandise – such as a rare Sandy Koufax baseball card, a carnival glass lampshade, and a fragment of wood believed to be from Noah's Ark – but he expects each customer also to play a little prank on someone else in Castle Rock. Gaunt knows about the long-standing private grudges, arguments, and feuds between the various townspeople, and the pranks are his means of forcing them to escalate until the whole town is eventually caught up in madness and violence.
Sheriff Alan Pangborn becomes wary of Gaunt as soon as the shop opens. However, his lover, Polly Chalmers, dismisses his suspicions and buys an ancient charm that relieves the arthritis pain in her hands. Tensions rapidly grow after Nettie Cobb, Polly's housekeeper, and her enemy Wilma Jerzyck kill each other in a confrontation sparked by pranks played on them by others. Many other rivalries begin to fester, spurred by the personal motives of the people involved (drugs, secret pedophilia, bad business dealings, religious disagreements, etc.).
Gaunt eventually hires petty criminal John "Ace" Merrill as his assistant, providing him with high-quality cocaine and hinting at buried treasure that could relieve the debt he owes to a pair of drug dealers. Ace's first assignment is to retrieve crates of pistols, ammunition, and blasting caps from a garage in Boston; Gaunt soon begins to sell the pistols to his customers so they can protect their property. For centuries, he has tricked unsuspecting people into buying worthless junk that appears to be whatever they treasure most. They become so paranoid about keeping their items safe that they eagerly buy up the weapons that he inevitably offers and trade away their souls. Ace begins to suspect the supernatural background of his new employer, but Gaunt keeps him in line through intimidation and promises of revenge against Alan and the town.
With the violence in Castle Rock rapidly escalating, Ace and the town's head selectman Danforth "Buster" Keeton (who has embezzled thousands of dollars from public funds) plant dynamite all over town, using the caps Ace brought back. Alan sets out to kill Ace, wrongly believing him to be responsible for a car accident that killed his wife and son, and Polly realizes the evil of the charm she bought and destroys it. As the dynamite bombs explode, Keeton is wounded by one of Alan's deputies and is put out of his misery by Ace. Taking Polly hostage, Ace demands that Alan hand over a hoard of cash he allegedly stole from one of the sites Ace dug up. The deputy kills Ace, leaving Alan to face off against Gaunt.
Using sleight of hand and magic novelties that suddenly come to life, Alan forces Gaunt back and grabs his valise, which contains the souls of his customers. Gaunt flees the scene, his car turning into a horse-drawn wagon as he becomes a hunchbacked dwarf, and the survivors are left to ponder an uncertain future.
The novel ends as it begins, with a first-person narrative indicating that a new and mysterious shop called "Answered Prayers" is about to open in a small Iowa town – an implication that Gaunt is ready to begin his business cycle all over again. | murder, paranormal, cult, violence, flashback, good versus evil, prank | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0280233 | Beethoven | A group of puppies are stolen from a pet store by two thieves. The St. Bernard escapes and sneaks into the Newton's home. The workaholic father, George Newton, doesn't want the responsibility of owning a dog, but his wife, Alice, and their children, Ryce, Ted and Emily, convince him. Emily plays a portion of Ludwig van Beethoven's Fifth Symphony, he barks along and they name him Beethoven.
Beethoven helps the children overcome their problems: he helps Ryce talk to her crush, scares off the bullies for Ted and saves Emily's life when she falls in the swimming pool of an irresponsible babysitter. George, jealous of the affection Beethoven receives, feels neglected as the family fawns over the dog. Beethoven's antics ruin a barbecue he is hosting for Brad and Brie, venture capitalists looking to invest in and secretly swindle him out of his car freshener firm.
The family takes Beethoven to a veterinarian, Dr. Herman Varnick, for a routine medical examination and immunizations. They are unaware that he is involved in unethical and deadly animal experimentation and hired the two thieves. He speaks to George and tells him of a supposed mental instability among St. Bernards making them potentially dangerous to humans and advises him to watch Beethoven closely for any sign of viciousness. He actually requires large-skulled dogs such as St. Bernards for an ammunition test.
Dr. Varnick visits the Newton home under the guise of doing a follow-up exam on Beethoven. He puts fake blood on his arm and hits Beethoven until he leaps on him. He tells George that Beethoven has to be euthanized or he will press charges. Emily, who saw Dr. Varnick hit him, protests that the attack was fake, but George, fearing for his family's safety, reluctantly takes him to Dr. Varnick's office. It is on the way there that George discovers his own affections for him: he remembers his father had to take their dog to the vet to be euthanized and he never forgave him for it. He fears that his own family will hate him now for taking Beethoven to be put down. When he returns home with the empty leash and collar, his family leaves the dinner table rather than remain with him.
After recognizing the children's sadness and having a conversation with Alice, the family goes to Dr. Varnick's office, but he claims that Beethoven has already been put down. George notices that Dr. Varnick has no bite marks on his arm and punches him. The family follows Dr. Varnick to his warehouse. Beethoven breaks free but is recaptured by Harvey and Vernon, while Alice calls the police. George crashes through the skylight just as Dr. Varnick prepares to shoot Beethoven. Before he can, a captive Jack Russell Terrier bites him in the crotch, causing him to fire a shot in the air. During the fight, Ted drives the car into the building, launching numerous syringes into Varnick, sedating him. As the family frees all the captive dogs, they notice Harvey and Vernon trying to escape and send the dogs after them. They escape into a junkyard, only to be attacked by a pack of Dobermans guarding it.
Dr. Varnick, Harvey, and Vernon are arrested for animal abuse. The family is praised as heroes by the news and George takes a new liking to Beethoven. Ryce also gets a phone call from her crush. The family then goes to sleep, saying good night to Beethoven and all of the dogs they rescued, who are all sleeping in the Newtons' bedroom. | psychedelic | train | wikipedia | Excellent, underrated cartoon.. It's a shame not many people watch this cause it is EXCELLENT! I love the fact that Beethoven can talk and is shown as having a level-headed hero personality. But my favorite character is Sparky, his darker and more cynical sidekick who acts tough but has a heart of pure gold. I'm pretty sure that if this show were REALLY popular than Sparky would have his own fanlisting. My favorite character used to be the sensible tomboy collie, Ginger but Sparky just grew on me. Ginger usually acts as the show's cynic when Sparky's not around. Then of course, you've got the eccentric goof ball, Ceasar who always brings a smile with quotes like "Maybe if we concentrate REALLY hard, we can grow wings!".Then of course you've got the Newtons and a guinea pig named Mr.Huggs who is constantly the butt of jokes. George is on the edge of a panic attack and Alice is a bit laid-back. I think Beethoven, Ryce, Ted and Emily have the upper-hand of the family personality-wise. All of the main cast are lovable in their own way. The minor, one-shot characters are mostly shown as jerks (Mowser), bullies (Killer, Puff Puff) or manipulative (Watson, Lionel).They all go on all sorts of crazy adventures with chase scenes ensuing and whatnot. Highly recommended to fans of cartoon dogs, especially 90's cartoon dogs.10/10 |
tt2386278 | Haunt | A distraught man, Frank, tries to speak to his dead children in the afterlife by using an EVP box; soon thereafter, he is mysteriously possessed by a ghost, which then apparently causes him to kill himself.
After this incident, a woman who will come to be known to the viewer as Dr. Morello begins narrating about her family and how they were murdered one by one by an unknown force. When Evan Asher (Harrison Gilbertson) and his family move into the old Morello house some years later, they are largely unaware that it has a history of death and grief. Soon after their arrival Evan begins to experience paranormal activity and enlists his neighbor Sam (Liana Liberato) to help uncover what is going on. (Samantha herself suffers in her own home at the hands of her abusive, drunken father; her mother's whereabouts are left unrevealed to the viewer until later into the film and she is believed to have abandoned the family.)
As the two teens spend more and more time with each other, they begin to fall in love and in the course of exploring the house, find the same EVP box from before. Not really expecting anything to actually happen, they use it to speak with the dead and it starts working. The ghosts continue haunting the two teens as well as psychically contacting the youngest child (leaving the parents unaware of the whole situation), and at the urging of Dr. Morello, whom they deduce might know something about the hauntings, the frightened Evan and Sam decide to burn the box and the belongings of the previous owners. They also seal the small room in their attic bedroom where the box was found. However, these actions fail to work as hoped and the ghost of a woman haunts them that night and locks the door.
It is then revealed to Sam in a psychic vision that the ghost is the vengeful "she" fearfully referred to repeatedly throughout the course of the movie by the other spirits, and who is the main antagonist of the film. Frank -Mr. Morello -had an affair with a woman who was his neighbor and his wife's patient (her name is never revealed to the viewer), who gave birth to a daughter -Samantha herself. Frank's wife, who is a doctor, finds out about the affair and brutally kills the woman while the weak-willed Frank stands by and watches while holding the daughter he sired. The woman is then buried in a small room in the attic, where Evan is staying now. Sam is then possessed by her spirit who in turn kills Evan by bludgeoning him with a hammer saying "You shouldn't have burned the box, you shouldn't have closed the room." Sam is caught by Evan's father when she tries to open the wooden plank in the floor under which the woman's body is buried, calling out "Mommy" the whole time; she is arrested and taken away by the cops. The movie ends with the voice of Dr. Morello wondering if Evan will haunt that house forever like she believes the members of her family will. | murder | train | wikipedia | Nothing really special here, a story about a haunted house, two characters that weren't quite exploited enough, scares that came so late and soft, a twist that didn't manage to stand tall.It wanted to be something, you can clearly see it tried, but somewhere, it failed, somewhere along the plot development, when they tried to make it more than it could be.
In the end it is a movie about a haunted house, so don't get your hopes too high, cause originality is something too hard to achieve, working around with just 2 actors make the viewer feel deserted, and scares that won't come when they suppose to, leave him even more alone.Not so many reasons to recommend this one: yes, average horror at its best, a somewhat effort put into it, but still, it falls flat.
An introverted teen (Harrison Gilbertson) connects with his new neighbor (Liana Liberato), and together the couple begins to explore the haunted house that his family has unknowingly just purchased.There are some things worth liking about this film.
that was it?", REALLY fast.It starts with typical "family moves into a haunted house" bit but it feels like movie tries to copy clichés only and is happy not following through different sub-plots.
but then you'd be wrong since movie doesn't do anything with that setting, doesn't progress it at all.It's like the director had a list of horror cliché's to add and that was it.Also, this movie throws in so many jump "scares" that you will soon start predicting the next jump.
Scary and frightening like a haunted house movie (the movie's self-aware opening narration describes itself as a ghost story) ought to be, its intensity is too much for PG-13 but lacks the explicit violence and gore typical for R.
No such luck.For a ghost story that's complete with a haunted house, box that allows the living to communicate with the dead, and a pretty decent looking spirit, this is a complete snoozer.
The only survivor, the pediatrician Janet Morello (Jacki Weaver), sells the house to Alan Asher (Brian Wimmer) and his wife Emily (Ione Skye), and they move with their children, the teenagers Evan (Harrison Gilbertson) and Sara (Danielle Chuchran) and the girl Anita (Ella Harris).
"Haunt" is a weak horror movie of haunted house where the only thing new is the apparatus that is a radio to communicate with the dead.
Nevertheless, I found Haunt a very entertaining horror film with an interesting mystery, good scares and credible characters who, at the difference of many films from this genre, generate empathy on the audience.
However, how could there be a horror movie if there was no foolhardy family who was still brave or desperate enough to live in that house despite its sinister past?
It did not take long though that strange things begin to happen to the new tenants.The focus of this story was the middle boy, 18 year-old Evan (Harrison Gilbertson).
While the opening sequences promised another excellent haunted house movie, the ending scenes were simply mediocre, an appalling waste of potential and talented cast.
Don't waste your time watching this movie, it has no interesting characters, so why would you care about them.
The premise of the movie starts good, this is a little ghost story, all the ingredients are there, the house, the tragedy and...
the communication device, in this case, a EVP Box from the sixties.The 2 leads are well developed and although they don't display good acting skills, it is clear that they have chemistry together and that alone make up for all the script plot holes.The rest of the cast flows in development of their roles through the movie but in the last act they suddenly disappear from screen for no other reason than to focus on the two leads, this results in a big miss because we suddenly stop seeing them and that empty space turns the whole concept upside down, degrading what was well done in the first acts.The movie tries to tie the story together from pieces to puzzle to big picture with the revelation right at the ending.Hopefully it works, for the majority of the movie, sadly, the ending is incredible anti climatic.I can see the director trying a different thing pretending to be original but the result came out incredible wrong, not only ruins the movie, it doesn't explain in any meaningful way anything except a few loose ends..In fact the final declarations sounds more like "yes we didn't knew what to do anymore so we finish the movie like this..
There are movies that get saved by the ending and left the viewers at least with a satisfactory conclusion, then there are movies that are dull through and through, but the worst of their kind are movies like this one, with an nice premise, good development and stupid ending, that is unforgivable because it gives you a weird feeling of bad taste on your mouth, a feeling of being cheated.Do not waste your time, it's really not worth it as there are much better movies out there..
i gave this a 6 outta ten because the cinematography was good, the ghost was actually pretty terrifying as movie spirits go, jacki weaver was eerie and haunting in her role as the vengeful wife and grieving mother, and the ending kinda surprised me.
For me the opening part of the movie was very decent ,there one decent creepy moments , near the start but as the movies goes onI was so bored by it , it never got me back into it , when those scare scenes , were so bad, I actually thought they were funny.I thing seeing the ghost so early on and far to many times , that the creepy factor away, Far too boring and far to scarce less and a very predicable endingThe acting was really good , the egoist effects were not at all, I kind of find the ghost a bit cute lol , i am kidding I am going to give 4/10.
Format: Amazon Video Language: English Released: 2014Director: Mac CarterStarring: Jacki Weaver, Liana Liberato, Harrison GilbertsonHaunt opens with a bereaved Franklin Morello (Carl Hadra), who while endeavoring to contact his dead family using an EVP device, gets murdered by a spirit hand.As an opening it's rather good; setting a scene of vengeful spirits, emotional regrets and mysteries and generally propagating so many questions that you want to hang on to the end to see them answered.Regrettably that's where it seems Mac Carter runs out of story.
Harrison Gilbertson however, is just appalling; he is unconvincing, uncaring and looks bored and detached from the story throughout the production, which is exactly how I felt by the time the all too predictable 'twist' was played out.There is some good in the film, if you can stick with it long enough to spot it, yet with every good piece there is a downside.
For example; when the spirits turn up (and they do so alarmingly often) they look suitably unnerving and sinister, yet from the opening titles the editing and shot set up makes it obvious when they're coming; now in a film that relies on its 'jump' scares that makes the whole thing redundant - the appearance of ghoulies and ghosties is supposed to be a surprise!Another example of this good/bad content is the sound editing (Mandell Winter is credited as Sound Editor).
Evan Asher (Harrison Gilbertson) and Sam (Liana Liberato) just don't look bothered half the time (actually Evan doesn't seem bothered any of the time) and this means the viewer is not really bothered either.While I can pick out the Sound Editing, CGI/SFX and some of the cinematography for praise the rest, acting editing etc., kind of defeats the purpose of a film.
The sound and effects should be used to create a visual whole that sucks the viewer in and makes them care about the characters and what is happening, not be picked out and used as examples of good bits in a mediocre film.
Together, and with the help of a troubled young girl with her own secret ties to the house, they explore the mysteries and history of this device and use it to try to overcome the shadows of the supernatural world that threaten their lives.At least, that's what it should have been.Instead, we have an obvious ghost, no real strong scares, and the odd existence of this ghost-machine that is just assumed and never questioned, make this story disjointed and pieced-together at best.It would be interesting to see what the movie could have been without the scatterbrained attempt to stitch it together.
As a commentator has noted, HAUNT is one boring haunted house movie; a dark, muddled, cookie cutter viewing experience about a house haunted by evil spirits that seems to mine American HORROR STORY for inspiration without ever doing anything by itself.
It's a tiresome film, with a set-up no different from dozens of other movies, and yet it seems to think it's telling some kind of story worth telling.The narrative centres around the usual annoying American teenage characters who move into a house with a dark history.
It has a mediocre storyline and some fairly cheap scare tricks going on.A family has moved into a new house where mysterious things are going one.
I guess that it is an easy way to glance past perhaps a lack of great effects or make-up?The acting in "Haunt" was okay, although the cast were extremely limited by the script and the storyline."Haunt" did have potential to be a good horror movie, but director Mac Carter couldn't bring the ship safely into harbor, so to speak.All in all, an average movie experience, but a weak horror experience.
A sensible teenage boy befriends a troubled young lady and together they try to communicate with the previous deceased occupants who died under mysterious circumstances.To director Mac Carter's credit Haunt has one of the most chilling ghost story openings put to screen, in addition he offers jump scare after jump scare, which never grows old thanks to some solid acting, music, sound design and eerie effects.
Sadly, Danielle Chuchran's screen time is limited as she steals every scene as to dose the younger sister played by Ella Harris, possibly to avoid story comparisons to the aforementioned and many other similar horrors.Even though you can see the twist coming a mile away, reminiscent of Stir of Echoes it's a respectably old-school ghost chiller that's wonderfully put together with scary visuals and a great narcissistic ending.There could have been more focus around the photos in the shed and little more about the EVP box history but the ambiguity works.
I almost get the feeling this is part of a further story arc the way its played out.Ever had a cream bun just when you fancied one well this movie is kinda like that...its not high cuisine but it is perfect if you are looking for exactly this kind of film.
We are getting more PG-13 horror, and rated R ones that are worse than a PG-13, like this one and The Conjuring or should we called them The Lame Ones?I think its people that actually believe in ghosts that actually enjoy these.
The film opens with kind of a creepy, promising narrative given by the actress (Jackie Weaver) who played the daughter in All in the Family whose haggard appearance is perhaps the most frightening aspect of the movie.
Two jump scares and a cheap CGI character aren't enough to hold this movie up, and by the time you get to the end, nobody's motivations make any sense, living or dead, and are inconsistent to say the least.
Fairly standard haunted house thriller that owes a great deal to THE AMITYVILLE HORROR and practically every other Stephen King ghost story in this rather boring horror flick about a family (knowingly!) moving into a house whose previous tenants were killed and a mysterious neighbor teen (Liberato) who infiltrates their environs as well.
Like the atmosphere of the room, how it came across that something wasn't right...but the movie never continued and the intensity and foreboding evil essence..if they had focused on that angle and fuelled it by the attic that had a small door and behind that door was some hidden rooms , that held the center of the movie, instead the attic seemed fine and OK the sleep in but the little door became the focus of the storyline, and not even the little room was giving a history about it, and the what i would call The Spirit Phone used to call the 'other side' ...also gave us no history of meaning, Yhe movie failed in parts which unfortunately shrouded the film as vague and ungiving ..where if the writers gave us a bit more depth, on keeping the attic a room that made u feel uncomfortable ,,and the strange little door ..that behind was a small little room, with a dark cold place that gave us a sense of fear, as parts of its past and what went on in there, and was it that way only because of some strange box..
Literally, this was their only fright mechanism.Then it drags on like some poor ghost of a butler lugging chains around a deserted mansion - at least you know you could sit down and have a smoke with him and strike up an interesting chat.And I can't detail the end without ticking the spoiler box, but let me say two things:* The TV survived, even though I had an immediate urge to kick it in* Straight after this we watched the Lego Movie...
A new family moves into the house which basically mirrors the old one.The film then centers on the oldest son Evan (Harrison Gilbertson) and his newly acquired playmate and seer Samantha (Liana Liberato) to the unfortunate exclusion of everyone else.
It is the two teens leads, Evan Played by Harrison Gilbertson, and the neighbor girl he befriends, Sam played by Liana Liberato who carry the story; Sam knows the history of the house, and the folks who lived there before.
Just written that way, they had to be out of the picture for the duration of the last third of the film, only to return at the end.By the first half the nature of the movie shifts as Evan and Sam want to explore the mystery of the spirits, They do so with the aid of a machine that can, "Talk to the Dead" A door was opened with awful consequences ensuing as the young ones fool with things they do not understand.The Machine is beautiful.
The fact that they mainly only used two of the characters didn't help make the movie scarier, in fact it probably took away some of the scare factor since the ghosts seemed to only be haunting Evan and Sam, and possibly the younger girl.Possibly the only unusual thing that happened was that person who started it didn't end up dead.
This movie also posed many questions, most of which did not get answered, e.g. why was the little girl scratching the eyes out of the family photo?All in all a boring horror movie which will more than likely leave you more confused than scared, and not really worth the time to watch it..
I agree with some of the reviewers > stre3xHCCH and > gavin6942 they both had good points, The movie start really interesting in terms of narrative and plot, mysterious enough and creepy, but end in mediocrity.All starts when a family the Morello's moves in a classic beautiful house for a new beginning, full of hope with a great business prospective, but that short lived as all ends in tragedy, when their young children all teens and their father die of violent death in the house (and out)..Anyway time has passed and a new family whose the house is sold to, moves in and they also have three teen children, one of them Evan, the quiet one, meets this young girl in the woods one night going for a walk, named Sam, whose we don't really know or learn anything about her, except she has a violent father and until the end, we get just a glimpse, and not enough to satisfy the building up of the beginning of the story, imho.
When Evan and Sam found this radio and mess about, then things begin to manifest,and not in a good way, which would usually mean that the fun begins, but I felt like it was just rushed and not give the time to explore why and what had really happened in the house to all those people.
They make contact with the ghosts of the murdered children, but unfortunately they are not alone as an evil force starts making it's intentions known and it's not long before Evan and Sam are fighting for their lives.From reading about the film and viewing the trailer, Haunt looks to be a good, very creepy supernatural horror.
Don't get me wrong - it's not a horrendous movie but it could have been so much better as it definitely had the ingredients to make it a good film.The main thing where it falls down for me is that there are too many unanswered questions and plot holes.
It is a film you do have to pay attention to, but you still have to do some searching to try and find the answers to the questions that the film poses.The acting is pretty decent and there are a few nice creepy moments, but other than that Haunt is really just another run-of-the-mill haunted house movie.Not bad but definitely not that good either..
Nothing Special But Why Not. The movie was a typical ghost story that became more predictable as the it went on.
Very good haunted house movie.
One of the best horror movies I have ever watched. |
tt0106223 | The Adventures of Huck Finn | Huckleberry Finn (Elijah Wood) is a half-literate son of a drunk (Ron Perlman). One night, his father arrives and Huck is taken away to his father's home. Jealous of Huck's money being kept away, he attacks Huck, but eventually passes out from exhaustion.
Huck fakes his own death and runs away. He is accompanied by Jim (Courtney B. Vance), a slave who worked for Huck's foster family, and escaped the family out of fear for being sold off. The duo follow the Mississippi River to Cairo, Illinois, so Jim can escape to freedom without being arrested.
They come across a wanted poster for Jim, falsely saying that he murdered Huck. Jim and Huck come across a sinking barge one night, and Jim notices Huck's father's corpse on the ship. Huck notices two sailors leaving one to drown in a room as the water comes crashing through. Huck and Jim's canoe sinks, but they steal another one, as the barge completely sinks underwater.
The canoe is struck by a steamboat, and Huck is at first captured by a few men, then taken to the home of the Graingerford family. Huck lies about his life to the Graingerfords to avoid suspicion. The Graingerfords are in a feud with another family, the Shepherdsons. Huck even befriends Billy Graingerford (Garette Ratliff Henson), the Graingerford patriarch's son, but is horrified that Jim is found by the family and has become a slave. Billy's older sister Sophie runs away to marry a Shepherdson, thus a short firefight happens, killing all the male Graingerfords in the process, including Billy.
Jim and Huck find themselves past Cairo, and two con men: The Duke (Robbie Coltrane) and The King (Jason Robards), join Huck and Jim. The quartet land at Phelps Landing, and The King and The Duke impersonate British members of the Wilks family to con 3 sisters, Mary Jane (Anne Heche), Julia (Renee O'Connor), and Susan (Laura Bell Bundy) out of their fortune.
Meanwhile, Jim has been taken to prison for Huck's murder, and tells Huck about his dead father, thus Huck rebukes Jim. Huck puts the money in the coffin of a recently-deceased family member. He exposes The King and The Duke as con men to Mary Jane, and tells her to tell the town at 10:00, when a scheduled steamboat to Cairo departs.
Dr. Robinson (Tom Aldredge) doesn't trust The King and The Duke's scheme, and the real members of the family, whom The King and The Duke were impersonating, show up. The town dig up the buried coffin where the money was put, and thus tar and feather The Duke and The King, and become an angry mob. Huck breaks Jim out of prison, but are spotted by the mob in the process.
While escaping, Huck is shot in the back by a man. Jim decides to sacrifice his chance to escape to freedom, and carries Huck to the mob, allowing himself to be hanged. Before the mob can hang Jim, however, Mary Jane, Julia, and Susan arrive and stop the hanging from happening. The mob sets Jim free, and Huck passes out.
Huck wakes up in the Wilks homestead, and learns that one of Huck's caretakers (Mary Louise Wilson) died, setting Jim free in her will. The other caretaker (Dana Ivey) plans on civilizing Huck, but Huck, narrating the story, says, "I've been there before." The film ends with Huck running off into the sunset. | entertaining | train | wikipedia | At the height of the popularity of Bart Simpson, Disney released another adaptation of the classic starring a new up-and-coming child actor named Elijah Wood as Huck and a Yale graduate named Courtney B.
The stars just keep on coming; Back-to-back Oscar-winner Jason Robards as the King, pre-Harry Potterized Robbie Coltrane as the Duke, Ron "Hellboy" Perlman (I could've sworn it was Tom Waits!) as Huck's drunk pappy, and Anne Heche (still hiding her cuckoo) as Mary Jane Wilks.
The end of the movie is quite different from the end of the book - of course, they took the happily-ever-after approach - which sucks and ultimately makes a film filled with beautiful scenery and an unbelievably terrific score by Bill Conti seem like just another piece of Disnefluff.
I have read the popular novel "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn" by Mark Twain and I found it to be an instant classic and a book definitely worth my time.
The 1993 version titled "The Adventures of Huck Finn" stars a young Elijah Wood as Huckleberry and Courtney B.
Ron Perlman was also a good choice to play Huckleberry's deranged father, unfortunately he wasn't given enough screen time to show his quintessential talents for the role and he wasn't quite involved in the story enough as he was in the book.One thing that did disappoint me was that the screenwriters wrote out the character of Tom Sawyer, probably due to concern of containing too many characters for a 108-minute film.
But all and all, I did very much enjoy "The Adventures of Huck Finn" and although it is not a perfect adaptation of Mark Twain's excellent book, I still enjoyed it..
An amusing retelling of the Mark Twain tale about the adventures encountered by Huckleberry Finn when escapes from the widow Douglas : Dana Ivey and along with the runaway slave : Courtney B.
He is a good writer , producer , director who has made a lot of successful films such as GI Joe , Odd Thomas ,Van Helsing , The scorpion king , The mummy , The mummy returns , Jungle book , Deep rising, Gunmen and Tom and Huck
This film isn't like that at all.When I was going to see this film, I thought "I bet they chicken out of the feud scene, and I bet they have Huck say something at the end like 'Y'know, I sorta had a funny feeling my whole life slavery's actually a very bad thing' (or something equally corny)".
Huch thinks for a moment, and then replies "He's white!" That scene makes up for the famous letter writing scene in the novel, which other versions have included.Elijah Wood really makes his character shine with impish personality and a casual chatting delivery (and this is still my all-time favorite role of his).
Elijah Wood does a good enough job in what I consider one of his best performances in the title role, while Courtney B.Vance plays Jim with such feeling and finesse he was perfect.
True, Elijah Wood may not match the look and feel of the character Twain had in mind, but in this movie he works well as a young boy learning that friendship, love, and human rights mean more than tradition.
The best movies are those that have a moral to them.This version of Huck Finn reveals his coming to realize that slavery is wrong!
This was a very entertaining film with lots of adventure but the lead kid, played by young Elijah Woods, got on my nerves.
The combination of Disney and Twain just don't quite rub together well...however, Wood is perfectly cast, Vance connects with each of his scenes with great heart, and Sommers does a good job of bringing this world to us.
The Adventures of Huckleberry FinnAlong the Mississippi River heading North, Huck, Elijah Wood, and Jim, Courtney B.
The movie The Adventures of Huck Finn takes place between 1835 and 1845.
Elijah wood plays Huck Finn in the movie as a young boy who likes adventure and meets a runaway slave.
In the movie the adventures of Huck Finn, Huck is a young boy in the 1850's who runs from home to get away from his alcoholic dad.
Huck FinnHuck Finn is a movie based off a book called Huckleberry Finn written by Mark Twain it's based on a runaway slave named Jim played by Courtney B.
Vance and is saved by a young boy named Huck Finn played by Elijah Wood which took place in the 1950's in Mississippi.
Huck Finn is a young 10 year old boy that has an abusive father and his name is Pap and is played by Ron Perlman.
Finn lives with a lady that is named Widow Douglas played by Dana Luey, and one day Huck fights this young boy down by the river and sees this fathers foot print in the dirt and runs to go see the physic Jim. And that night Hucks father kidnaps him and takes him to his house where he starts to beat him, and the only way he can escape is by faking his own murder.
So then Huck runs to the woods and that's where he finds Jim. They run off together and go on their adventure and then they catch up with two men named Duke and King and they pretend to be people they aren't so they can get a lot my money.
Mark Twain wrote Huckleberry Finn in the Age of Realism, which in time was when slavery was very popular and blacks were treated poorly, and this is why it was a good idea that Jim traveled with Huck because he was white and Jim couldn't make all the decisions on his own because he was treated so poorly because of his race.
My reaction to this film was actually a lot better than I tought it would be I thought they did a good way of showing how slaves were treated in the time and also making it funny in some parts so it switched up the mood of the watcher.
The Adventures of Huck Finn - Great Movie.
The Adventures of Huck Finn is an adventure movie based off the classic story "Huckleberry Finn" by Mark Twain.
Elijah Wood played the adventurous young boy Huck Finn.
Vance, and their goal is to make it to freedom for Jim. This is a dangerous journey through Mississippi for a slave in the 1950s.Huck Finn is a young boy who lives with two old woman because his father, Pap, is not a nice man.
In the film The Adventures of Huck Finn made in 1993 is the story of a boy who does as he pleases and has one true friend, his slave.
Prominent stars of the film include Elijah Wood as Huckleberry Finn and Courtney B.
Vance as Jim.Huck Finn is the son of a drunken man who lives with two older women who are sisters, Miss Watson and Widow Douglas.
They both learn a lot from one another and live happily ever after.The way that Mark Twain characterized the characters relates well to the time of setting because with the dialect he gives them it gives you a feel of how people talked back in time.
Vance as Jim. Whether it's on a raft or in town running from trouble, there is always adventure happening in this movie.Huck was a boy in the 40's who ran away.
The film, "The Adventures of Huck Finn" follows a boy named Huckleberry Finn and an escaped slave named Jim, who traveled the Mississippi River in the 1840's, and overcome obstacles throughout their trip.
This adventure movie is a 1993 Disney adaptation starring Elijah Wood as Huckleberry Finn and Courtney B.
Huck and Jim got into so many adventures that this movie was exciting and never boring.
I would recommend "The Adventures of Huck Finn" to fans of Disney movies and to any people who enjoy adventures.
During the journey the setting is taken place along the Mississippi river during the 1800's.The Movie Huckleberry Finn was about a young boy that gets kidnapped by his abusive drunk of a father.
So they started to come after the both of them since Jim was wanted and Huck was a runaway.Throughout the movie the set and clothing matched exactly what people would think the 1800's would be like.
Also the background music had matched the action scenes very well to go along with the movie.In the movie the character used realism by talking the same way people did in that time period.
when Huck had gotten shot but he acted like he was fine when Jim asked him why he was being so slow, another example is when he told that big long lie and the doctor did not believe him and he just thought he was a good liar.
His pap comes later that night and kidnaps Huck so Huck fakes his death and runs to a deserted Island called Jacksons Island and it turns out that his friend Jim ran away to become he was going to be sold, and so the adventure began.Huck and Jim were discovered on the Island shortly afterward and grabbed a few supplies as they made their way out of the town.
Huck reminds me of a kid who causes a lot of trouble and it shows perfectly in the first scene of the movie when he gets in a fight with the other boy.I really liked the plot of this story.
Elijah Wood played the lead role of Huck Finn; his runaway slave best friend was played by Courtney Vance.
Was a great adventure movie that the whole family would enjoy to watch.Basically Huck Finn is a young boy that is very good at lying and is not only sneaky but very smart.
His runaway best friend slave Jim went on a huge adventure with Huck going places they never thought they would end up, when I say that I mean they had a certain place they wanted to end up so Jim could be a free man but along the way they got in a lot of trouble and always found ways to escape.
Elijah Wood the star actor plays as the lead role of Huck Finn and he does a phenomenal job of being a sneaky, fantastic, mature, little liar.
Huck Finn, a young boy, and Jim, a black slave, go on many adventures while helping many people to achieve freedom..
Huck Finn was originally wrote by Mark Twain, but then remade into a movie by Disney in 1993.
The main characters in the film are Huck (Elijah Wood), Jim (Courtney B.
If these things were not done right, the movie would be not as believable.I would give Huck Finn a three star rating.
Huckleberry Finn and Jim meet on the plantation of Widow Douglas they become friends and runaway and go on many adventures together..
The main character in the movie is Huck(Elijah Wood) , Jim (Courtney B.
Huckleberry Finn is a young boy that lived with Widow Douglas in the beginning of the movie.
In order to learn more about his journey and find out what happens in Huck's life, read the book!In this film stereotypes were pointed out many times.
In the movie Huck Finn, Jim, an African American slave gets caught leaving the plantation.
Huckleberry Finn (Elijah Wood) is about a young boy who tries to do the right thing when most people didn't agree.
Huck seems to run into a lot of people who aren't really good influences throughout the whole movie such as the con men they meet in a town.
Some of the biggest problems was it took out a lot of characters that explain why Huck did some of the things he did like in the book I know Tom Sawyer influences him a great deal but yet they didn't mention Tom Sawyer once throughout the whole film which I think took away a lot for people who read "The Adventures of Tom Sawyer" and "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn".
Mark Twain showed color so well because he lived there, his dialect and the way people acted towards things like slavery.
And Courtney Vance truly did a great job of the noble and kind hearted slave Jim showing the troubles and hard times that slaves have gone through for centuries and depicts the friendship of Huck and him although the struggles they have gone through in the duration of the film.
A movie is a movie and a book is a book and nowhere is this more apparent than in Disney's adaptation of "The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn." Anyone who is looking for Mark Twain's story to hit the big screen as Mark Twain envisioned it is likely to be disappointed by this film.
The movies tells the adventures of Huck Finn (Elijah Wood in his pre-Frodo days), a semi-literate, wonderful liar of a kid in Missouri who runs away from home.
Along the way, they run into a rich family involved in a feud with their neighbors, robbers, thieves, and a pair of gentlemen who are even better at plotting and acting than Huck Finn, played by Robbie Coltrane and Jason Robards.
Courtney Vance does a fine job as Huck's friend Jim, the runaway slave.Stephen Sommers ("The Mummy", "The Mummy Returns") wrote the screenplay and directed this version, and he does a good job at capturing the spirit of the South.
Nineteenth century Mississippi River boy Elijah Wood (as Huckleberry "Huck" Finn) may be tiny, but he has a lot of spunk.
"Tom Sawyer" is given no opportunity to steal scenes.*** The Adventures of Huck Finn (4/2/93) Stephen Sommers ~ Elijah Wood, Courtney B.
This film is about a boy named Huck Finn (played by Elijah Wood) who helps a slave named Jim (played by Courtney B.
In this 1993 version by Walt Disney Pictures of Mark Twain's classic boyhood story, Elijah Wood takes on the role of the story's hero, the mischievious and adventurous Huck Finn and in the end, his performance meets with so so results.
Huck Finn shows how an adventurous boys life, the lying, running away and tricking people.
The young boy goes by the name of Huck (played by Elijah Wood) who later meets up with a slave named Jim (played by Courtney B.
Mark Twain wrote the book The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn and Disney remade it into a movie in 1993.
The main characters were Huck played by Elijah Wood, Jim played by Courtney B.
In the movie, Huck was talking to a black man named Jim who could see the future, and the man told Huck that Pap was coming back to town and told him he needed to run away that night.
On their way down the river Huck and Jim run into a lot of adventures.
Since Disney likes everything to have a happy ending the only real part in the movie that made us feel bad about slavery was when Jim got whipped and they showed the slashes on his back.
It also just goes from one thing to the next and doesn't really have a calming point or show the friendship of Huck and Jim. The only way that I would rent the movie is if I read the book and wanted to see it to understand it better, otherwise I would advise you not to go see it..
Throughout the movie Huck tries to set his friend, that's a slave, free.
While it seems fairly common for book-to-film adaptations to change things in the process, I've heard that "The Adventures of Huck Finn" went so far as to change what happened at the end.
In one scene, some people ask Huck (Elijah Wood) whether Jim (Courtney B.
I may be a little ignorant when it comes to comparing this film against other versions or the book, as I have only seen this version as well as Disney's take on the other Mark Twain work, Tom Sawyer (Tom & Huck - 1995); and I personally feel that Disney did a better job with this story than they did with the Tom Sawyer story.A lot of people seem to have mixed feelings about the performances in the film, particularly Elijah Wood's performance as the title character.
I think that Elijah Wood is one of the best young actors out there, but he just isn't Huck Finn.
I have read the novel Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain and now watched the move Huck Finn by Elijah Wood.
The novel by Mark Twain shows the relationship between a young white uncivilized white boy and a black runaway slave named Jim. Huck is living with a Widow and he likes to go on adventures and play pretend games with his friends especially his one friend Tom who has quite the imagination.
Young Huck Finn and his adventures with his friend Jim, a runaway slave, is told in this tale based on the novel written by Mark Twain.
The Adventures of Huck Finn is a great exception, although young children may be a little frightened by some of the violence.
The Adventures of Huck Finn is a great movie and Disney has produced a film of some quality.
THE ADVENTURES OF HUCK FINN This movie was set in the 1800's in St. Pitturgburghs Mississippi.
It is about a boy named Huckleberry Finn (played by Elijah Wood), who lives a very rebellious life.
In the beginning of the movie Pap Finn (played by Ron Perlman) was a drunkard who tried to kill Huck, but he ending up dying on a boat later in the story.
"The Adventures of Huck Finn" Review This movie is about a boy named Huckleberry Finn who is kidnapped by his dad.
Vance is pretty good as Jim. Elijah Wood's energetic acting as Huck Finn deserves my best approval. |
tt0022111 | The Maltese Falcon | In San Francisco in 1941, private investigators Sam Spade (Humphrey Bogart) and Miles Archer (Jerome Cowan) meet prospective client Ruth Wonderly (Mary Astor). She claims to be looking for her missing sister, who is involved with a man named Floyd Thursby, whom she is to meet. After receiving a substantial retainer, Archer agrees to follow her that night and help get her sister back.
That night, Spade is awakened by a phone call from the police and informed that Archer has been killed. He meets his friend, Police Detective Tom Polhaus (Ward Bond), at the murder scene. He tries calling Wonderly at her hotel, but she has checked out. Back at his apartment, he is grilled by Polhaus and Lieutenant Dundy (Barton MacLane), who tell him that Thursby was also murdered the same evening. Dundy suggests that Spade had the opportunity and motive to kill Thursby, who likely killed Archer, immediately after he learned of Archer's death. Archer's widow Iva (Gladys George) believes that Spade shot his partner so he could have her.
Later that morning, Spade meets Wonderly, now calling herself Brigid O'Shaughnessy. She explains that Thursby was her partner and probably killed Archer, but claims to have no idea who killed Thursby. Spade is not convinced, but agrees to investigate the murders.
At his office, Spade meets Joel Cairo (Peter Lorre), who first offers him $5,000 to find a "black figure of a bird", then pulls a gun on him in order to search the office. Spade knocks Cairo out and goes through his belongings. When Cairo awakens, he hires Spade. Later that evening, Spade tells O'Shaughnessy about Cairo. When Cairo shows up, it becomes clear that Spade's acquaintances know each other. Cairo becomes agitated when O'Shaughnessy reveals that the "Fat Man" is in San Francisco.
In the morning, Spade goes to Cairo's hotel, where he spots Wilmer (Elisha Cook, Jr.), a young man who had been following him earlier. He gives Wilmer a message for his boss, Kasper Gutman (Sydney Greenstreet), the "Fat Man". Spade meets Gutman, who begins to talk about the Falcon, but becomes evasive, causing Spade to storm out. Later, Wilmer takes Spade at gunpoint to see Gutman. Spade overpowers Wilmer, but meets with Gutman anyway. Gutman relates the history of the Maltese Falcon. He offers Spade $25,000 for the bird and a quarter of the proceeds from its sale. Then Spade passes out because his drink had been spiked. Wilmer, Gutman, and Cairo (who had been in the other room) depart.
When Spade awakens, he searches the suite and finds a newspaper with the arrival time of the freighter La Paloma circled. He goes to the dock, only to find the ship on fire. Later, the captain of the ship, Jacobi (Walter Huston), shot several times, staggers into Spade's office before dying. The bundle he was clutching contains the Maltese Falcon.
O'Shaughnessy calls the office, giving an address and then screams before the line goes dead. Spade stashes the package at the bus terminal, then goes to the address, which turns out to be an empty lot. Spade returns home and finds O'Shaughnessy hiding in a doorway. He takes her inside and finds Gutman, Cairo, and Wilmer waiting for him, guns drawn. Gutman gives Spade $10,000 for the Falcon, but Spade tells them that part of his price is someone he can turn over to the police for the murders of Thursby and Captain Jacobi. Spade suggests Wilmer, since he certainly killed Thursby and Jacobi. After some intense negotiation, Gutman and Cairo agree; Wilmer is knocked out in a scuffle.
Just after dawn, Spade calls his secretary, Effie Perine (Lee Patrick), to bring him the bundle. However, when Gutman inspects the black statuette, he finds it is a fake. During the tumult, Wilmer flees. Recovering from his frustration, Gutman invites Cairo to return with him to Istanbul to continue their quest. After they leave, Spade calls the police and tells them where to pick up the pair. Spade then angrily confronts O'Shaughnessy, telling her he knows she killed Archer to implicate Thursby, her unwanted accomplice. She confesses, but begs Spade to not turn her over to the police. Despite his feelings for her, Spade gives O'Shaughnessy up. | romantic | train | wikipedia | What had proved effective on the silent screen suddenly seemed highly mannered when voices were added, and both directors and stars struggled to find new techniques--and DANGEROUS FEMALE offers a very vision of the issues involved.It is a myth that the advent of sound forced directors to lock down the camera, but it is true that many directors preferred simple camera set-ups in early sound films; it gave them one less thing to worry about.
And then there are two performers who are very much of the technology: Una Merkle as Spade's secretary and Thelma Todd as Iva Archer, both of whom seem considerably more comfortable with the new style than either Cortez or Daniels.The film is also interesting as a "Pre-Code" picture, for it is sexually explicit in ways most viewers will not expect from a 1930s film, and indeed it is surprisingly explicit even in comparison to other pre-code films.
But then there is the justly celebrated 1941 version starring Humphrey Bogart and Mary Astor under the direction of John Huston.Both the 1931 and 1941 films lifted great chunks of dialogue from Hammett's novel, and very often the dialogue is line-for-line the same.
Where the 1931 film strives for an urbane quality, the 1941 film is memorably gritty--and in spite of being hampered by the production, considerably more sexually suggestive as well, implying the homosexuality of several characters much more effectively than the 1931 version dared.In the final analysis, the 1931 THE MALTESE FALCON (aka DANGEROUS FEMALE) will appeal most to those interested in films that illustrate the transition between silent film and sound, to collectors of "pre-code" movies, and to hardcore FALCON fans who want everything associated with Hammett, his novel, and the various film versions.
Over the years, the version of The Maltese Falcon released in 1941 has accrued an enviable reputation: As an opening salvo in the film noir cycle, as Humphrey Bogart's first big starring vehicle and John Huston's directorial debut, and as a favorite example of the pleasures to be found in `old' black-and-white movies.
But this first filming (later retitled Dangerous Female), made the year after the novel's release in the technical infancy of the sound era retains enough punch and flavor to give the formidable forties version a run for its money.Starring as Sam Spade and Miss Wonderly (who never becomes Brigid O'Shaughnessey) are Ricardo Cortez and Bebe Daniels, the talkies' first immortal guy/gal team.
And joining them is the familiar ensemble of grotesques: As `Dr.' Joel Cairo, Otto Mathiessen; as Casper Gutman, Dudley Digges (who, lacking Sidney Greenstreet's girth, is never called The Fat Man); and as Wilmer the gunsel, gimlet-eyed Dwight Frye, familiar from the Dracula and Frankenstein franchises.
The subplot about Spade's affair with his slain partner's wife Iva Archer stays prominent, and the merry widow is played by Thelma Todd (herself later to fall victim in one of Hollywood's most notorious unsolved murders).
And in calling Wilmer Gutman's `boyfriend,' Spade makes a mite more explicit their old-queen/rough-trade dynamic.Roy del Ruth, who directed, was an old newspaper man who came to Hollywood in the silent era, racking up a workmanlike list of credits (in 1949, he would return to San Francisco locales for the unusual noir Red Light).
I got such a kick out of this filmed version of Dashiell Hammett's detective novel that I think I was grinning from ear to ear throughout the movie.
Because it was a pre-code film it was much more open to the sexiness of the original novel, for instance here we have Miss Wonderly (Bebe Daniels in the role played by Mary Astor in the 1941 version) actually undressing in the kitchen scene.
In another scene, when she claims someone is following her and she is frightened to be alone, Sam Spade (Ricardo Cortez, who is much more handsome than Bogart) offers her his bedroom for the night.
Thelma Todd plays Archer's wife, who has also had an affair with Sam in the past, and she adds some more spice to the film which is already loaded with it compared to the 1941 version, which was made under the control of the Hollywood Production Code.
In fact in this version Ricardo as Sam states firmly, "I couldn't shed a tear for Archer, dead OR alive." This is a lot more honest and realistic.Don't miss your chance to see this early talkie gem.
This is a fascinating version of the story definitively filmed ten years later by John Huston, because of the ways in which it comes close to capturing the Hammett novel-- and the ways in which it doesn't.
As a pre-Code film it's often more explicit than the Huston version-- especially about the fact that Spade was having an affair with his partner's wife, and about the homosexuality of the male crooks (this movie's Gutman is plainly depicted as a seedy john rather than as the refined aesthete Sydney Greenstreet would play).
But hardboiled attitude is what really matters, and Ricardo Cortez (a good early talkie actor who always tried hard) just isn't playing Hammett's hardboiled, unsentimental Spade-- he's playing the more typical suave gentleman detective of the period, like Philo Vance.
when this was made, must have liked something about this movie-- the scene where Spade first meets Joel Cairo (Otto Mattiesen, doing an excellent Peter Lorre imitation years before the fact) is repeated almost shot for shot and inflection for inflection in the Huston version, the only such case of direct inspiration I spotted here.
Don't get me wrong, Elisha Cook Jnr. was extremely good in the later version and Dwight's role is considerably smaller but if you asked me to pick which one was the deffinitive Wilmer I would have a very hard time.
Before Humphrey Bogart, Ricardo Cortez, as Sam Spade, was looking for that big black bird in 1931's "The Maltese Falcon," also starring Bebe Daniels, Una Merkel, and Thelma Todd.
The gay subplot between Greenstreet and Lorre everyone assumes isn't as apparent in this film between Wilmer (Dwight Frye) and Caspar Guttman (Dudley Digges).I found the comments in the first post on the actors' approaches to their roles very interesting; I'm not sure I totally agree, but for sure, Cortez spoke louder and Daniels did underplay (which she did not do in "42nd Street" - at all).
However, as far as the pace, I still Cortez did better in keeping the dialogue going than anyone else.This is a fascinating film - so different from the 1941 version, which I hope to see this evening - it's definitely worth catching..
Ricardo Cortez plays Sam. He's a bit too nice for the part, like he should rather be starring in musicals (Daniels doesn't suffer this way she's appropriately ruthless).
I actually really liked the final sequence, not in the '41 version and (if memory serves me correctly) not in the novel, either, where Spade visits Ms. Wonderly (which isn't a pseudonym in this movie) in prison.
The similarity in dialogue between the two movies begs the issue of insufficient originality in the later version.Comparing 1931 v 1941 characters, I think only Sydney Greenstreet provides a more interesting product.
Along the way, greed resulted in the murders of several people and the police suspect Sam Spade (Ricardo Cortez) for the murders--or at least thinking he knows far more than he's admitting.While the 1941 version of THE MALTESE FALCON has become a classic, this original version from 1931 is oddly forgotten.
This allowed Spade to be much more of a sexual Lothario and there was a scene where it strongly implied that he'd had sex with Bebe Daniels' character--something that did NOT happen in the later film.Overall, this is a terrific film--especially since it was so much better than the average fare of the day.
However, Ricardo Cortez (Sam Spade) and Bebe Daniels(Ruth Wonderly) acted completely different and the cheating of money from an envelope, caused a gal to have to take all her clothes off, in order to find out where she might have hid the money.
I always felt the Bogart Maltese Falcon could have done away with Mary Astor, the gals in this picture were more sexy and attractive that the 40's version..
Seeing this movie, as I just did for the first time on Turner Classic (which lists it as "Dangerous Female"), can only multiply your appreciation for the 1941 Bogart-Astor version.
Humphrey Bogart and Mary Astor somehow transcended the essential seediness of their characters in the remake; here, Sam Spade and Ruth Wonderley(!) can't.
I first saw this original pre-code 1931 version of The Maltese Falcon titled "Dangerous Female" on the big screen in 1994 & I was shocked & impressed by just how good it was & it gives the classic 1941 version a run for it's money.
I can see why this version was very successful & well received in 1931 but I can also see why it was soon forgotten.Having read the novel by Dashiell Hammett detective Sam Spade was a ladies man but not to the extent to where Ricardo Cortez took him.
This original version deviates from the book considerably & only touched on the original story & the cast is not that memorable for the most part with the exception of Dwight Frye, we all know him from Dracula & Frankenstein.Ricardo Cortez, Otto Matiesen & Dudley Digges pales in comparison to their 1941 counterparts more stronger screen presence of Humphrey Bogart, Peter Lorre & Sydney Greenstreet in their respective roles as Sam Spade, Joel Cairo & Kasper Gutman the fatman.
Both were equally good & right for the part.As for the females, Bebe Daniels, Thelma Todd & Una Merkel are very sexually seductive exciting women more so than Mary Astor, Gladys George & Lee Patrick respectively as Brigid Wonderly, Iva Archer & Spades secretary Effie.
Of the 3 versions of The Maltese Falcon it was the John Huston directed film that was the most faithful & closest adaptation that stayed true to Dashiell Hammett's book.It was John Huston's direction giving the film a dark, cynical, gloomy & atmospheric quality that permeates through the entire story.
Ricardo Cortez plays Sam Spade and does it in a flip, confident style that counters Bogart's more sullen, dispirited presentation.
'The Maltese Falcon', one of the few exceptions to the rule that movie remakes are generally poorer than their originals, is best known as the Bogart version released in 1941.However, in the previous decade, Warner Brothers had made two other versions, of which the 1931 film was the first.
Instead of Humphrey Bogart, we have the smirking Ricardo Cortez (who gives a new edge to Sam which is both entertaining and dangerous), while Mary Astor gives way to Bebe Daniels, a big star in early talkies who makes an interesting foil for the vain detective.'The Maltese Falcon', 1931-style, runs slightly less time than its more well-known namesake, but is tightly plotted and benefits from crisp delivery, a bit of pre-Code naughtiness, and small roles from the likes of Dudley Digges and Thelma Todd.
In a nutshell, THE MALTESE FALCON told the story about a San Francisco private detective named Sam Spade, who finds himself drawn into a search for a valuable falcon statuette first created during the Crusades, while investigating three murders.The story began with a Miss Ruth Wonderly hiring Spade and his partner, Miles Archer, to find her missing sister and a man named Floyd Thursby.
When Thursby and Archer end up murdered, Spade discovered that Miss Wonderly is one of three people searching for a statuette called the Maltese Falcon.
Other signs of precode sexuality included Spade bidding a female client good-bye at the beginning of the movie, a nude Miss Wonderly in a bathtub, and a hint of a homosexual relationship between Caspar Gutman and his young enforcer Wilmer Cook.This version lacked the sharp wit of the 1941 adaptation.
I can honestly say that not only did I find him very effective in portraying a sexy Sam Spade, he also managed to superbly capture the character's cynical humor, toughness and deep contempt toward the police.Bebe Daniels, another survivor from the silent era, portrayed Ruth Wonderly, and this role has to be considered as one of her best.
As I said, the performances are a little stiff, there are some delightful moments (watch as they wait for the arrival of the falcon: Daniels cheating at Solitaire and watching to see if anyone sees her; Cortez as Spade playing with a kid's game, chewing gum and idly looking around).
All the same, it comes a surprise to find that among 2008 film lovers, sixty times more people have seen this version than have seen the original, even though both films are equally entertaining.While few would contend that Digges, Mattiesen and Frye outclass Greenstreet, Lorre and Cook, the decision is close.
Ricardo Cortez, a consistently good actor, portrayed Sam Spade differently than Humphrey Bogart-more warmth, more charm.
This film begins with a private detective named "Sam Spade" (Ricardo Cortez) interviewing a new client by the name of "Ruth Wonderly" (Bebe Daniels) who asks him to track down her missing sister who has somehow become involved with a dangerous and unseen man known only as Floyd Thursby .
Not Too Bad. Maltese Falcon, The (1931) ** 1/2 (out of 4) First version of the famous story has a mysterious woman (Bebe Daniels) hiring Detective Sam Spade (Ricardo Cortez) to investigate the disappearance of her sister but that's just a backdrop for the missing black bird.
Ricardo Cortez plays playboy detective Sam Spade, in this first version of novelist Dashiell Hammett's "The Maltese Falcon".
Bebe Daniels (as Ruth Wonderly) is the femme fatale with whom he becomes involved, along with Dudley Digges (as Gutman) and Otto Matieson (as Dr. Cairo); for various reasons, they all seek "The Maltese Falcon".
The production "look" of this early "talkie" is nowhere near as good as "The Maltese Falcon" (1941), which was directed by John Huston, and starred Humphrey Bogart.
There are a few noticeable story differences; for example, this one ends quite differently...***** The Maltese Falcon (5/28/31) Roy Del Ruth ~ Ricardo Cortez, Bebe Daniels, Dudley Digges, Otto Matieson.
Though Cortez did a good job, this Maltese Falcon was put in the shade by the classic with Humphrey Bogart.Cortez's Spade is more of a smart aleck than a cynic.
i liked this first of three filmed versions of the novel.it's the fist one i've seen,and it's pretty well done,i think.it's well acted,well paced,and the story flows smoothly.the dialogue is good.there's no clunky,awkward lines.Ricardo Cortez(Sam Spade)has a natural charisma about him.the characters are all believable.there's sort of an intimate,comfortable,almost quaint feel to the whole affair.this version is much less famous than its 1941 counterpart starring Humphrey Bogart.it will be interesting how it and the 1936 remake(Satan Meets a Lady)stack up against each other.as for this particular version,i found it quite satisfying.an easy 7/10.
It's not as great a performance as Bogart's, but it escapes comparison by being such a different take on the character.The story, as I remember, is not as clear here as it is in the later version, nor is it as stylish, or the supporting cast quite as memorable.
***SPOILERS*** Original version of the film "The Maltese Falcon" that has the Latin lover looking Ricardo Cortez, who's real name was Jacob Krantz, as San Francisco private eye Sam Spade the part that made Humphrey Bogart the Hollywood legend that he was to become some 10 years later.Spade gets himself involved in a missing person case that soon mushrooms into murder that leaves some half dozen people dead by the time the film is over.
Not as good as the Humphrey Bogart version of the film but still worth watching in Cortez's, who was an odd choice for the part, as private dick Sam Spade.
From the start, Sam Spade is portrayed as a ladies man: an approach validated by the smooth good looks of Ricardo Cortez and his urbane manner.
It seemed to me that the later used the same script and set the action in the same or very nearly the same scene.I also found Ricardo Cortez and Bebe Daniels more convincing in the leading roles.
Bebe Daniels plays this role to perfection and fits the bill far more satisfyingly and believably than does Mary Astor in the later version.The earlier version is more convincing in portraying the charged atmosphere and obvious attraction that Sam Spade and Miss O'Shaughnessy have towards one another.
Bebe Daniels Ruth Wonderly (Much sexier than Mary Astor), Una Merkel & Thelma Todd.
The Maltese Falcon with Humphrey Bogart is one of my all-time favorite movies largely because of Bogart's portrayal of Sam Spade.
In this version, The Dangerous Female, Ricardo Cortez portrays Spade a little bit sleezier, a guy you can't really trust.
The Dangerous Female is an interesting piece (not bad, either), but The Maltese Falcon with Bogart, Mary Astor, Peter Lorre, Sydney Greenstreet and Elisha Cook Jr.
I'll try to be fair in my review of this early version of "The Maltese Falcon", but with Bogart as my favorite actor and the 1941 remake as one of my Top 10 films, it's going to be difficult.
Not that this isn't a serviceable story, it is, but if you've seen the Bogey crew in action, there's no comparison, at least for this viewer.I never read the Dashiell Hammett novel, so I don't know which Sam Spade more closely resembles the literary version.
As Ruth Wonderly, Bebe Daniels uses only one name in the story compared to Mary Astor's character, and Sam's secretary in this version, portrayed by Una Merkel, gave every indication that she had a past, present or future in the romance department with her boss.
Bogart's Spade wisely kept his hands to himself around his secretary, maintaining a professional relationship instead of a lecherous one.I guess there are those who'll see things just the other way around with this pre-code version of The Falcon.
Of course we had Bogart in for Ricardo Cortez (Spade) and Bebe Daniels giving away to Mary Astor's Miss Wunderly. |
tt0065416 | Aradhana | Dr. Murali Krishna (Akkineni Nageswara Rao) loves Anuradha (Savitri) in college but keeps to himself. Anuradha becomes the victim of her classmate Sarala's (Rajasree) jealousy and trickery and complains about Murali to Principal. The event results in hatred between them and Murali losing scholarship. Murali gets help from his uncle Lingaiah(Ramana Reddy) and goes to London for higher studies. Lingaiah in return plans to give his daughter Lakshmi(Girija) to Murali upon his return. Lingaiah appoints Anuradha as caretaker of innocent Lakshmi. Anuradha comes to know about their plan and sacrifices her love for her cousin Lakshmi. Lakshmi has different plans; She is in love with her cousin Yoganandam (Relangi) and not interested in Murali. She asks Anuradha to write replies to Murali's letters on her behalf. Anuradha goes through a lot of struggle in the process.
Murali loses his eyes in a lab accident. Lingaiah loses interest in the alliance. Anuradha pretends as Lakshmi and nurses Murali, while he is blind. She prepares for his operation with the help of their common friend Sarathi (Jaggaiah) and Principal. She plans to disappear after the eye surgery, but Murali recognizes the difference and insists that he wants the Lakshmi that served him. The movie ends with the reunion of the lovers. | romantic, murder | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0323073 | The Lion King | In the Pride Lands of Africa, a lion rules over the animal kingdom from Pride Rock. King Mufasa's newborn son, Simba, is presented to the assembled animals by Rafiki, a mandrill who serves as shaman and advisor. Mufasa shows young Simba the Pride Lands and explains to him the responsibilities of kingship and the "circle of life" which connects all living things. Mufasa's younger brother, Scar, covets the throne and plots to kill Mufasa and Simba so he can become king. He tricks Simba and his best friend Nala (whom Zazu reveals is betrothed to Simba) into exploring a forbidden elephants' graveyard, where they are attacked by three spotted hyenas who are in league with Scar. Mufasa is alerted to the danger by his majordomo, the hornbill Zazu, and rescues the cubs. Though angry with Simba, Mufasa forgives him and explains that the great kings of the past watch over them from the night sky, from which he will one day watch over Simba.
Scar sets a trap for his brother and nephew, luring Simba into a gorge and having the hyenas drive a large herd of wildebeest into a stampede that will trample him. He informs Mufasa of Simba's danger, knowing the king will rush to save his son. Mufasa saves Simba but ends up hanging perilously from the gorge's edge and is betrayed by Scar, who sends him falling to his death. Scar convinces Simba that the tragedy was Simba's own fault and advises him to flee the kingdom. He orders the hyenas to kill the cub, but Simba escapes. Scar tells the pride that both Mufasa and Simba were killed in the stampede and steps forward as the new king, allowing a large pack of hyenas to live in the Pride Lands.
Simba collapses in a desert and is rescued by Timon and Pumbaa, a meerkat and warthog who are fellow outcasts. Simba grows up in the jungle with his two new friends, living a carefree life under the motto "hakuna matata" ("no worries" in Swahili). Now an adult, Simba rescues Timon and Pumbaa from a hungry lioness who turns out to be Nala. She and Simba reunite and fall in love, and she urges him to return home, telling him the Pride Lands have become a drought-stricken wasteland under Scar's reign. Feeling guilty over his father's death, Simba refuses and runs off. Simba encounters Rafiki, who tells him that he does not know who he is. Rafiki reminds Simba that he is Mufasa's son and Mufasa' spirit lives on in Simba. Simba is then visited by the ghost of Mufasa in the night sky, who tells him he must claim his rightful place as king. Realizing he can no longer run from his past, Simba chooses to return home.
Aided by his friends, Simba sneaks past the hyenas at Pride Rock and confronts Scar. Scar taunts him over his role in Mufasa's death and forces him to the edge of the rock, where he reveals to Simba that he murdered Mufasa. Enraged, Simba pins Scar to the ground and forces him to reveal the truth to the rest of the pride. Timon, Pumbaa, Rafiki, Zazu, and the lionesses fend off the hyenas while Scar, attempting to escape, is cornered by Simba at the top of Pride Rock. Scar begs for mercy and attempts to blame the hyenas for his actions; Simba spares his life but orders him to leave the Pride Lands forever. Scar then attacks his nephew, but Simba manages to toss him from the top of the rock. Scar survives the fall but is killed by the hyenas, who overheard him betray them to Simba. With his enemies gone, Simba takes over the kingship as the rains begin to fall, restoring life to the land.
Later, with Pride Rock restored to its former glory, Rafiki presents Simba and Nala's newborn cub to the assembled animals, continuing the circle of life. | psychedelic, murder | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0034891 | In Which We Serve | The film opens with the narration: "This is the story of a ship" and the images of shipbuilding in a British dockyard. The action then moves forward in time showing the ship, HMS Torrin, engaging German transports in a night-time engagement during the Battle of Crete in 1941. However, when dawn breaks, the destroyer comes under aerial attack from German bombers.
Eventually the destroyer receives a critical hit following a low-level pass. The crew abandon ship as it rapidly capsizes. Some of the officers and ratings manage to find a Carley float as the survivors are intermittently strafed by passing German planes. From here, the story is told in flashback using the memories of the men on the float. The first person to reveal his thoughts is Captain Kinross (Coward), who recalls the summer of 1939 when the Royal Naval destroyer HMS Torrin is being rushed into commission as the possibility of war becomes a near certainty.
The ship spends a relatively quiet Christmas in the north of Scotland during the Phoney War. But by 1940, the Torrin is taking part in a naval battle off the coast of Norway. During the action, a young terrified sailor (Attenborough) leaves his station while another rating (Mills) returns to work his gun after its crew is knocked unconscious by a torpedo strike. The damaged Torrin is towed back to port, all the time being harried by dive-bombers.
Safely back in harbour, Captain Kinross tells the assembled ship's company that during the battle nearly all the crew performed as he would expect; however one man didn't. But he tells everyone present they may be surprised to know that he let him off with a caution as he feels as Captain he failed to make them understand their duty.
Returning to the present, the float survivors watch the capsized Torrin take on water as the badly damaged ship slowly sinks. The raft is again strafed by German planes. Some men are killed, and "Shorty" Blake (Mills) is wounded. This leads to a flashback in which Blake remembers how he met his wife-to-be, Freda, on a train while on leave. It is also revealed, she is related to the Torrin's affable Chief Petty Officer Hardy (Miles). When both men return to sea, Freda moves in with CPO Hardy's wife and mother-in-law.
The Torrin participates in the Dunkirk evacuation of the British Expeditionary Force, (portrayed in the film by the 5th Battalion of the Coldstream Guards). Meanwhile, the nightly Blitz takes its toll on British towns. Blake soon gets a letter from home to say that Freda has given birth to his son during one raid. But the letter also says that Hardy's wife and mother-in-law were killed in the same attack. Stoically he goes to the Petty Officers' Mess to tell Hardy (who is in the process of writing a letter home) the bad news.
The flashback ends as the survivors on the life raft watch the capsized Torrin finally sink. Captain Kinross leads a final "three cheers" for the Torrin when suddenly another passing German plane rakes the raft with machine gun fire, killing and wounding more men. A British destroyer soon appears and begins rescuing the men. On board, Captain Kinross talks to the survivors and collects addresses from the dying. He tells the young man who once deserted his post that he will write and tell his parents that they can be proud that he did his duty; the critically injured young man smiles and dies peacefully. Relatives soon receive telegrams informing them about the fate of their loved ones.
Captain Kinross and the 90 surviving members of the crew are taken to Alexandria in Egypt. Wearing a mixture of odd clothing and standing in a military depot, Captain Kinross tells them that although they lost their ship and many friends, who now "lie together in fifteen-hundred fathoms", he notes that these losses should inspire them to fight even harder in the battles to come. The ship's company is then told they are to be broken up and sent as replacements to other ships that have lost men. Captain Kinross then shakes hands with all the ratings as they leave the depot. When the last man goes, the emotionally tired captain turns to his remaining officers, silently acknowledges them before walking away.
An epilogue then concludes: bigger and stronger ships are being launched to avenge the Torrin; Britain is an island nation with a proud, indefatigable people; Captain Kinross is now in command of a battleship. Its massive main guns fire against the enemy. | flashback | train | wikipedia | The relationships between the men on HMS Torrin and the lives they lead at sea and at home (told through flashbacks) portray a wartime society ordered by class and intentionally defined by the traditional British virtues of duty and sacrifice.
Outdated though this vision may be - part of a world left far behind through post-war socio-economic development and emancipation - it is nevertheless a compelling and entirely consistent vision which ensures the film retains a certain appeal to audiences even today and is a major reason why it can still be so highly rated as a piece of British cinema history..
The story of British Navy Destroyer HMS Torrin, told in flashback by the surviving crew members as they await rescue in the Mediterranean, the ship having been sunk during a battle.
This film was something of a tour-de-force for Noel Coward, as he produced, wrote and co-directed it (with a young David Lean).
It obviously seems dated in some respects - the dialogue is quite clipped and stilted at times - but is saved by professional work all round and a clutch of strong performances, namely by Noel Coward himself, John Mills and Bernard Miles.
Hasn't dated one little bit since it was made in 1942.Actor/Director (with help from David Lean) Coward made the filming as much like reality as possible and the scenes in the tank almost resulted in the drowning of several of the actors - including Coward himself!If you haven't seen it you really should because it belongs in the highest rank of world cinema..
The story revolves around the Life and Sinking of a Royal Naval Destroyer HMS Torin, and the gallant men that served on her.Loosly based on the story of HMS Kelly a real Royal Navy Destroyer commanded by Lord Louis Mountbatten, it takes us back to the days when Britannia really did rule the waves.The ship is sunk during the battle of Crete, and the main characters of the movie are then clinging to the life raft awaiting rescue.
The film is a combination of flashbacks showing the effect that War has on the sailors and their families back home.Sir Noel Coward is brilliant as the upper class Captain that commands the ship and the respect of his crew.
Sir Bernard Miles is equally as pleasing as the middle class Petty Officer, and Sir John Mills gives a movie-making performance representing the majority of the Royal Navy, as the ordinary every day working class able seaman.I've noticed that a lot of reviews of this movie talk of the class divide between the three characters, but I disagree entirely.
Sir David Lean's directorial debut, (under the watchful eye of Coward), is something to be proud of, and it's no surprise they were to team again.One the best moments of this movie is when the crew of the Torin rescue Coldstream Guardsmen from the bloody beaches of Dunkirk.
leaving John Mills to say "If I weren't so tired I'd give 'em a cheer......and that's no error" Incredible.This is a triumph for War time movie making and remains a milestone in British Cinema which also includes Lord Attenborough's movie debut.This Movie never fails to bring a lump to my throat.
There's a lot good in In Which We Serve, but if you are expecting Coward bon mots, skip this film.Whatever else Coward was, he was one patriotic British citizen who loved his country and wanted to do his bit in World War II.
The sequences in which Coward's ship is sunk and the actions of Coward and the crew hews pretty close to what happened to Mountbatten and the men of the Kelly.While we Coward and his survivors clinging to life rafts and bits of wreckage, the audience gets a series of flashbacks revolving around three men, Coward, CPO Bernard Miles, and Seaman John Mills.
There are no John Waynes or Errol Flynns on this ship.The acting is extremely good, although Noel Coward seems a little stiff and uncomfortable in his leading role.
Naval men watch their ship sink as they cling to a raft and remember the lives they left in "In Which We Serve," a 1942 film starring Noel Coward, John Mills, Celia Johnson, and Bernard Miles.
Coward obviously had no problems attracting the best actors to the film, as every person fits his or her role perfectly.Like many classics, despite changes in film technique, the core story remains compelling, especially today with so many soldiers in Iraq.
In Which We Serve (1942)A curiously different and really moving film about World War II, directed by two top British talents, Noel Coward and David Lean.
The war in 1942 was not looking great for the Brits.Coward co-directs but also is the leading man, and he's an established actor from both film and stage at this point.
The lives of the different men interconnect in amazing ways, in good times and during tragedy at sea.David Lean and Noel Coward shared the directorial duty in a film that is one of the best ones of the genre.
The unity shown in the making of the film must have come from those trying days during the war days in England.The large ensemble cast put together for the film showcases some of the best talent of the British screen like no other of its kind.
His wife is played by Celia Johnson, one of the best actresses of her generation, and who later would go to collaborate with Mr. Coward in what must be, perhaps, one of the best achievements in the English cinema, "Brief Encounter".In supporting roles we see a young John Mills playing Shorty Blake.
Kay Walsh, Michael Wilding, Daniel Massey seen as a young boy, and the baby Juliet Mills also appear in the film."In Which We Serve" is still a pleasure to watch because it shows the valor of the men called to defend their country..
A flag waver for the British navy (the story of a ship') in which we meet rough representatives of the three classes (upper, middle, working) brought together by circumstance and service.The working classes are represented by John Mills and Kay Walsh, who marry quietly during a leave and go to their honeymoon on a train.
In Which We Serve is also a sprawling ensemble piece, with numerous interwoven narratives, and to make it comprehensible and engaging it needs well-defined characters whom the audience can immediately get to grips with, and cannot be mistaken for one another.Lean was already known in the British film industry as the best editor in town, and his work on such important British films as Pygmalion and 49th Parallel show his taste for "hard" cuts which jolt the audience with a sudden change in focus or pace, for example cutting to a moving object.
Best of the bunch however is Celia Johnson, a completely natural performer, capable of making us forget we are watching an actress and believing we are witnessing the life of a real person.As a morale-booster, In Which We Serve was popular and effective, but it was also part of an upward trend in the scope and prestige of the British motion picture.
Of course this is not to say that it avoids falling into the usual genre traps because, despite all its attempts at high standards, it still reinforces all the clichés and, viewed today, often comes over as simplistic and occasionally a bit patronising in its portrayal of servicemen, people and the class structure.The story itself is a nice try at an ensemble cast delivering all different stories as a way of looking at the struggles, sacrifices, hopes, losses and victories, showing us how the good IL' British keep together and find their blitz spirit in all situations.
Of course, this was all a long time ago, and it may be I'm watching the film with the eyes of someone sitting in a time that has seen Britain lose that aspect of life, but this all comes over as rather stiff, lacking emotion and not as engaging as such a story really should have been.
First time watching In Which We Serve, it struck me as a very good film, though with some draggy moments in the first half, some of the clipped dialogue seeming stilted and Noël Coward seemed a little stiff at first.
Coward's initial stiffness struck me on re-watch as something that suited the character, who was written as quite dour at first anyway, and it is a very authoritative, caring and moving lead performance on the whole, his HMS Torin speech is a classic and if the lower lip doesn't tremble (or more) during his incredibly emotional farewell I'm not sure what will.Coward is wonderfully supported by the rest of the cast, especially from the shimmering film debut of Celia Johnson, a sympathetic Bernard Miles and John Mills in one of his better Lean film performances.
His co-direction with Lean works just fine, with his more nuanced style contrasting well with Lean's more vivid action style.In Which We Serve is beautifully filmed in sumptuous black and white, the Royal Navy details and settings being more than convincing, and Coward also provides a stirring and hauntingly beautiful music score.
David Lean and Noel Coward co-directed "In Which We Serve" which, we are told, is 'the story of a ship' and which begins in fine documentary fashion before getting down to the serious business of jingoism and what Coward could do to help the war effort, (remember this was only 1942 and the War was still at its height).
It is, of course, incredibly British, ('cocoa, sir), and with nary a quiver of its stiff upper lip but it's also deeply moving and beautifully made, a classic in fact, with some splendidly realistic action sequences, (Ronald Neame's superb cinematography must take a lot of the credit).Coward produced the picture, wrote it, composed the score as well as co-directing and taking the lead and the Academy thought enough of him to give him an honory Oscar.
This movie is all about the HMS Torrin, its story its told my its crew members in a flashback style whilst they wait to be rescued in the Mediterranean Sea post sinking of the ship.This was a big deal for Noel Coward because he had three roles, producer, writer and co-director.
It would had hurt him to see the working classes get a taste of power but it also shows how he fundamentally failed to understand the attitude of the British people after all they had endured through the second world war.This is a flag waving propaganda film that Coward co-directed with David Lean.
Mountbatten was another elitist toff who after the war, royally messed up as the last viceroy of India.In Which We Serve tells the story of several crew members of the Torrin's personal lives in flashback after it has been sunk in the Mediterranean.
Written and co-directed (with David Lean) by Noel Coward, who also stars as Captain Kinross, the film grew out of Coward's desire to contribute to the war effort.
The purpose of this movie from 1942 was to raise the morale on the British home front during World War II and it achieves this objective in a superb piece of film-making that drew on the virtues that made Britain one of the toughest and most courageous countries in history.
In a series of flashbacks after a British naval ship is attacked, the movie reinforces the importance of these virtues and of each man and woman to the war effort.David Lean made his directorial debut under the guidance of Noel Coward, one of the deans of British stage and screen.
The closing chapter: At the end of the film 'In Which We Serve'the crew of the Torrin ship line up in a hanger after being rescued from the sea and one by one they each shake hands with Noel Coward the captain before leaving to go to new ships.
Noel Coward's IN WHICH WE SERVE is a superior treatment of war--at sea and at home--as seen from the viewpoint of various crew members.NOEL COWARD plays the Captain of the ill-fated destroyer; JOHN MILLS is a young sailor recalling his romance with a nice British gal, KAY WALSH; CELIA JOHNSON is Coward's Navy wife who knows the ship is the foremost thing in her husband's life, but she bravely salutes it at a Christmas party; and the large male supporting cast includes MICHAEL WILDING, a very young RICHARD ATTENBOROUGH as a troubled sailor and BERNARD MILES.The homefront scenes are reminiscent of a veddy, veddy British version of SINCE YOU WENT AWAY (especially the romance between Kay Walsh and John Mills).
Based mostly on the experiences of Lord Mountbatten on HMS Kelly, IN WHICH WE SERVE is a classic British flag-waver from 1943, attesting to the bravery and sheer grit of captain and crew as they struggle to survive after their ship has been sunk by a German torpedo.
Structured as a series of flashbacks, the narrative focuses on different members of the crew from different socio-economic backgrounds: the bourgeois Captain Kinross (Noel Coward) leading a comfortable family life with his wife (Celia Johnson), and two children (Daniel Massey, Ann Stephens); the middle-class Chief Petty Officer Hardy (Bernard Miles), living with his wife (Joyce Carey) and her mother; and the working-class Ordinary Seaman Blake (John Mills) living in a modest terraced house with his family.
Noel Coward, John Mills and Richard Attenborough are among the crew, and as I said, you KNOW they will survive because they are big-time actors (though at this point, Mills and Attenborough were at the beginning of their film careers).
Noel Coward is captain of HMS Torrin, a British Navy destroyer, and he expects his crew to obey his philosophy.
The story is told in flashbacks as survivors cling to a dinghy after HMS Torrin is sunk.It's a propaganda film that is meant to rouse feelings of discipline and dedication to country in time of war.
My primary reason for wanting to see the film is David Lean's directorial debut, having co-directed it with Coward.While this is a competent film and enjoyable to watch, it shows the British as somewhat one dimensional characters.
The enlisted seaman seem to be the only characters that have any real affection for their ship or their spouses, but this is also shown in the light of them being 'lower-class' individuals, fit only to be ordered around and to do physical labor.While watching the film I noticed a small cameo by a very young Richard Attenborough, who is not named in the credits.This film epitomizes the concept of the British 'stiff upper lip' and their sheer determination to prevail in the face of overwhelming odds.
Her crew are drawn together from many different vessels, and then the few survivors dispersed; but in one of the most famous sequences -- the three parallel Christmas parties -- we are shown the bond that every one of them, from the captain to the petty officers to the ordinary seamen, feels for his ship.The film deliberately sets out to depict its characters as a microcosm of English society, from the smoke-filled third class compartment to the Great Western dining car with its dubious "railway fish" (some things never change!), and as a result it is a fascinating social document.
With a common social understanding, working together, as the title of Noël Coward's and David Lean's "In Which We Serve" suggests...The film, one of the finest wartime dramas to come out of Britain, tells the story of an English destroyer HMS Torrin, sunk in the Mediterranean Sea by the Germans, during the Battle of Crete...As commander and crew keep close to the life raft, the screen fades gradually to take us back in active to the commission of the ship...By concentrating on each member of the crew a different memory is relieved, and each flashback advances the story of the life of the ship and the men who served on her...It is a magnificent film about courage and dedication, devotion and sacrifice...
Noel Coward and Terence Rattigan, two homosexuals, produced between them (The Way To The Stars and this film) THE two definitive British films of World War Two which must surely give students or irony pause.
With hindsight it is possible to identify Coward 'signatures' - in This Happy Breed John Mills was the sailor next door in love with the flighty Kay Walsh who he lost only to find again; this time around Walsh is more grounded, they meet, fall in love and marry; Joyce Carey, the tyrant of the Tea Room in Brief Encounter, is here portrayed far more sympathetically as the wife of Petty Officer Bernard Miles and her ongoing war with her mother replicates that of Celia Johnson in This Happy Breed, etc - that only enhance the watching experience.
Noel Coward,a witty and urbane man,was friends with Louis Mountbatten.Mr Coward,a long-time admirer of all things naval,was commissioned to write a story loosely based on the loss of Mountbatten's ship.In a peculiarly British way it was considered that a film about the Royal Navy losing an encounter at sea would be good propaganda.It was also considered a good idea to have Mr Coward play the part of the ship's captain.Amang the many qualities needed to command a fighting ship,the ability to speak in a very clipped voice and sing sophisticated "point" songs does not come very high up the list at Admiralty House,or at least one would hope not.A captain must earn and retain the respect of the wardroom and the lower deck alike.
Directed by David Lean (The Bride on the River Kwai) and Noel Coward (also starring), both making their directorial debuts, this is quite a good British war film.
It is a film that combines war ship battles and character flashbacks. |
tt0094791 | The Bourne Identity | In the Mediterranean Sea, Italian fishermen rescue an unconscious American (Matt Damon) floating adrift with two gunshot wounds in his back. They tend to his wounds, and when the man wakes, they find he suffers from dissociative amnesia. He has no memory of his own identity, while he retains his speech and finds himself capable of advanced combat skills and fluency in several languages. The skipper finds a tiny laser projector under the man's hip that, when activated, gives a number of a safe deposit box in Zürich. Upon landing in Imperia (Italy), the man heads to the bank in Switzerland to investigate the deposit box. He finds it contains a large sum of money in various currencies, numerous passports and identity cards with his picture on all of them, and a handgun. The man takes everything but the gun, and leaves, opting to use the name on the American passport, Jason Bourne.
After Bourne's departure, a bank employee contacts Operation Treadstone, a CIA black ops program. Treadstone's head, Alexander Conklin (Chris Cooper), activates three agents to take down Bourne: Castel (Nicky Naude), Manheim (Russell Levy), and the Professor (Clive Owen), while also issuing alerts to local police to capture him. Meanwhile, CIA Deputy Director Ward Abbott (Brian Cox) contacts Conklin about a failed assassination attempt against exiled African dictator Nykwana Wombosi (Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje). Conklin promises Abbott that he will deal with the Treadstone agent who failed.
Bourne attempts to evade the Swiss police by using his U.S. passport to enter the American consulate, but he is discovered by guards. He evades capture, and escapes the consulate, giving a German woman, Marie Kreutz (Franka Potente), $20,000 to drive him to an address in Paris listed on his French driving license. At the address, an apartment, he hits redial on the phone and reaches a hotel. He inquires about the names on his passports there, learning that a "John Michael Kane" had been registered but died two weeks prior in a car crash. Castel ambushes Bourne and Marie in the apartment, but Bourne gets the upper hand. Instead of allowing himself to be interrogated, Castel throws himself out a window to his death. Marie finds wanted posters of Bourne and herself, and after agonizing, agrees to continue to help Bourne. After a chase in which Bourne evades Paris police in Marie's car, the two fugitives spend the night together in a Paris hotel.
Meanwhile, Wombosi continues to obsess over the attempt on his life. Conklin, having anticipated this, planted a body in the Paris morgue to appear as the assailant, but Wombosi is not fooled and threatens to report this and other CIA secrets to the media. The Professor assassinates Wombosi on Conklin's orders. Bourne, posing as Kane, learns about Wombosi's yacht, and that the assailant had been shot twice in the back during the escape, just as he was. Bourne now considers himself to have been the assailant. He and Marie take refuge at the French countryside home of her old friend Eamon (Tim Dutton) and his children. Under pressure from Abbott to tie off the Wombosi matter entirely, Conklin tracks Bourne's location and sends the Professor there, but Bourne shoots him twice with Eamon's shotgun, mortally wounding him. The Professor reveals their shared connection to Treadstone before dying. Bourne sends Marie, Eamon, and Eamon's children away for their protection, and then contacts Conklin via the Professor's phone to arrange a meeting. From a rooftop near the arranged location in Paris, Bourne sees Conklin has brought backup, so he abandons the meeting, but uses the opportunity to place a tracking device on Conklin's car, leading Bourne to Treadstone's safe house.
Bourne breaks in and holds Conklin and logistics technician Nicolette "Nicky" Parsons (Julia Stiles) at gunpoint. When Conklin begins pressing him to remember his past, Bourne recalls his attempt to assassinate Wombosi through successive flashbacks. As Kane, and working under orders from Treadstone, Bourne infiltrated Wombosi's yacht but could not bring himself to kill Wombosi while Wombosi's children were present, and instead fled, being shot during his escape. Bourne announces he is resigning from Treadstone and is not to be followed. As agents descend on the safe house, Bourne fights his way free. When Conklin leaves the safe house, he encounters Manheim who kills him under Abbott's orders. Abbott then shuts down Treadstone.
Abbott reports to an oversight committee that Treadstone is "all but decommissioned" before discussion turns to a new project codenamed "Blackbriar". In the final scene, Bourne finds Marie renting out scooters to tourists on Mykonos, and the two reunite. | violence, suspenseful, murder, romantic, flashback | train | wikipedia | null |
tt1314656 | Ninja Scroll | In Edo period-Japan, the Yamashiro clan mines gold in secret, and sends a shipment to the Toyotomi Shogun of the Dark as payment for his protection. The Shogun of the Dark intends to use the gold to buy advanced Spanish weaponry and overthrow the current government, the Tokugawa Shogunate. The ship runs aground onto Mochizuki territory in a storm, and the Eight Devils of Kimon, a ninja team with supernatural powers in the employ of the Yamashiro, kill the people of the nearby village of Shimoda to keep the gold shipment a secret.
While investigating the deaths, a Mochizuki Koga ninja team is massacred by the Devils. The sole survivor, Kagero, is captured by a Devil, Tessai, who molests her. She is rescued by Jubei Kibagami, a mercenary ex-Yamashiro ninja, who fights and eventually kills Tessai. Dakuan, a Tokugawa spy, blackmails Jubei into helping him kill the remaining Devils. To ensure his compliance, Dakuan stabs Jubei with a poisoned shuriken, and promises to give him an antidote once the mission is complete. Jubei learns from Dakuan that the leader of the Devils is Genma Himuro, the former Yamashiro ninja leader, who had ordered his team’s members to kill each other to cover up the location of the goldmine five years earlier. Jubei, who had been forced to kill his comrades to survive, decapitated Genma in revenge; Genma survived due to his immortality. Jubei is attacked by another Devil, Benisato, but he is saved by Kagero; before she can be questioned, Benisato is killed from afar by Yumimaru, Genma’s right-hand man, for failing her mission. Kagero agrees to work alongside Jubei and Dakuan, who informs Jubei that her body is infused with such deadly toxins that anyone who kisses or sleeps with her dies, which was why Jubei could kill Tessai.
The trio arrive in Shimoda, where they discover that the villagers died due to their water supply being poisoned, making it appear that they were killed by a plague. Jubei and Kagero fend attacks from three of the Devils – Mushizo, Zakuro and Mujuro Utsutsu; Jubei succeeds in killing Mushizo and Utsutsu. After finding the beached ship, Kagero deduces that the gold has been taken to Kashima Harbour, where it will be transported to the Shogun of the Dark in another ship.
Jubei, Kagero and Dakuan arrive at Kashima, which has been evacuated due to the townspeople’s fear of the plague. While Jubei battles another Devil, Shijima, Kagero sends a message to Hyobu Sakaki, the Mochizuki chamberlain, to bring his army to the harbour. She also learns from Dakuan that Jubei’s poisoning will only be cured if he copulates with her – the poisons in her body will counteract his. Kagero is captured by Shijima, and Jubei kills him, rescuing her once more. Kagero asks Jubei to sleep with her to cure himself. He considers doing so, but upon the arrival of the Shogun of the Dark's envoy in a ship, he leaves to prevent the gold reaching its destination.
Kagero arrives to meet Sakaki, but he stabs her, revealing himself to be Genma in disguise. Enraged, Jubei fights through waves of ninjas, but is nearly killed by Yumimaru. A gunpowder-rigged rat, left as a trap by Zakuro for Yumimaru for rejecting her advances, kills him, allowing Jubei to escape. He finds Kagero; mortally wounded, she admits her love for him and they kiss, curing Jubei’s poisoning. Before dying, Kagero gives Jubei her headband.
Jubei and Dakuan board the departing ship. On-board, Genma reveals his true intentions to the Shogun of the Dark’s envoy (who he kills) – he intends to use the gold to raise a ninja army to terrorize Japan, rather than serve as an ally to the Toyotomi. During an altercation with Zakuro, Jubei and Dakuan set the ship ablaze. As Jubei and Genma engage in a brutal fight, the gold becomes molten and engulfs Genma, who sinks to the bottom of the sea. Afterwards, Dakuan thanks Jubei, and expresses admiration for his and Kagero’s humanity. Deducing Dakuan’s intentions to kill him, the disgusted Jubei resumes his vagabond lifestyle, with Kagero’s headband tied around his sword’s hilt. | violence | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0076929 | Wizards | Earth has been devastated by a nuclear war instigated by five terrorists, and it has taken two million years for the radioactive clouds to once again allow sunlight to reach the surface. Only a handful of humans have survived, while the rest have changed into mutants who roam the radioactive wastelands. In the idyllic land of Montagar, the true ancestors of man – fairies, elves and dwarves – have returned and live in peace. During a celebration of 3,000 years of peace Delia, queen of the fairies, falls into a trance and leaves the party. Puzzled, the fairies follow her to her home and discover that she has given birth to twin wizards. Avatar, a kind and good wizard, spends much of his boyhood entertaining his mother with beautiful visions, while Blackwolf, a mutant, never visits his mother, but spends his time torturing small animals.
After many years, Delia dies. Blackwolf is excited; he believes he will take over her leadership and rule the land. Avatar opposes his evil brother and forces him to fight for the kingship. Avatar's magic is empowered by his grief, allowing him to defeat Blackwolf. Blackwolf leaves Montagar with a vow to return and "make this a planet where mutants rule".
Years later, Blackwolf has risen to lead the dark land of Scortch, where he and his vast army of goblins, ogres and mutants salvage and restore ancient technology. He tries to attack Montagar twice, but is foiled both times when his mutant warriors become bored or sidetracked in the midst of battle. Blackwolf then discovers an old projector and reels of Nazi propaganda footage. He enhances the projector with magical power and uses it in battle to both inspire his own soldiers and horrify enemy troops. The mutants destroy the elf army.
Meanwhile, in Montagar, Avatar has become a tutor tasked with training the president's daughter Elinore to become a full-fledged fairy. Suddenly, the president is assassinated by Necron 99, a robot sent by Blackwolf to kill believers in magic. Avatar confronts the robot and battles it using brain reading. Necron 99 loses the desire for war and changes his name to Peace. Avatar learns from the robot that the "dream machine" – the projector – is Blackwolf's secret weapon, inspiring his armies with images of ancient warfare. Avatar, Elinore, Peace, and the elf spy Weehawk set out to destroy the projector and save the world from another Holocaust.
In a forest inhabited by fairies, Peace has an intuition that something is amiss shortly before the group is accosted by the leader of the fairies, Sean (Mark Hamill). Weehawk realizes that Peace is missing, when an unseen assassin kills Sean and kidnaps Elinore. Avatar and Weehawk begin to search for Elinore in the forbidden Fairy Sanctuary, but Weehawk falls into a chasm and insists that Avatar leave him and find the girl. He locates her, captured by fairies and small human-like creatures, just as she is about to be killed. Avatar attempts to explain that they did not kill Sean, but the fairies don't believe him, and shoot him with an arrow. Wounded in the shoulder, Avatar refuses to fight back, which impresses the fairy king. Instead of executing them, he merely teleports Avatar and Elinore to a snowy mountaintop. Avatar and Elinore resume their journey despite the poor conditions, but they soon realize they are wandering in circles. Weehawk and Peace finally find them and together they find their way out of the mountains. Soon Avatar and the others encounter the encamped army of an elf General who is preparing to attack Scortch the following day, but Blackwolf launches a sneak attack that night. Elinore is outside with Peace when one of Blackwolf's mutants sneaks into camp and attacks her, but Avatar is able to stop it before it hurts her. Things turn for the worse, though, as a battle tank arrives to destroy the camp. Peace manages to disable the crew, but as he inspects the vehicle, Elinore kills him with a sword and climbs into the tank. It drives away as Avatar and Weehawk watch in confusion.
The next day, Avatar and Weehawk enter Scortch by ship and make for Blackwolf's castle while the General leads his elf warriors in a bloody battle to distract Blackwolf's forces. The pair splits up, Weehawk tracking Elinore while Avatar goes after his brother Blackwolf. Weehawk nearly kills Elinore, but she explains that Blackwolf had been controlling her mind ever since she first touched Peace. Blackwolf declares his magic superior to Avatar's and demands his surrender. Avatar admits that he hasn't practiced magic in some time, and offers to show Blackwolf one last trick that their mother showed him when Blackwolf wasn't around. Avatar then pulls a gun and fatally shoots Blackwolf. With the loss of their leader, the mutants give up fighting. With Montagar's safety secured, Weehawk returns home as the new ruler, but Avatar and Elinore decide to go start their own kingdom instead. | fantasy, violence, cult, good versus evil, psychedelic, absurd, satire, romantic | train | wikipedia | Avatar rules the peaceful kingdom of Montagar with wisdom and magic, while the evil Blackwolf rules the dark land of Scortch with technology and war.It's a great combination of science fiction and fantasy set years into a strange post apocalyptic future where broken tanks, guns, and Nazi propaganda are regarded as ancient artifacts.
Wonderful supporting characters include Weehawk, a courageous and cynical elf, Elinore, a young fairy princess whom Avatar is in love with, and Necron 99, a robotic assassin who is turned into a good robot named Peace.
Treat yourself to a symbolic retro-future style film loaded with psychedelic animation, memorable characters, and a truly wonderful adventure that will transport you to a whole new world set ten million years into the distant future..
Not likely.Bakshi's able to pit the essence of fantasy against the monstrosity of an ever-growing being we call "technology." The animation is simple (albeit complex and interesting at times) yet unique, the characters are conflicted and well-developed, and the twisted, somewhat random humor adds a twist of reality in a seemingly hopeless world.
Although oddly structured (our protagonists don't set off on their quest until about half an hour into the movie) and weighed down with exposition, Wizards tells a good story, the art is excellent, and it has one of the coolest animated battles I've everseen...
The story deals with wizards and elves in the distant future who dig up long-forgotten Nazi propaganda films and old war machinery, which are used by evil creatures to try and conquer the good creatures.
It's almost disturbing at times watching old WWII war movie footage with German soldiers fighting alongside animated demons against psychedelic-colored backgrounds.
But we all know, that in love or war, nothing is forbidden.The good twin (Avatar), the princess of fairy-land, and a once evil, but now good android, makes the team that needs to stop Blackwolf, and save this world from evil.Okay, this sounds really cheap:) And if i tell you even looks cheap in many scenes...
The story even gets Nazis involved, which makes some scenes more than disturbing...So its still a true Bakshi feature film, only the violence and sex is abit toned down.
It is certainly an interesting movie, and is certainly better than Cool World, but as far as Bakshi's movies go I do much prefer Heavy Traffic and American Pop. Wizards' flaws have been covered a number of times in previous reviews, but I do share my agreement with some that have been brought up.
Yet, we are supposed to believe a wizard has found a working projector and reels of film from MILLIONS of years ago and by showing the old propaganda film, it will magically inspire the enemy and demoralize the good guys?
I loved everything that the film swings for (anti-establishment, questioning technology taking over our humanity, trying to tell an actual story instead of animating "horses eating apples"), but its delivery is a bit askew.
I LOVED THE ROTOSCOPING...it was my favorite thing (aside from the wonderfully intricate background paintings) to watch, and the DVD has a wonderful "making of" video with Bakshi describing what the process was like.
Having Bakshi describe the story in the "making of" video almost sounds like a completely difficult thing to capture, and I think the film needed to be worked on for a few more years.
Thousands of years later, they grow old and must do battle when the evil wizard stumbles on some old footage of Hitler's Nazi propaganda and decides to brainwash an army of mutants to do his bidding and destroy the peaceful countryside.
"Wizards" was an improvement over "Fritz," but I still found myself thinking that it probably would've made more of an impact on me if I'd seen it in a theatre in the late '70s after smoking a couple of joints.The story takes place a few million years in the future, after a nuclear holocaust has more or less destroyed humanity; the few humans that are left are now monstrous, radioactive mutants who dwell in a region called "Skortch." On the flip side, the "Good Lands" (i.e. the area unpolluted by fallout) is populated by fairies and elves, whom we're told are the true ancestors of humanity.
The narration at the beginning of the film tells us that one special night long ago, twin wizards were born, one good (named "Avatar," wonder if Cameron had to pay Bakshi to use that name?
But now Blackwulf has introduced ancient technology (in the form of recovered tanks, guns, airplanes and Nazi propaganda films, which he uses to fire up his troops) to prepare for one final assault on the Good Lands, and his brother Avatar must come out of peaceful semi-retirement to battle him once and for all (with the aid of an elf warrior, a captured assassin robot, and a big-boobed, ditzy fairy who wears very little).The animation in "Wizards" is nice enough (though a little dated looking nowadays), the good guys are all Disney cute while Blackwulf and his mutant legions of froglike creatures are Frank Frazetta scary/ugly, which makes for an odd combination of styles.
Its slim run time of just about 80 minutes keeps things moving quickly enough that the viewer won't get bored.Too violent for a kid's movie and a little too weird and allegorical for the average grown up viewer, "Wizards" has some interesting ideas and visuals but isn't a must-see except for hardcore animation buffs.Extra trivia note, see if you can spot a pre-"Star Wars" Mark Hamill in a small voice part..
The fact that it is coupled with an overall "fairy tale-ish" look that seems more at home among those cheap "ages 3 to 8" cartoons makes the viewing experience a very unique one.It really is too bad that so much time and effort went into developing the whole underlying political themes that nothing much else went into the aspects of the film that would matter to most people, aka the dialog and the animation itself.Though the story is simple enough to follow, the characters come across as just plain boring thanks to, IMO, horribly written lines and sub-par acting.
The only time this jarring clash of animation styles actually worked was during the final climatic battle where the surreal images and the hauntingly dark rotoscoped footage effectively conveyed the hectic confusion of a real battlefield.(though i question the choice of retro jazzy background music)To be honest, I found myself rooting most for Blackwolf's green gas-masked soldiers.
Some of the battle scenes with footage of Hitler and his men and silhouette of various live-action movie battle reenactments of World War II mixed with animated depictions of blood also were pretty interesting.
The whole reason animation has the appeal that it does is that the artist can take us to places that are otherwise too expensive, or impossible, to bring to the big screen via location shooting, special effects, or a constructed set."Wizards" could've been a really fantastic and impressive film with some polish, but the artist, because of both budgetary constraints and artistic bent, instead leaned away from a high gloss, Disney-like art style, and went the non-traditional, rough-edge, route.
I had seen Heavy Metal unedited for the first time (this is in the days when you had to go to a sci-fi con and buy a bootleg copy if you wanted to see anything more than the edited TBS version.) This film was recommended to me along with Fritz the Cat (this is far superior, I may add.) I quickly became a fan of all Bakshi animation.
Evil) but it turns into more depth with the characters take their full stance on the situations at hand (the assassin become Peace).I'm going to look for this movie so I can give it another watch and give a firm and final stance on my opinions of it, but I don't think i'm too off the mark with a 7 out of 10.Good watch, good times..
Like Fantastic Planet and Heavy Metal, it falls into that small group of animated movies that can be considered bona fide cult movies.Its story has a couple of twins, one good (Avatar) and one evil (Blackwolf) fight one and other for domination; the former with magic, the latter with technology.
The scene where cartoon characters watch old Nazi films is certainly very memorable.In the final analysis Wizards is a strange movie.
Still I really love the character animation which does look a bit odd but you get use to it and it fits the strange but cool nature of the film.
This was something revolutionary for it's time, you never really seen an animated film and show ever go this far with the action; which is why I want to see the animation genre take this step more often, by today's standards we're all more than ready.The story is great and is what really powers the film for me, I love that this is a combination of both the post apocalyptic subgenere and fantasy which is something I really don't see much in both sci-fi and fantasy and would like to see more.
And the conflict between Blackwolf's army and the Magical Creatures is also an irony because the Nazi's were trying to destroy even possesses everything that sacred and mechanize the entire world by smashing everything that was different or outside their normal convention or thinking.The film I feel has an antifascist message, it's terrible destructive nature and why fascism and the things with it should remain lost and can and should never be restored.Wizards has plenty of magic and power.Rating: 4 stars.
Bakshi's first "family" movie is rebellious to the very notion of what can be done in fantasy/animated films.
It helped a little to see some of Ralph Bakshi's points on the DVD of Wizards; he wanted to make a 'family' movie that wasn't the typical Disney product.
Bakshi's post-apocalyptic/neo-Tolkien tale opens with (and has intermittently) a sort of "official" narrator voice telling of how the world mostly got destroyed by nuclear means, and then small pockets of what would usually be fairytale creatures- fairies, elves, and assorted mutants- sprouted up in pockets thousands of years later.
A Queen fairy has two wizard sons, one good and one evil, who's divide splits up what remains of the existing world.Blackwolf, the evil one, amasses an army of mutants to decimate and control what's left of the world, by using unearthed Nazi propaganda films projected onto the sky (that's how I could figure it anyway), which at first confuses the mutants who don't quite get what they're seeing with marching soldiers and an always angry Hitler.
And yet it's never a sense of the surreal or, more appropriately what could be called "magic realism", that feels cheating or false in Bakshi's world.Wizards is not just simply a fantasy movie, although it has more than its share of fantasy elements: the quest, the forces of good and evil facing directly in defined black and white terms (albeit with the good this time a little kooky with Avatar's Peter Falk sounding voice and mannerisms), overtly fantastical battles waged by one side eager to defend home and hearth and the other mindless drones, and other miscellaneous side characters put in on the heroes' quest to take up goof time.
Totalitarianism is really at the gut of the matter when looking at main villains like these ('these' in reference to Lord of the Rings, which Bakshi, later director of himself, is inspired by here), and the power of such everlastingly impactive images end up being presented in the projector- device of the propaganda at Blackwolf's control- that also puts the good warrior elves into a terrified trance before they meet their doom.It's a very clever concept to deal with, but Bakshi doesn't let this just sit on its own.
All of this, and Bakshi and company's consistent use of awesome color and special effects, characters too weird to really love but always compelling, topped with ending that has a big wink to the audience (young and old, however young might not get the joke as much), make it a real sleeper of 1977; out two weeks before Star Wars, this was just another of the slew, even if slightly under the radar, of fantasy/science fiction movies out that year that turned the tide for the genre..
(And believe me, I do not intend that final word as an insult; it's simply the truth, and it's stated with a candidness of which I can only imagine Bakshi himself would approve.)The "modern" (i.e., post-1984) viewer would not be likely to proclaim WIZARDS to be "a fun time at the movies," or however one might put it.
Then there is Avatar, a lecherous wizard who would rather boff his girlfriend than fight his evil brother and finally Weehawk, the traditional hero - fighting for everything good and right.The final scene has stayed with me forever 'Now I'm going to show you something mother never showed you, you SOB.' has been one of the few true 'anti-hero' climaxes I've ever scene in a film.Anyway - just see this movie if for no other reason than to tear it apart here!.
This movie was so awful out of 10 people I was the only one who was able to stay awake enough to turn it off, it was absolutely awful.The use of real war footage in the cartoon while innovative and unique at the time, was not enough to make up for the lack of an engaging plot, story etc..
Some of the images are quite striking, and character and creature design are enjoyable, as elves and mutants ultimately engage in war.The vocal performances are wonderful, especially from Holt; also lending their voices are David Proval (Romanus' co-star in "Mean Streets") and Mark "Luke Skywalker" Hamill.A short-and-sweet running time (81 minutes) and a rousing score composed by Andrew Belling further assist in making this an enjoyable feature, if not as satisfying overall as Bakshis' later "Fire and Ice".Seven out of 10..
So let's go back to the late 70s, when Bakshi decided to take a break from adult animation to give us his first "family" film, Wizards.
The result is a flawed albeit thought provoking and intriguing fantasy film that still remains in tact after 40 years.The story is about two wizard brothers named Avatar (the peaceful wizard who rules with wisdom and magic) and Blackwolf (The evil ruler of the dark land Scortch with technology under his belt to wage war).
Avatar is the good hearted wizard who struggles whether to use his powers for good or bad reasons, the robot Peace also struggles with siding between killing those who are good or preserving them, Weehawk is definitely a bad ass you don't want to mess with, and while Eleanor and Blackwolf are the least memorable characters, the savagery that Blackwolf inflicts on his creatures is just gut wrenching and Eleanor is pretty decent eye candy if nothing else.The animation shows that it was made cheap, yet it still retains itself with it's own style, whether it be the cartoonish designs, the mystic colorful backgrounds, the comic book style storyboards, and especially usage of the rotoscoping that really gives the film an old school feel to it.
This is one of the grimmest and vibrantly colorful films I've seen in quite some time, and it looks so unique that it's worthy viewing to gain a sense of 70s animation.The movie isn't without it's flaws though.
The story is pretty interesting and has a couple World War II references in the movie, like propaganda and the Holocaust.The animation and the visuals were great and has some interesting character designs.But the problem's I have with this film is that it has a big lack of character development and the movie can be really boring at time's."Wizards", is a good animated film from Ralph Bakshi, but it's not a film for everybody to watch.
The rest of the movie is their quest to find Blackwolf's evil machine and destroy it, and him I don't have a favorite scene, because I love the whole film from beginning to end.And I'm sure some mutants wanted to be human again.
I would also like to add Bakshi's melange of animated styles, and they don't mesh well here, whether it be the Disneyeque drawings of cute little Avatar the good wizard and a scene involving two cute Yiddish elves hitting each other on their rear ends, the erotic visions of the sexy fairy goddess Elinore and some buck-naked obese elves, and Bakshi's annoying trademark rotoscoping during the battle scenes.
Near the end of the movie, your stomach will turn as you see the cartoon elves and monsters, the rotoscoped tanks and weapons, and the live action Nazi propaganda films in the battle scenes, and then the predictable ending where Avatar shoots Blackwolf with an old pistol.
Anyway, the movie is about a good and a bad wizard who rule different parts of the world and are brothers.
That's it, daddy-o.Wizards is Ralph Bakshi's attempt at making a "unique fantasy film." Unfortunately, while he has an interesting 'big picture' idea for a story, so many individual scenes--"tactical storytelling" as I call it--don't work (much like American Pop) that the movie's message is lost.
Alas poor Ralph made into a film that is just hard to take seriously or even enjoy a whole lot..."Wizards" is a weird animated fantasy that takes place on Earth millions of years after a terrorist attack caused a nuclear holocaust.
I have enjoyed some of Bakshi's films (without knowing they were his), but did not realize that until after I watched Wizards and looked into it.
This proves that he can do something right, even though he's also the guy who who fouled up Lord of the Rings, and made the outstandingly bad Cool World.The animation is generally good, although the rotoscoped battle scenes feel rather long at times. |
tt0049117 | D-Day the Sixth of June | A few hours before D-Day, Special Force Six embarks to destroy an especially well-defended German gun emplacement on the Normandy coast. As the ship steams towards it, the officers and men recall what circumstances brought them there, especially Wynter and Parker.
Captain Brad Parker, an American paratrooper invalided out because of a broken leg suffered during a parachute jump is posted to the headquarters of the European Theatre of Operations in London. At the Red Cross club, he meets and, despite being married, falls in love with Valerie Russell, a Women's Royal Army Corps subaltern. Valerie is the daughter of a crusty Brigadier who's been on sick leave since being wounded at Dunkirk. Valerie is also already in love with Captain John Wynter of the British Commandos, a friend of her father.
Both officers are posted overseas, but later return. Parker has volunteered to join what becomes Special Force Six, to be led by his former commander, Lt. Colonel (now Colonel) Timmer.
With only a few hours before the operation is due to embark, Timmer goes to pieces (partly as a result of his earlier bad experiences in the failed Dieppe landing) and is arrested whilst drunk and breaking security. Wynter, now a Colonel, who has recovered from being badly wounded, is brought in to command the operation.
The operation is a success, despite several killed and wounded. Wynter is killed when he steps on a mine. Parker is badly wounded and evacuated.
In hospital, and due to be repatriated, he sees Valerie for the last time. She does not tell him that Wynter has been killed. | romantic | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0497329 | Behind Enemy Lines II: Axis of Evil | The story is not linked to the first part of the series. Instead, it focuses on a fictional explanation for the Ryanggang explosion in 2004, in which an unexplained mushroom cloud occurred in North Korea.
After reconnaissance satellites detect a large, three-stage Topol intercontinental ballistic missile carrying a nuclear weapon in North Korea, which can strike anywhere in the continental United States, a fictional United States President Adair T. Manning (Peter Coyote) orders a team of U.S. Navy SEALs to destroy the missile and the launch site. The team is led by Lieutenant Robert James (Nicholas Gonzalez).
The Pentagon aborts the mission after it receives new information, but by the time the abort order is sent, two SEALs have already parachuted into North Korean territory. James stops the third SEAL from deploying, accidentally knocking the man's helmet against the status indicator mounted near the door. The lieutenant steps onto the makeshift ramp to peer outside, returning to the doorway to inform the rest of men of the abort. The high-speed winds from outside rip the indicator loose and send it flying into the lieutenant's face. Stumbling backwards, James loses his balance and is sucked out of the plane. Callaghan disobeys orders to stand fast, strikes his commanding officer, and follows the first three, taking a radio with him. When North Korean forces led by Commander Hwang (Joseph Steven Yang) find the SEALs, two of the Navy SEALs are killed in a gun battle, and James and Callaghan are captured and tortured by Hwang and his men.
After South Korean special forces rescue James and Callaghan, President Manning and the South Korean government send the SEALs and South Korean special forces to destroy the missile site. But after losing radio contact with the SEALs, the President and his top advisers believe that they have been captured again. Under pressure from his military advisor, General Norman Vance (Bruce McGill), the President decides to send B-2 stealth bombers to destroy the site, which would start a full-scale war against North Korea. The SEALs and the South Korean special forces are almost recaptured by Hwang, but he is shot by a defecting officer. James and the South Koreans destroy the missile silo with a bomb before the bombers reach the missile site, which averts the bombing and prevents a full-scale war.
A tribunal convicts Callaghan of striking an officer (1 year) and disobeying an officer (10 years). Due to the "black op" nature of the mission, the transcript of the hearing is deemed classified and the charges are expunged from his record, leaving him free to return to his family.
Meanwhile, James meets the president in a classified meeting, bringing his mentor Master Chief Scott Boytano (Keith David) as witness to James' receiving of an award.
The film closes with Boytano telling James he wasn't red flagged because Boytano had never seen anyone who desired so badly as James did to be a SEAL. During the credits there is a news report on the Ryanggang explosion. | cult, suspenseful, murder, violence, flashback | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0076637 | Rolling Thunder | In 1973, Major Charles Rane (William Devane) returns home to San Antonio with Sergeant Johnny Vohden (Tommy Lee Jones), and two other soldiers, after spending seven years as a POW in Hanoi. He finds a home very different from the one he left when he meets his wife Janet (Lisa Richards), his son Mark (Jordan Gerler), and local policeman Cliff (Lawrason Driscoll), waiting to drive him home. Rane soon realizes that his son doesn't remember him, and that Cliff seems overly familiar with Janet and Mark. Janet admits that she has become engaged to Cliff and has no plans to break it off, despite still having feelings for Rane. Rane stoically accepts this, but privately reacts by self-imposing the same institutionalized daily regime he had in captivity.
The town is intent on giving Rane a hero's homecoming, and at a grand celebration, he is presented with a red Cadillac and 2,555 silver dollars – one for every day he was a captive plus one for luck – by the 'Texas belle' Linda Forchet (Linda Haynes), who has worn his ID bracelet since he left. Shortly after, Cliff attempts to make peace with Rane; the latter, however, seems resigned to losing his wife, but he is determined not to lose his son and makes efforts to build a relationship.
Linda Forchet spots Rane in his new Cadillac at a gas station and invites him to have a drink at the bar where she works. She makes advances toward him, but Rane is emotionally distant and perhaps even unable to connect with anyone.
When Rane next returns home, four border outlaws are waiting for him: "The Texan" (James Best), "Automatic Slim" (Luke Askew) and a couple of Mexican thugs, "T Bird" (Charles Escamilla) and "Melio" (Pete Ortega). They demand the silver dollars and torture Rane to get them. Rane is totally unresponsive, having flashbacks to his torture in Hanoi as they beat him. The gang resorts to drastic measures and shoves Rane’s hand down a garbage disposal, mangling it. At this point Janet and Mark return, and are immediately taken hostage. Rane lies with a mangled arm on the kitchen floor while his son finds and hands over the silver dollars. The gang shoots all three of them, leaving them for dead. Rane survives but his wife and son do not.
Several weeks later, Rane is convalescing in a hospital where Linda and Vohden visit him separately. Vohden has signed on for another ten years in the Airborne Division, due to his uncertainty as to what else to do with his life. Although he gives no details to the police, Rane has ideas regarding the identities of his attackers and prepares to take vengeance. His first move upon discharge is to saw down a double-barreled shotgun and sharpen the prosthetic hook which has replaced his right hand.
Before leaving for Mexico, Rane visits the bar where Linda works and invites her to go with him. She leaves with him, having no idea she is accompanying him on a vendetta. He sends her into a seedy Mexican bar to look for "Fat Ed." She is taken into a backroom where a sleazy lowlife named Lopez (James Victor) immediately begins to harass her. Rane comes to her rescue while also extracting some information. Linda now realizes Rane’s intention and though she is alarmed, continues to help. Linda is sent into another seedy bar in a nearby town, as before. Rane locates Automatic Slim and a vicious bar fight ensues; Rane only escapes by wounding Automatic Slim in the crotch with his hook hand.
Conducting his own investigation back in Texas, Cliff finds the sawn-off barrel of Rane's shotgun and realizes Rane's plan. Using his police contacts to trace Rane's car, Cliff finds his way to the Mexican border town in which Rane encountered Lopez. Cliff is led to Lopez, and they scuffle. After Lopez leads Cliff on a foot-chase through a stockyard into an abandoned house, a gunfight ensues. Cliff shoots and kills Lopez and two other attackers before Automatic Slim sneaks in behind him, calls to him and shoots him as he turns to respond. As a wounded Cliff crawls toward his dropped weapon, Automatic Slim mercilessly shoots him again, killing him.
Linda and Rane begin to connect further while on the road, with Linda talking about her tomboy past, and Rane talking about things he liked before the war. In a motel room in El Paso, she tries to talk Rane out of revenge one last time. Despite his experiences in Hanoi and of losing his son and wife, Rane may not be as emotionally dead as he seems. Rane leaves a sleeping Linda behind in the motel (with a sizable sum of money), and despite her earlier insistence that she would call the police, she cannot bring herself to follow through, as she hangs up the phone when the police answer her call.
Rane, dressed in full uniform, goes to Vohden’s house. Vohden, emotionally distanced from his family, asks no questions and is dressed in his Army uniform and ready to go in an instant. Rane plans to attack the remaining members of the gang in a whorehouse. Vohden goes in first and picks up a prostitute named Candy (Cassie Yates). Once they are upstairs, Rane takes out a guard in the rear yard and goes in the back entrance. Rane signals to Vohden and kicks off a bloody, violent shootout. After surprising The Texan with a hooker, Rane declares "It’s your time, boy" before shooting him. T-Bird, Melio and several other men are dealt with likewise before the final standoff between Rane and Automatic Slim. Rane kills him, emotionlessly shooting him several times. Bloodied and wounded, Rane and Vohden, supporting each other, walk out of the brothel. | comedy, suspenseful, neo noir, murder, anti war, cult, violence, flashback, humor, revenge | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0032903 | Phantom of Chinatown | After participating in an extensive archaeological expedition in the Mongolian desert, Dr. John Benton is in San Francisco to hold a presentation of the findings to his colleagues. The film material shows how the archaeological team discovered the long sought ancient tomb of an Emperor of the Ming dynasty.
In the tomb, the team found a scroll, telling of a secret Temple of Eternal Fire. The temple is believed to be hiding a previously unknown oil reserve, and would be of great financial importance to the Chinese people were it to be discovered.
During the expedition, when the tomb was opened, a forceful hurricane took the life of Mason, the co-pilot. The storm was predicted by an ancient curse guarding the tomb. Unfortunately, as Benton is about to reveal the contents of the scroll during the presentation, he starts choking and ultimately dies from suffocation.
After the presentation, it turns out that the scroll is missing from Benton's safe in his office, and his secretary, Win Len, claims she has no knowledge of its whereabouts. One of Benton's students, James Lee Wong, does his own investigation into the death of his professor, and finds out that Benton must have been poisoned with what another man, Street, identifies as an oriental vegetable poison. James finds a pitcher and a glass cup containing traces of this poison. Another member of the expedition team, camera man Charles Fraser, is attacked in his home, and is found injured by James and Street. They are both unaware of that Mason faked his own death at the tomb, and that he and Benton's butler, Jonas, are planning to lay their hands on all artifacts found in the tomb.
Street manage to trace Fraser's attacker to a hideout near the waterfront, where both Mason and Jonas are hiding. Mason escapes through a secret door, but James and Street find an artifact identifiable from the tomb. They also find Jonas' dead body in a coffin, and it turns out he has been poisoned, then stabbed.
The two amateur sleuths manage to get an article published in the paper, saying Jonas is sick with yellow fever in a hospital, to lure the killer there. James wears a wire and impersonates Mason at the hospital. Mason himself turns up at the hospital, and also Fraser. James and Mason fight each other, but Street and the police interrupt them.
It turns out Fraser has worked together with Mason, but tried to double-cross him and break into Benton's safe to steal the scroll. Fraser also killed Benton to keep the secret of the oil reserve to himself. He continued to kill Jonas.
The original scroll has now been destroyed by Fraser, but there is still a photo of it left. After Fraser is arrested, the photo is given to the Chinese government so that they can try to find the oil reserve. | murder, flashback | train | wikipedia | null |
tt3952108 | The Dead Room | After a ghost scares a family out of their house, an insurance company hires three ghost hunters to determine if it is haunted. They include Liam, who handles their technological tools, skeptic Scott, and psychic Holly. At first, Holly senses nothing in the house, and Scott's tools measure no electromagnetic disturbances. After Liam sets up several cameras with sensors, they go to sleep. At 3am, the cameras pick up movement, which Scott later dismisses as a draft. As Liam and Scott discuss their previous cases, Scott describes his theory that low frequency sound can disperse a ghost, and Liam shows Holly footage of a chair rocking by itself. Scott admits that he can not explain the footage and says he wants to find a scientific explanation for the paranormal.
A loud noise wakes the ghost hunters at 3am the next night, and Holly says she sees a ghostly figure, which neither of the men can see. In the morning, Scott tells them nobody will accept their evidence, as it is too subjective. Although frustrated, Liam and Holly eventually agree, and the three go through each room, trying to make contact. Before going to sleep, they set alarms to wake just before 3am. That night, Holly sees the ghostly figure again, and it reacts aggressively, threatening her. Scott calms the others by telling them that there is no evidence a ghost has ever harmed a living person; all it can do is scare them. Holly, more shaken than the others, reveals she took the job to conquer her fear of ghosts.
During the day, Holly senses a presence and strong temperature change, which the others do not feel. Scott's EMF meter reads nothing, but he soon realizes he forgot to insert a battery. When he does so, it immediately begins reading a large disturbance. The reading suddenly goes dead at the end of the main hallway, and Holly agrees that there is no presence in the kitchen. This is reinforced when the ghost later chases them, and they take refuge in the kitchen. Worried that the attacks could turn dangerous, Liam and Holly argue they should leave the house. Scott, however, insists they stay to capture evidence of the paranormal. When they subsequently film a telekinetic attack by flying furniture, Scott again insists they stay, this time to test his theory. Liam, who owns their transportation, reluctantly agrees, overriding Holly's objections.
During the ghost's next appearance, Liam restarts the house's generator while Scott sets up his equipment. After the machine reaches its lowest frequency, the attack suddenly ends, and Holly admits that the ghost is gone. As the relieved ghost hunters pack up their equipment, Liam notices a strangely-cold corner in the kitchen. Upon further investigation, a hidden passage leads to another room. There, they discover the mummified remains of a woman. Overwhelmed by a paranormal presence, Holly is forced to leave the room, and the others call the police, who, after looking, say there is no body in the room. As the ghost hunters attempt to convince the police officers of their story, Holly is suddenly possessed and reveals that the first ghost was trying to frighten them off and protect them from the second, the woman. The second ghost quickly kills the police officers, then Scott. Liam saves Holly, only to be killed himself. As Holly flees the house, the ghost kills her.In the final Scene the ghost killer finally shows itself and the credits roll. | cult | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0056736 | L'eclisse | On a Monday of July 1961, at dawn, Vittoria (Monica Vitti), a young literary translator, breaks off her relationship with Riccardo (Francisco Rabal) in his apartment in the EUR residential district of Rome, following a long night of conversation. Riccardo tries to persuade her to stay, but she tells him she no longer loves him and leaves. As she walks the deserted early-morning streets past the EUR water tower, Riccardo catches up and walks with her through a wooded area to her apartment building, where they say their final goodbyes.
Sometime later, Vittoria visits her mother (Lilla Brignone) at the frantic Rome Stock Exchange, which is very busy upon Vittoria's entrance. A young stockbroker, Piero (Alain Delon), overhears an inside tip, rushes to purchase the stocks, and then sells them at a large profit. He introduces himself to Vittoria; he is her mother's stock broker. Following the announcement of a colleague's fatal heart attack, the room erupts back into frenzied activity. Outside the building, Vittoria and her mother walk to an open market nearby. Vittoria attempts to discuss her own recent breakup, but her mother is preoccupied with her earned profits.
That evening, Vittoria's neighbor Anita (Rosanna Rory) comes to visit and they discuss the former's breakup. Vittoria says she is depressed, disgusted, and confused. Another neighbor, Marta (Mirella Ricciardi), calls and invites them to her apartment nearby. Marta talks about the farm she and her husband have in Kenya. For a game, Vittoria dresses up as an African dancer with dark makeup, and dances around the apartment. Marta, unamused, asks her to stop. The conversation turns sour as Marta, a colonialist, worries about "monkeys" arming themselves and threatening the minority whites. Vittoria and Anita dismiss such talk. When Marta's dog Zeus gets free of the house, the women take off after him. Vittoria is fascinated by the sound of the fencing in the wind. Back in her apartment, Riccardo calls for her, but she hides and doesn't answer.
The next day, Vittoria and Anita fly to Verona in a small airplane. On the way, Vittoria is fascinated by the clouds. At the airport, she watches the airplanes taking off and landing with childlike wonder. "It's so nice here," she tells Anita. Meanwhile, back at the Rome Stock Exchange, Piero is busy making trades. Vittoria arrives at the Stock Exchange and learns that her mother lost about ten million lire. Another man lost fifty million. Vittoria follows the man through the crowded streets to a small cafe, where she sees him drawing flowers on a small piece of paper and drinking mineral water before moving on. She meets up with Piero and he drives her to her mother's apartment in his Alfa Romeo Giulietta sportscar. She shows him framed family pictures and her room growing up. Piero tries to kiss her but she avoids his pass. Piero drives back to his office on Via Po near Via Salaria, where he must break the bad news to his investors.
After work outside his office, Piero meets with a call girl he previously arranged to meet, but is disappointed that she recently changed her hair color from blonde to brunette. Deciding not to go with her, Piero drives to Vittoria's apartment and stands outside her window. He hears her typing. After a drunk walks by and notices Vittoria at the window, Piero comes over. While they are talking, the drunk steals Piero's sportscar. The next morning, Piero and Vittoria arrive at the crash site where the drunk drove the car into a lake. Vittoria watches as they pull the car with the body from the water. As they walk away, Vittoria is surprised that Piero is concerned about the dents and the motor, rather than the dead man. They enjoy a playful walk through a park. When they reach her building, Vittoria unties a balloon from a carriage and calling to her new friend Marta tells her to shoot the balloon, which she does as it ascends into the sky. When they reach her building, he kisses her, but she seems uneasy. Before she leaves, she drops a piece of wood into a barrel of water.
That evening, Vittoria tries to call Piero, but his phone is busy. When she finally reaches him, she does not speak. The next day, while waiting outside near her house, Vittoria looks in the barrel of water and sees the wood is still there. Piero arrives and tells her he bought a new BMW to replace his Alfa Romeo. She asks to go to his place. They walk past a nurse wheeling a young girl in a baby carriage. Piero takes her to his parents' apartment, which is filled with beautiful works of art and sculpture. As they talk, she seems nervous and unwilling to open up to him: "Two people shouldn't know each other too well if they want to fall in love. But then maybe they shouldn't fall in love at all." They converse playfully, kiss each other through a glass window, and then kiss passionately. After he accidentally tears her dress, she goes into a bedroom and looks at the old family pictures. At the window she looks down to the street where she sees two nuns walking, some people talking at a cafe, a lone soldier standing on a corner waiting. Piero comes to the bedroom and they make love.
Sometime later, Piero and Vittoria are lying on a hill looking up at the sky. He looks around and says, "I feel like I'm in a foreign country." She says that's how she feels around him. He gets upset when he doesn't understand what she's feeling. She says, "I wish I didn't love you or that I loved you much more." Sometime later at his office, Vittoria and Piero kiss and embrace playfully on the couch, even wrestling on the floor like children. When an alarm goes off, they prepare to part. They embrace and talk of seeing each other every day. They agree to meet that evening at 8:00 pm at the "usual place" near her apartment. That evening, on Sunday 10 September 1961, neither shows up at the appointed meeting place. | romantic | train | wikipedia | How intently he gets inside Vittoria's head, and at the same time maintains a detachment despite the varying emotional contexts, is extraordinary, if highly personal.Like Vittoria, Antonioni does something that's fascinating throughout the film - though one doesn't know what it is exactly that holds Vittoria, and for that matter Piero, in their respective attitudes, one doesn't feel quite left out of anything heart-stopping for the story/character's sake.
This is the kind of motion picture that a shot-by-shot analysis would serve like would a Picasso or Chagal.And as a plus to the film's success are the actors turns - Monica Vitti is the only actress from that period and country I can think of who could've pulled off what Antonioni wanted in Vittoria.
That under current to the story - the major bustle and noise of the gamblers in the stockbroker's hall - is also part of the contrast, to the stretches with minimal dialog and sound.The last act, which regards Vittoria's relationship to Piero (a time after he empty break-up with her past lover Rodrigo) culminates in an astonishing feat of storytelling and film-art.
L'Eclisse (1962) is a profoundly artistic, wonderfully crafted modern Italian film, in which the audience is permitted to draw their own conclusions about what they are seeing on the screen.Unlike most directors, who construct their films in very specific, traditional ways to tell stories they wish to convey, in L'Eclisse the director Michelangelo Antonioni paints pictures which mean different things to different people.
The commentator completely misses this message.Acting is superb by all three leads, Monica Vitti, with her finely chiseled face and wild blonde hair, Alain Delon, who conveys emotions easily with just the flick of an eyebrow, and Francisco Rabal, classically handsome and intense.
Also of note is the actress who plays Vittoria's mother, Lila Brignone, who does a good job depicting the emotional distance the character feels from the estranged daughter, which in turn conveys to the audience one of the primary reasons Vittoria is afraid of intimacy: she never had a demonstrative relationship with her mother.If you're a fan of Italian cinema, don't miss L'Eclisse.
L'Eclisse (1962)***1/2 Third film in Antonioni's trilogy of alienation following L'Avventura (1960) and La Notte (1961) about a young woman (Monica Vitti) and her brief affair with handsome Alain Delon.Like in his other movies, Antonioni uses specific techniques not to tell the story but rather to express the lack of communication among the characters, their alienation and incapableness to make a strong and meaningful relation.
Anyway, long cadres, real time events, visual metaphors and visual contrasts between the characters on the one side and landscapes and/or modern day creations like buildings, streets (usually empty) on the other is what makes this rather experience than a plot-movie (intentionally) but nevertheless effective in their purpose (which is to express and transmit this same feelings of alienation to the viewer).
The Eclipse denotes Michelangelo Antonioni 's flawless taste,and his powerful,virile instinct for strong compositions;this elegant and suave movie is one of the cinema's best pieces of poetry (I must also confess that I prefer this early,younger,"black and white" and peninsular Michelangelo Antonioni;he was 50 years when he made L'ECLISSE).Before he approached the '60s counterculture,Antonioni made a few strong movies not only for the intellectuals but also about intellectuals.This one is an incredibly rich movie,a movie about many things:about solitude,financial pawns,a woman's indefinite aspirations,the vibrating city beauty,and the heart's resilience,the woman soul's density,the urban aesthetic;and also about:greed,people that search gropingly .Little wheels in the gearing of the stock exchange;the stock exchange's crushing machine.Antonioni is caustic and sober.His theme,the human monad,is inexhaustible.The naturalness,the charm,the intensity,the integrity,the width of this film must be mentioned.Antonioni proved that,for his cinema,experiments are always ways and means,while the most intense poetry is the aim.(Each great director is an experimenter;all great directors are experimenters,only to be better poets.)Antonioni is one of the three directors who,according to Averty,never made a bad movie (and Antonioni's creation was,for almost two decades, quite abundant;it is only after Blowup (1966) that he went slow,making some seven movies in so many decades).His movies don't have a "sockdolager",that's part of what makes them so good and endearing.Experimenting in countless ways,Antonioni never forgot to be a poet,and never failed.His aesthetic aim has a side of ingenuity and directness that enchants in an unfailing way.And what is Antonioni's poetry?It is this compact texture,this density of the people and of the life,the striking immediacy.It is amazing also how Antonioni put all of himself in this beautiful movie,The Eclipse.Like a few others,The Eclipse is one of the movies that give us the taste of what cinema can be..
Is the answer to somehow find a way to ride the air, rather than be blown hither and thither?In the few Antonioni films I have seen, I do love how the "plot" can drift as much as the characters.
It is so desperately tender; Alain Delon and Monica Vitti are so young and beautiful, and at the same time - so precise in their naiveté; the camera shots are so long and ambiguous, so empty of words.
This film was made in 1962, a year after the Berlin crisis, and in the year of the Cuba crisis when we came very close to nuclear war between the USA and the USSR.The film also depicts the greed of capitalism, as shown in the mad, chaotic scenes in the Rome Stock Exchange and the obsessive gambling of the mother character.The location, with distant shots of Benito Mussolini's EUR buildings on the outskirts of Rome, also suggest a meaningless, empty, soulless Brave New World all overshadowed by the nuclear threat, where people suffer loneliness and depression and feel unable to make long-term commitments..
The materialist Piero and the absent Vittoria begins a monosyllabic relationship."L'Eclisse" is a love story in the world of Michelangelo Antoniani, where the lack of communication, emptiness and loneliness in the big city prevails over the human feelings.
Monica Vitti, the favorite actress of Antonioni, shows a stunning beauty and her alienation of feelings is expressed by her face and few words along the story.
I can't imagine any film student not being advised to watch the last 10 minutes of L'Eclisse by a wise course teacher.Alain Delon could not have been better cast as a shallow and materialistic, young proto-yuppie prat.
Though she was only on screen for a brief while, I admired the performance of Lilla Brignone as Vittoria's Stock Exchange-obsessed mother, completely oblivious to her daughter's emotional states throughout.Monica Vitti, with a wardrobe as varied and flattering as Maggie Cheung's in In the Mood for Love, looks beautiful but is possibly the weakest, or most predictable of the movie's performers.
A young woman (Monica Vitti) meets a vital young man (Alain Delon), but their love affair is doomed because of the man's materialistic nature.Director Martin Scorsese described how the film haunted and inspired him as a young moviegoer, noting it seemed to him a "step forward in storytelling" and "felt less like a story and more like a poem." He adds that the ending is "a frightening way to end a film...
Like much of his work, L' Eclisse (1962) finds director Michelangelo Antonioni creating a slow, fragmented investigation about sight and perception, about people at odds with one another and the world that they inhabit, and left hopeless and weak as their internal thoughts and fears are projected outward, against the world, creating a void that sucks the life from everything, leaving only silence.
This is an idea that can be seen in much of the director's best work, from the other two films that form the basis of this informal trilogy, to his iconic and unconventional examination into the conventions of the thriller with Blowup (1966).L' Eclisse begins with a scene that recalls elements of Antonioni's first film in the trilogy, L'avventura (1960), with a couple going through the motions of a break-up from late evening to early dawn.
The rest of the film is therefore the echo of this event, the emotional fallout in which our central character attempts to reconcile her particular ideas about love and commitment that are at odds with social and economical climate of Italy of this era, eventually leading to the ultimate breakdown of communication at even its most basic of levels.Alongside these central issues, Antonioni riffs on the ideas of confrontation and crisis, framing his story of a relationship break-up against a backdrop of a terrible-stock market crash, and suggesting at the end of the film via a headline on a newspaper of the impending "atomic age"; suggesting further ideas of confrontation and crisis that could eventually follow.
Watching it, I was certainly interested in the characters and concerned about the direction that the story was taking, while on a more superficial level, I loved the scenes set within the stock-market or the vague and elliptical sequence in which the central character follows a man who has just lost his entire life savings on the financial crash and observes him passively draw flowers on a napkin in an almost complete acceptance of his tragic fate; but even in spite of this, the final moments of the film and the sense of emotional connection created after the last credit had rolled, turned this film into an absolute masterpiece; one of those films that I could watch again and again and again and still find the same sense of emotional transcendence that I did the very first time.As ever with Antonioni there will be some viewers who find the film slow and perhaps even boring (though really, there's no such thing as a boring film, just boring viewers) but for me, L' Eclisse was entirely fascinating.
Combined with Antonioni's masterful use of shot composition, editing and production design, which turn elements of suburban Italy into an infernal labyrinth of looming apartment blocks and vast empty spaces of cloudless sky and we have a film that manages, as one viewer puts it, to change our perspective on the world.
His unconventional narrative reveals a naked truth, especially in final scenes.The characters are lost and vague.Monica Vitti as Vittoria is a timid and suspicious young woman, who sees the pieces of greed and lust in the people around her.
The conclusion of Michelangelo Antonioni's trilogy about alienation in the modern world is about a woman (Monica Vitti) who leaves her lover (Francisco Rabal) for a materialistic stockbroker (Alain Delon).
It all blends together into one big picture, while the director seems to be saying: this is how we live, this is where we are going.The movie is full of details, like the necklace made of a solid iron chain that the Vitti character is wearing in her last scene.The final sequence, which is also the climax of the film, can mean anything and nothing.
Monica Vitti and Alain Delon make the two leads more human and real than earlier Antonioni main characters.
With simpler characters and a more predictable story than the counterparts in the two preceding films, L'Eclisse is an unbelievably lazy work to conclude Antonioni's otherwise great 60s trilogy.
Some of Antonioni's best and most accomplished directing can be seen here too, like with 'L'avventura' and 'La Notte' he approaches the subject in a thought-provoking and brutally truthful yet sincere manner that doesn't try too hard.Monica Vitti's performance is one of her best, very alluring in looks and emotionally powerful.
I think it becomes clear in the film that the relationship between Monica Vitti and Alain Delon will also fail, so distant are the ways of being each other, she (apparently) being happy with trivial and simple things and not giving value to money, he extremely "scrambled" and materialistic.
If sexy stars like Monica Vitti and Alain Delon can't lose themselves in a syrupy love story that tricks us into thinking that the world isn't a cruel place, then who can?
I'm not sure if I saw the purpose of these long stock exchange segments - something about materialism and maybe the emptiness of it (e.g. that thing about the money people lost in the crash essentially just disappearing) I suppose.There was this great line by Vitti, something like "I wish I didn't love you or that I loved you more" which was Antonioni at his finest..
I suppose that's the point but it seems like Antonioni stretches things a little too far with the modern alienation in both the beginning and ending of this film.
I can only wonder how a country like Italy, which experienced such enormous loss of life and property in World War II, 17 years later was willing to finance a large number of complex and intelligent films like L'ECLISSE, which could not possibly do well at the box office.It is sad to see that the reflective, thoughtful movie is basically extinct these days, even in Italy, that land of culture, knowledge and beauty.
It is, above all, a sad comment on the human mind which, at the zenith of its technological knowledge, is sadly losing touch with cinema that addresses inner issues such as L'ECLISSE does, namely the vagaries of love hand in hand with the thirst for materialism and sex, and the inexorable passing of time.Alain Delon is excellent in his portrayal of a stock exchange broker who, as Victoria (Vitti) points out, does not stop still but is constantly doing something to make money or to satisfy his lust.
Love is as beyond reach for Vittoria as distant Kenya and the snows on the Kilimanjaro.Photography is superlative (especially the chiaroscuro of the more intimate moments between the leads); screenplay is solid enough to prevent the film sliding into pretentiousness, and to keep you interested, right up to the completely original and unique ending, reflecting the essence of life in all its indifference, inevitability - and passing of time.Early in the movie, there is a sequence at Verona aerodrome, Verona being the town of Romeo and Juliet.
Antonioni's direction shows him at the top of his considerable skills - only BLOW-UP would be (marginally) better.Naturally, in this age of constant change and fast tracking, few would waste time on a thought-provoking film - which is a pity, as it is bound to further erode the audience's level of exigency, and the quality of current movie-making.Grazie mille, Michelangelo!.
While notable for it's naturalistic urban milieu depictions, the stellar production design by production designer and art director Piero Poletto, black-and-white cinematography by Italian cinematographer Gianni di Venanzo (1920-1966) and the fine editing by Italian film editor Eraldo Da Roma, this character-driven and dialog-driven drama which examines themes like interpersonal relations, interpersonal communication, alienation and love contains an efficient score by Italian 20th century composer Giovanni Fusco (1906-1968).This rhythmic, somewhat romantic and at times significantly atmospheric story where the distance between the characters and the violence within the frames and the use of light creates a poignant underlying tension, depicts a condensed study of character and is impelled and reinforced by it's fragmented narrative structure and the compelling acting performances by French-Swiss actor Alain Delon and Italian actress Monica Vitti.
Monica Vitti like in other Antonioni's film's, on her class and beauty.
We get the first inklings of the emptiness of desire, Antonioni would perfect this in his following film.The importance of all this is perhaps that in 1962 it was desirable to see a love story done this way.
Maybe, every film shapes how we watch other movies.Antonioni makes me more aware of the architecture of scene—that is just one aspect of his work.
From director Michelangelo Antonioni (L'Avventura, Blowup), this film listed in the book of 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die sounded interesting enough, I obviously had no idea about the concept or what it would be about, in a way that was a good thing, I like to surprised.
Basically the tale sees Vittoria (Monica Vitti) having an imperfect relationship with staunch intellectual Riccardo (Francisco Rabal) and suffering a breakup, and soon after attracting romantic feelings from stockbroker Piero (Alain Delon).
This movie gives off a degree of science fiction, with such utter significance to framing and blocking off things towards the idea of obscurity that it doesn't seem to exist in our world, a world where we move aside to get out of the way, or focus on infinite planes of existence rather than many.Not all the film is like this, of course, because we do have a story, and the story is about the ultimately doomed relationship of a stock market broker and a young woman who only fits in with the world of perpendicular obscured objects.
Well, 43 years of film school will do that to a medium: every major director has doubtless studied *L'Eclisse* in class, and even if today's Big-Shot Director doesn't make movies like this anymore, Antonioni's influence weighs heavily on even the most commercial work of today.
Trying to describe what the film - or any other work by Antonioni - is about, is not a simple task as it can't be reduced to a plot synopsis, although it is definitely preoccupied with the narrative space between events, actions and intentional dialogue.The opening scene is a long sequence set in an apartment showing two lovers, Vittoria (Monica Vitti) and Riccardo (Francisco Rabal), at the end of a love affair.
Michelangelo Antonioni's L'Eclisse (The Eclipse), his 1962 black and white capstone of his Alienation Trilogy that began with L'Avventura and continued with La Notte, is arguably a great film, but still a cut or two below its immediate predecessor, the indisputably brilliant La Notte, simply because it lacks the story and excellent portrayal of a human relationship that that earlier film has.
Being the last film that Antonioni shot in black and white, it closes a chapter and with colour in The Red Desert, opens a new one.L'Eclisse opens with a man and woman in total silence in an apartment. |
tt0013556 | Robin Hood | Alan-a-Dale introduces the story of Robin Hood and Little John, two outlaws living in Sherwood Forest, where they rob from the rich and give to the poor townsfolk of Nottingham, despite the efforts of the Sheriff of Nottingham to stop them. Meanwhile, Prince John and his assistant Sir Hiss arrive in Nottingham on a tour of the kingdom. Knowing the royal coach is laden with riches, Robin and Little John rob Prince John by disguising themselves as fortune tellers. The embarrassed Prince John then puts a bounty on their heads and makes the Sheriff his personal tax collector, who takes pleasure in collecting funds from the townsfolk including hidden money from the crippled blacksmith Otto and a single farthing from a young rabbit, Skippy, who had just received it as a birthday present. However, Robin Hood, disguised as a beggar, sneaks in and gives back some money to the family, as well as his hat and a bow to Skippy in honor of his birthday.
Skippy and his friends test out the bow, but Skippy fires an arrow into the grounds of Maid Marian's castle. The children sneak inside, meeting Maid Marian and her attendant Lady Kluck. Skippy "rescues" Marian from Lady Kluck, who pretends to be a pompous Prince John. Later, when she is alone with Kluck, Maid Marian reveals she and Robin were childhood sweethearts but they have not seen one another for years, and Kluck consoles her not to give up on her love for Robin. Meanwhile, Friar Tuck visits Robin and Little John, explaining that Prince John is hosting an archery tournament, and the winner will receive a kiss from Maid Marian. Robin decides to participate in the tournament disguised as a stork whilst Little John disguises himself as the Duke of Chutney to get near Prince John. Sir Hiss discovers Robin's identity but is trapped in a barrel of ale by Friar Tuck and Alan-a-Dale. Robin wins the tournament, but Prince John exposes him and has him arrested for execution despite Maid Marian's pleas. Little John threatens Prince John in order to release Robin, which leads to a fight between Prince John's soldiers and the townsfolk, all of which escape to Sherwood Forest.
As Robin and Maid Marian fall in love again, the townsfolk have a troubadour festival spoofing Prince John, describing him as the "Phony King of England", and the song soon becomes popular with John's soldiers. Enraged by the insult, Prince John triples the taxes, imprisoning most of the townsfolk who cannot pay. A paltry coin gets deposited into the poor box at Friar Tuck's church, which gets seized by the Sheriff. Enraged that government has meddled in his church, Friar Tuck lashes out at the Sheriff, to which he is quickly arrested for "attacking a lawman, interfering with the Sheriff's legal duties and high treason to the Crown". Prince John orders Friar Tuck hung, knowing Robin Hood will come out of hiding to rescue his friend and give the potential for Robin to be caught and a "double hanging".
Robin and Little John, having learned of the plot, chose to sneak in during the night, with Little John managing to free all of the prisoners whilst Robin steals Prince John's taxes, but Sir Hiss awakens to find Robin fleeing. Chaos follows as Robin and the others try to escape to Sherwood Forest. The Sheriff corners Robin after he is forced to return to rescue Tagalong, Skippy's little sister. During the chase, Prince John's castle catches fire and the Sheriff figures he has Robin where he wants, either to be captured, burned, or make a risky jump into the moat. Robin Hood elects to jump. Little John and Skippy fear Robin is lost, but he surfaces safely after using a reed as a breathing tube. Sir Hiss says he tried to warn Prince John, and now look what he did to his mother's castle, causing the Prince to exclaim "Mummy!" and suck his thumb and chase the terrified snake into the burning castle.
Later, King Richard returns to England, placing his brother, Sir Hiss and the Sheriff under arrest and allows his niece Maid Marian to marry Robin Hood, turning the former outlaw into an in-law.
=== Alternate ending ===
The alternate ending (included in the "Most Wanted Edition" DVD) is a deleted version of the story's conclusion, primarily utilizing still images from Ken Anderson's original storyboard drawings of the sequence. As Robin Hood leaps off of the castle and into the moat, he is wounded (presumably by one of the arrows shot into the water after him) and carried away to the church for safety. Prince John, enraged that he has once again been outwitted by Robin Hood, finds Little John leaving the church, and suspects the outlaw to be there as well. Sure enough, he finds Maid Marian tending to an unconscious Robin Hood, and draws a dagger to kill them both. Before Prince John can strike, however, he is stopped by his brother, King Richard, having returned from the Crusades. King Richard is appalled to find that Prince John has left his kingdom bleak and oppressed. Abiding his mother's wishes, King Richard decides he cannot banish Prince John from the kingdom, but does grant him severe punishment (which explained how Prince John, Sir Hiss, and the Sheriff ended up in the Royal Rock Pile). King Richard returns Nottingham to its former glory (before leaving for the Third Crusade), knights Robin Hood as Sir Robin of Locksley, and orders Friar Tuck to marry Robin Hood and Maid Marian.
A short finished scene from the planned original ending, featuring King Richard and revealing himself to vulture henchmen Trigger and Nutsy, appeared in the Ken Anderson episode of the 1980s Disney Channel documentary series Disney Family Album. This scene, at least in animated form, does not appear on the Most Wanted Edition DVD. | good versus evil, action, murder | train | wikipedia | A film like Robin Hood loses so much on the small tube.It was one of the most expensive films ever done during the silent era, the castle set for King Richard the Lion Hearted must have been cost a mint or two.
The producer being Fairbanks himself had infinite faith in his prowess at the box office.Alan Hale made the first of three appearances as Little John in various Robin Hood films.
He was also Little John with Errol Flynn in the Adventures of Robin Hood and with John Derek in Rogue of Sherwood Forest.
Little John here has a very extensive and different part, Hale is first seen as Fairbanks's squire before circumstances force Doug into outlawry.Fairbanks is the Earl of Huntingdon, favored knight of Richard the Lion Hearted.
John as played by Sam DeGrasse covets his brother's throne and Gisborne played by Paul Dickey has designs on Lady Marian Fitzwalter (Enid Bennett) beloved of Fairbanks.Fairbanks and Dickey go along on the Crusade with DeGrasse left to mind the store and steal the kingdom.
Of course Fairbanks escapes and the real meat of the film begins.All the sidebar stories about the various characters among the Merry Men join Robin are not included in this film.
Fairbanks and Hale escape and go back to England where he becomes the legendary Robin Hood.Wallace Beery is a most unusual Richard.
This Fairbanks film as did the others he made had a great message about right coming out on top, good triumphing over evil and good embodied in the clean living physical specimen of Douglas Fairbanks.It's hard to imagine, but in the silent screen era as in no other, movie stars were placed on a pedestal as they aren't now.
Mary lived in it in fact until she died in 1979 after the fairy tale marriage fell apart in the more sobering decade of the Thirties.I could not have had the experience of Robin Hood that I did had I not seen the film at a special screening in Shea's Theater in my city of Buffalo.
And you will get some idea in watching Robin Hood as to why Douglas Fairbanks was the ideal man of his times..
The Douglas Fairbanks version of "Robin Hood" is still good entertainment despite showing its age at times.
Later versions, such as the Errol Flynn version which is still the best of all the Robin Hood movies, had many resources available to them that this one didn't, but this older version works well and is more enjoyable than most of the more recent movies based on the legend.The story and characters are familiar from many other books and movies.
It makes it interesting to watch even if you've already seen plenty of other "Robin Hoods", and amongst other things it gives Beery as Richard a lot more screen time.
Impressive looking early Douglas Fairbanks Robin Hood adventure..
It's the first Robin Hood adaptation though which featured many of the elements of the legend that would be featured in most later movie versions.
The difference is mostly notable in the movie its first halve, which focuses mostly on the crusades Earl of Huntingdon/Robin Hood with King Richard the Lion-Hearted ventures on.
Basically the movie its first halve is one big introduction till the movie hits the point at which the Earl of Huntingdon finally becomes the courageous and honorable thief with the good intentions Robin Hood.
They made a total of 11 movies together, of which this one and "The Iron Mask" are the best known ones which they did together.It stars Douglas Fairbanks as the main lead, so of course this movie is a swashbuckler with plenty of action in it but what sort of disappointed me about the movie was that it wasn't really always an entertaining one.
This is mostly why I still prefer the 1938 Errol Flynn Robin Hood movie version above this one, no matter how great it's all looking.It's really the movie its second halve which still makes this such a fun movie to watch.
Of course Douglas Fairbanks was doing all of his own stunts again and he shows some dangerous antics again in this movie, like only he could back in his days.
Like all Robin Hood films as well as the various Ivanhoe films, King Richard I (a.k.a.
Instead, the Robin we know about is passed down from legends and songs and as a result, there are many differing (and often diametrically opposed) stories about this swell guy--all of which are pure hogwash.Now you'd think after my complaints that I couldn't have possibly liked the film.
While I have some doubts as to the truth of contemporary stories that Douglas Fairbanks did ALL his own stunts, the stunt-work in this film is as good as any silent film--and better than what you'll even find today.
The plot is pretty good as well--and I especially like how the lion's share (nice choice of words, huh?) is about how Robin came to be an outlaw--something even the wonderful Errol Flynn version failed to do (though it, too, is a classic).
But after Huntingdon goes AWOL on King Richard's Crusades (which are disturbingly glorified in this movie) to protect England from the tyranny of evil Prince John and adopts the alias Robin Hood, things suddenly start moving at break-neck speed.Douglas Fairbanks shines in this film, creating a Robin Hood with surprising heart and humanity for a silent movie.
But in a movie that was a big-budget blockbuster for the 1920s, Fairbanks's star is often eclipsed by needless pageantry, as well as by his own less-talented co-stars, particularly Wallace Beery as King Richard, the so-called "lion hearted" king who spends most of the movie laughing.
Before long, you'll be wondering why the heck everyone in Nottingham reveres this guy, or you'll be asking the question I heard someone sitting near me in the theater whisper: "What is so funny, anyway?" Enid Bennett, playing Lady Marian, seems like a good actress, but it is hard to tell, as she's given little more to do than faint whenever a fight starts and wake up once the action's over.
The film draws heavily on the romantic heritage of chivalry, and favors the origins of the character over his legendary exploits, following the Earl of Huntingdon (not Locksley, as in later films) into the Crusades, where he and King Richard are marked for death by the treacherous Sir Guy of Gisbourne.
It isn't until the fourth (or fifth) reel that Douglas Fairbanks (in one of his definitive roles) finally exchanges his suit of armor for Robin's trademark feathered cap, and goes (literally) skipping through Sherwood Forest.
This he does in disguise as an outlaw, taking the name of ROBIN HOOD.This was Douglas Fairbanks' exciting homage to one of our greatest legends.
The film is full of pomp & pageantry and if Fairbanks' style of acting seems to have dated, that does not in the least detract from the pure enjoyment of watching this silent epic.
The archaic wording of many of the title cards can be a trifle annoying, but it's important to remember that Fairbanks was trying to impart an authentic medieval flavour to the film.Wallace Beery is a bluff & hearty Richard.
Alan Hale plays Little John, a role he would assume again 16 years later in the Errol Flynn version.Huntingdon does not become Robin Hood until more than half the film has passed.
One of the biggest & most impressive sets ever constructed for a silent film - Nottingham Castle - is featured here.
Needless to say his stunts are superb, the sets amazing and the crowd scenes crowded (have there ever been that many merry men ever?).Allan Dwan was not the greatest silent director - his visual style is not as strong as say Fred Niblo or Rex Ingram - but there are some memorable visuals - and a particularly gorgeous final image.The film gets off to a rather slow start - I could have done with less of the build-up to the Sherwood scenes, which are certainly the highlight.
But Wallace Beery, Enid Bennett and Alan Hale (he played Little John again in 1939) are all excellent.
Fairbanks was a great choice to play Robin Hood, it's just too bad we don't get to see him swing into action as the bandit of Sherwood until after a long, drawn-out first half concerning King Richard and Huntingdon (Robin) heading off for the Crusades.
Errol Flynn's version improved on it by a mile in 1938, leaving out the fat and concerning itself only with Robin's adventures in Sherwood, and adding more heart and humor if not replicating the grand scale of pageantry depicted in this version.Providing a link between both films, of course, is Alan Hale Sr. playing Little John.
As far as other cast members, Wallace Beery is memorable as King Richard and Sam de Grasse is a perfectly snide Prince John.
The other cast members are adequate enough.The DVD edition of this film provides a very nice print and is well worth viewing if you enjoy old silents, or are a fan of the Robin Hood legend as I am.
Many purists have complained about the musical soundtrack but not being an aesthete of Silent films myself I found it to be not too bad.Not the classic version of Robin Hood on film but still, there are many things to like about it..
Among those cheering and jeering are: the people's beloved King, the generous Wallace Beery (as Richard the Lion-Hearted); his sinister brother Sam De Grasse (as Prince John), who covets Mr. Berry's throne; and, the fairest maiden in the land, Enid Bennett (as Lady Marian Fitzwalter).
For most of the running time, the film is laboriously paced; and, some of the directorial shots are lingering and unimaginative.After Fairbanks becomes "Robin Hood", the film picks up (it takes well over an hour); and, it becomes much more exciting.
Notable merry man Alan Hale (as Little John) reprised his role, for both Erroll Flynn in "The Adventures of Robin Hood" (1938), and John Derek in "Rogues of Sherwood Forest" (1950).
******** Robin Hood (10/18/22) Allan Dwan ~ Douglas Fairbanks, Wallace Beery, Sam de Grasse, Enid Bennett.
One thing that bothered me is how long the movie spends with the Earl at the Crusades before he becomes Robin Hood.
When Robin Hood finally arrives (roughly two thirds in), the movie comes alive with Fairbanks' trademark swordfights, stuntwork, and bravado.
Big Bad Wallace Beery makes a good King Richard, and this film spends more time with Richard than any other I've seen, but his subplot failed to capture my interest.
It was a pleasure to see Alan Hale as Little John (he would reprise the role in Adventures, and again in Rogues of Sherwood Forest), but was disappointed that he and the other Merry Men receive little introduction.KEVIN: I definitely did not enjoy Robin Hood as much as Zorro, and of all the versions of Robin Hood that I've seen, I think I enjoyed this one the least.
Huntingdon (as he is known in this version) doesn't become Robin Hood until two-thirds into the film.
Also, this is the only version I've seen that chronicles Prince John's takeover within the narrative, as the film starts with King Richard (Wallace Beery) leaving for the Crusades.
Robin Hood (1922) is not an ideal introduction to the charismatic action star Douglas Fairbanks.
The scene where Marian and Robin meet again in the woods, surrounded by shafts of light coming through the trees, has haunted me since I first watched it.Fairbanks' portrayal will not displace Errol Flynn as the ideal Robin, but he lends a bit more gravity to the role while still keeping his characterization breezy and fun.
Enid Bennett's Marian is not representative of the great talent she possessed, but she is suitably ethereal and queenly.Kevin Brownlow praised Wallace Beery's King Richard as "brilliant," but he feels more like a goofy frat boy than a noble king to me.The action scenes are fantastic, made all the better by the fact that these are real people and not CG renderings which come across as fake.A visual masterpiece, but if you want to be thoroughly entertained, then check out The Black Pirate (1926) or The Mark of Zorro (1920)..
Great fun and the second best Robin Hood.
There are shortcomings to this 1922 film, it does take too long to get going and Wallace Beery for personal tastes plays Richard too broadly with the laughter overdone, but it is the second best of a mostly entertaining bunch of Robin Hood films.
The film looks big and grand as well as lavish and detailed, one of the best-looking Douglas Fairbanks films, even without Technicolor it looks absolutely great.
That we know more than any other version of how Robin Hood came to be is one of the film's biggest interest points.
In conclusion, a terrific amount of fun and compares very favourably to the Robin Hood films out there, much of the Sherwood scenes are very imaginatively handled.
There are many good things in this film, and it's well worth a look, but it does get kind of Fairbanks style hammy.
Alan Hale plays Little John, and did again 16 years later in the Errol Flynn Version..
Robin Hood shows how silent movies improved over the years.
Douglas Fairbanks's Robin Hood starts with more than an hour of backstory, ponderously paced with heroes and villains alike hulking around in chain mail declaiming in mime that is way over the top.
Wallace Beery is horribly miscast as King Richard; the actor playing Prince John, Sam de Grasse, is actually pretty good, though he too indulges in occasional broad mime.
The Robin Hood parts of the movie are few and far between; we get barely a nodding acquaintance with the usual cronies--Little John, Friar Tuck et al.
There've been a lot of better Robin Hoods since this flatfooted film (Errol Flynn and Richard Greene to name my two reference points).
The story is well told with the images and the film is fun when seen with live accompaniment.The rendition of Robin Hoods 'Merry Men' could obviously be the inspiration for Mel Brooks 'Men in tights'..
My favorite Robin Hood film.
The best Robin Hood movie I've ever seen!
I had never seen another Robin Hood movie do so much of that so well.
I loved this movie, and as I said, it's my favorite Robin Hood film..
The Earl of Huntingdon (Douglas Fairbanks), who's ace at jousting but scared of girls, goes off to fight in the Crusades as Richard the Lionheart's (Wallace Beery) second-in-command.
The film is set in "the time of faith" and its arresting visual sense draws memorably on Christian iconography, particularly when Robin and Marian are reunited in the grounds of a nunnery under shafts of light streaming through the trees and, later, when she cowers by an altar in Richard's castle.
The music by Victor Schertzinger might not quite match Erich von Korngold's famous score for The Adventures of Robin Hood (the 1938 film, with Errol Flynn in the lead), but it's pretty damn great.
Alan Hale reprised his role as Little John in the 1938 film where, unlike here, he got to fight the hero while standing on a log..
(Flash Review)I gave a silent version of Robin Hood a shot and it was fairly entertaining and impressive with its huge production effort.
The Good King Richard of Nottingham leaves for battle; the Crusades.
Later, the Robin Hood character emerges and as well all know takes from the rich and gives to the poor while proclaiming King Richard is still King.
In fact, he seems to fit the role perfectly.Wallace Beery is also ideally cast as the murderous Prince John, while Alan Hale enacts the first of his three performances as Little John.
Hale repeated the role in both the 1938 "Adventures of Robin Hood" and the 1950 "Rogues of Sherwood Forest".This action-full movie actually cost $1,500,000 to make - and it's all up there on the screen!
Oh, to be twelve-years-old and lost in the Hollywood fantasy of knighthood and chivalry that is Douglas Fairbanks' Robin Hood (1922)!
Hollywood pioneer and Fairbanks favorite Allan Dwan directed a cast of thousands, including Wallace Beery as Richard the Lion-Hearted, Alan Hale as Little John and wide-eyed ingenue Enid Bennett as Maid Marion, on monumental sets, in what has become the epitome of action adventure..
The Best of All of The "Robin Hood" Movies!.
Ironically, the best version of this adventure epic is "Sands of Iwo Jima" director Allan Dwan's silent "Robin Hood" with the ever agile Douglas Fairbanks, Sr. Reportedly, Fairbanks produced this movie for the staggering sum of one point five million dollars and he penned the screenplay, too.
Now, you're going to say "no way" can a creaky old silent saga top the incomparable Errol Flynn Technicolor classic "The Adventures of Robin Hood." Nevertheless, the Flynn "Robin Hood" lacks the spectacle of the Fairbanks' version.
Moreover, none of the later "Robin Hood" pictures devote over an hour to the Earl of Huntingdon's back story.
Indeed, there is far more spectacle here, especially when Robin makes his first appearance and eludes his enemy at King John's castle.
The only drawback to this 1923 masterpiece is that it doesn't have Technicolor like "The Adventures of Robin Hood" and film as a cinematic art had not developed as much by 1923 as it later did by 1938.
King Richard (Wallace Beery of "The Champ") gathers an army to go on his Crusade to the Holy Land and Huntingdon accompanies him and proves his valor several times over.
Little John helps Huntingdon escape and they return to England to fight King John.All the familiar characters, such as Allan-A-Dale, Will Scarlet, and Friar Tuck are conspicuously present when Robin and his Merry Men redistribute the wealth to the poor and the needy.Douglas Fairbanks is appropriately flamboyant as the protagonist. |
tt0065963 | The Landlord | Elgar Enders (Beau Bridges), a man who lives off his parents' wealth, buys himself an inner-city tenement, in the transitional neighborhood of 1970 Park Slope, Brooklyn, planning to evict all the occupants and construct a luxury home for himself. However, once he ventures into the tenement, he gradually grows fond of the low-income black residents who dwell there. Enders decides to remain as the landlord, and help fix the apartment building. He rebels against his WASP upbringing, and to his parents' dismay, he romances two black women.
Elgar falls for Lanie (Marki Bey), a dancer at a local black club. Lanie is a beautiful black woman who has a mother of Irish descent, and a father of African descent, thus she has light skin and features, and has experienced colorism because of it. Their relationship is strained, as Elgar has an affair with one of his tenants, Fanny (Diana Sands), and gets her pregnant. Consequently, her boyfriend Copee (Louis Gossett, Jr.), a black activist with an identity crisis, is enraged when he finds out about the pregnancy, and tries to kill Elgar with an axe. He ultimately stops. The Enders family is shaken and stirred by their son's decisions and behavior, but reluctantly accepts him. Ultimately, Fanny gives the child up for adoption to start a new life. The story ends with Elgar taking custody of child, mending his relationship with Lanie, and moving in with her and the baby. | satire, flashback | train | wikipedia | This story is about a young white entrepreneur named Elgar Enders (Beau Bridges) and he buys a New York tenement in a ghetto with plans on having the tenants move out so he can renovate it into his own place to live.
Elgar gets a lot of flack from his parents and his mother Joyce (Lee Grant) who doesn't understand him says she will help him with new curtains.
Elgar meets a light skinned black woman named Lanie (Marki Bey) and he falls in love and wants to marry her but Franny shows up at his door one day and tells him that she is pregnant with his child.
This film was directed by the great Hal Ashby who makes his directorial debut after spending many years working as an editor.
Ashby uses colors to make points like the all white house and white clothing that the Enders have while the run down tenement that is occupied by mainly black residents has mainly gray tones with some of the interior shots having red.
Lee Grant picked up an Oscar Nomination for her funny role as Bridges mother and the scene with her and Pearl Bailey is a classic.
It dealt with people trying to break free from stereotypes, people struggling to be proud of who they are and be accepted for who they are, and some people not even knowing who they are, trying to find their niche.I love the scene at the party that was supposedly in honor of Elgar, where more than one person tells him what it feels like to go from being an outcast to being the envy of everyone.
As one of the scruffy underdog filmmakers of the 1970s- who's career unfortunately faltered in the 80s before his untimely death at 59- Hal Ashby was good at taking a set of characters and a particular idea or theme and getting under the surface just enough to make a mark, while also keeping it an oddly entertaining and accessible as a picture for the art houses.
Many times he'll just let a scene play out, giving the actors the freedom to work with the script their way, and then other times he'll implement montage- or just a subliminal cut-away (or not so subliminal, as Lee Grant envisions an African tribe going to the Park Slope building, and a whole pack of black babies upon hearing about a little 'accident' her step-son caused late in the film).I was really struck by how he uses experimentation for equal uses of humor, abstraction, and to just feel out the mood of the character(s) in the scene.
Meanwhile, Ashby has the best photography back up a first-time director could ask for: Gordon Willis and Michael Chapman, who give the film a look sometimes of lightness, especially when Elgar is at the family home and the walls are all a bland white, or seem to be; then other times they light it darker, like in a more intimate setting like Elgar and Lanie out by the beach at night, or just when at the Park Slope apartment.
A scene especially with Elgar and Fanny is effective, not simply because she actually comments on how the red light makes her look a certain way- it's the timing of the actors, the awkward but strong sexual tension, and the red light, and the soft soul music coming up, that makes it one of the best scenes Ashby's ever filmed, thanks to the right team.If the style verges on being a little "dated" here and there, like in the opening minutes as Elgar talks to the camera and says what he intends to do with the tenement, or those extreme close-ups of Elgar kissing with Lanie (which are quite striking on their own), its attitude towards the pure human problems of race haven't diminished that much.
I liked seeing Bridges, who is spot-on as the total naive future yuppie who's heart is in the right place but confused how to really go about it as the new landlord, interact with the other apartment dwellers, their 'welcoming' by chasing him away with a flowered pot in his hands, or at the party when after getting him good and drunk tell him what it's really all about in first-person takes.
And most of all it's funny and challenging to see, especially during a tense period around 1969 when it was filmed, how essential decency on either side of the race coin could get complicated by love and lust, of the rich family understandably not understanding how Elgar could go through this- not to mention the eventual 'mixed' dating and the pregnancy- and at the same time the tenees never totally knowing why, aside from foolish design ambitions, wanted to run the place to start with.The best laughs end up coming from the awkward moments, and the obvious ones, as the subtle moments are meant to be more quiet and the 'big' laughs to come from the interaction of not just in terms of race but class; watch as everyone in the building uses the drapes from Joyce (Lee Grant in a well deserved Oscar nom performance) as clothes and head-dressing, or when Joyce has some pot liquor with Marge, who knows her better than her own family probably does.
Ashby and his writers (both screenwriter and novelist were African-Americans) know not to slam every point home either, which uplifts the comedy to an honest playing field, which means that when a scene like the quasi-climax when Copee finds out about the pregnancy and flips out with an ax at Elgar it's not really all that jokey, when it easily could've been played as such for an exploitation effect.
Only the very ending, which feels complicated by a sort of need to tidy things up with Elgar, Janie and the baby, feels sort of forced (not helped by the end song, not too ironic, called God Bless the Children).But as it stands, the Landlord is provocative fun, if that makes sense, as it works as cool satire, led by sure-fire performances (Bridges has rarely been this good at being true to a mostly unsympathetic character), and it points the way for a career that the director would have where oddball slices of life wouldn't mean there wasn't larger points being made.
It is a great movie that is able to drive several points home--consisting of racial prejudice, the view of African-American lifestyle at that point in time, and even the social snobbery that can occur in the upper-class.
Recently watched Hal Ashby's directorial debut, "The Landlord" at Manhattan's Film Forum.
Certainly one of the Top 10 films of 1970, this ingenious comedy directed by Hal Ashby has never gotten the recognition it so deserves.
Lee Grant (one of the best) is coy and cunning and wonderful as Bridges' mother and Diana Sands is heartbreaking, with excellent work from Lou Gossett and Pearl Bailey.Great music and a topical plot, you can't help but get involved with this rich young man's "plight".
Of all the pictures I have seen dealing with race in America, it is by far the most confrontational, and really the only of this period that really challenges white social supremacy as well as overt racism.The late 60s and early 70s was really the age of the odd-looking movie, especially with all the new, young directors that were cropping up.
The Landlord was the debut of Hal Ashby, a former editor who had recently won an Oscar for his very fine job on another race-related movie, In the Heat of the Night.
He will then suddenly take us by surprise with a close-up as a character delivers some key line of dialogue.In line with Mr Ashby having been an editor, The Landlord is very much an editor's movie.
Hal Ashby's debut film may be somewhat over-directed, but it is one of his best;funny, provocative and pointed.
Lee Grant is terrific as Bridge's mother and earned an Oscar nomination for supporting actress and no less memorable are Diana Sands, Pearl Bailey, and Louis Gossett Jr. Bridges is winning as the landlord who arrives to make change and winds up being changed and Trish Van Devere is funny in her one scene.
And, while it was meant as a bit of shocking film in its day, today it seems a tad dated and Bridges' character a bit unlikable.I think aside from this mixed focus, I was also disappointed because the film was directed by the same man that did the delicious black comedy, HAROLD AND MAUDE.
Hal Ashby (famous for the likes of "Harold and Maude", "The Last Detail", "Shampoo", "Bound for Glory", "Coming Home" and "Being There") made his directorial debut with the offbeat Beau Bridges vehicle "The Landlord".
Bridges plays Elgar Enders, the son of a wealthy - but pretty despondent - landlady (Lee Grant).
So when Elgar takes over the apartment building, he not only decides to change things for the better, but he also begins to develop a relationship with one of the women in the building.Like many movies that came out around 1970, this one features numerous jump cuts between totally different scenes.
Our hero here is Elgar Winthrop Julius Enders (Beau Bridges), age 29, a White, rich, and very naïve man who, much to the disgust of his hateful bourgeoisie family, cheerily buys a rundown urban tenement building, filled with Black, poor, and very sophisticated adults and street-wise kids.
Elgar thus sets himself up to be caught in the middle of an inevitable culture clash.Director Hal Ashby creates a cinematic social commentary suited to the late 1960s and early 70s that is both comedic and thoughtful.
Thanks to the smart and adroit direction of Hal Ashby, The Landlord is pretty funny considering the uneven and misappropriated dialogue.
Beau Bridges plays a rich white kid who buys a tenement slum in a Brooklyn neighborhood mostly populated by blacks; he quickly butts heads with the ambivalent tenants over his plans for the property.
It's an ambitious movie with a fine cast (including Lee Grant as Bridges' dotty mother and Diana Sands as his eventual lover), but the picture intrinsically has no style at all--it's a movie made in the editing room, and it is so punctuated with a kind of lazy ambition that there's very little to respond to.
Thank God there was a time that wasn't PC and things could be shown as they were and not as someone wished they would be.As America struggled with the issues of race and prejudice, a movie such as this came along and tried to show that color shouldn't be a barrier to true love and friendship.
The barriers have been somewhat broken, although some may say it was forced on white america with all the affirmative action laws and equal rights.I always thought Beau Bridges was one of the least attractive actors whatwith his big bushy eyebrows, but after I saw The Landlord, he was actually somewhat handsome and cute in his 20's!
Beau Bridges even mentions it to his mother that she might like his new black girlfriend because she was "very light".
His eccentric mother, played wonderfully by Lee Grant is a real hoot, but the heart of the film belongs to the people who live, dream, struggle and love in this apartment building.
With direction by Hal Ashby, the film has an affection for its complicated characters and their drive to get through today and to have a better tomorrow.
Watch "The Landlord" and see Beau Bridges at his best as he is in the raw reality of 1970s New York..
Continuing to review movies featuring African-Americans in chronological order for Black History Month, we're now at 1970 when Diana Sands, Louis Gossett Jr., Pearl Bailey, Mel Stewart, and a light-skinned Marki Bey appeared in Hal Ashby's directorial debut having just won the Oscar for Best Editing on In the Heat of the Night for mentor Norman Jewison who produced this.
The actual star is Caucasian Beau Bridges who's a rich son of Lee Grant who wants his own place so he buys a tenement building to convert into his own pad but is reluctant to throw the mostly dark-skinned borders out.
Sheltered rich boy Beau Bridges buys a tenement in an African-American Brooklyn ghetto, with the idea of fixing it up as a home for himself, only to get deeply involved with the various eccentric characters who live there.While making a cartoon of the rich white world, it's a funny, insightful cartoon (maybe not quite up to "Harold and Maude", but in a similar universe), and the fact that no one i either world is let off the hook for their actions and attitudes, and real people pay real prices gives this an edge.
Beau Bridges in a great , rare seen film.
I saw on it on Turner Classic Movies and after a couple ofminutes of watching it, I knew it was good.Beau Bridges is the son of a wealthy but racist white mom, who falls in love with a black woman named Fanny and who ends up actually having a baby with her!!!Elgar's mother, Mrs. Enders is the owner of a building inwhich several black people live in.
Mrs. Enders cares nothing about the people except that they pay her on time with rent.Elgar, on the other hand, is a sensitive and open mindedguy who gets along with everyone in the building with theexception of a black racist professor named Professor Duboise (Melvin Stewart).
Making things more complicated isthe fact, that black men and women still didn't have the rights that white people in the time.
It's a great example of great cinema directing, in one scene, Elgar Enders (Beau) has just made love toFanny, then the girls leans over and tells him that sheloves her boyfriend Copee (played by Louis Gosset Jr inone of his first movie appearences).
In fact, throughout the film, Elgar is actually happier with hisblack friends than with his own mother.*There are several messages about the dysfunctional family.Elgar's mother (Lee Grant) is a rich white woman who has everything, yet she is a cold, miserable woman.
Lee Grant plays Bridges' mother, and does so with panache, being the classic bitchy White snob.
Hal Ashby released a string of excellent films in the 1970s ("Harold and Maude", "The Last Detail", "Bound for Glory", "Coming Home", "Being There", "Shampoo").
The first film by director Hal Ashby, "The Landlord" is a mixed bag.
The story centers on Elgar (Beau Bridges), a white man from a wealthy upper class family who moves into a lower class apartment building in New York.
Elgar takes over the building as the landlord, intending to evict all of the African American tenants living inside.
Scenes, such as the party in the middle of the movie, where the tenants discuss with Elgar what it is to be a minority at the time, or one towards the end of the film, where an African American activist breaks down and goes on a rant of racial self hate, are both chilling and unforgettable.
Dianna Sands is the standout of the movie, playing the tragic Fanny with such real emotion and likability that you can't help but feel for her character during the more dramatic scenes of the film.
Lou Gossett Jr, Pearl Bailey, Mel Stewart, and Lee Grant are also great in their respective roles.That said, the film does have its share of problems.
Lanie, Elgar's biracial girlfriend, never gets enough screen time for their confessed love towards the end of the movie to seem as genuine as it should.
The mentioned third act pregnancy plot takes the character back to the thoughtlessness he displayed in the beginning of the film, making it difficult to like him or care much about his trials in the end.
The Landlord is a good film with biting social and racial commentary, however the melodramatic elements in the story, and uneven script hold it back from being truly great..
Social satire about a rich white kid (Beau Bridges) buying a tenement in a poor black neighborhood (Park Slope, Brooklyn).
The lighter side of the wealthy white on Long Island versus a black Brooklyn ghetto is depicted in this 1970 film.The Jeff Bridges character isn't as fair as you would think a 29 year old liberal would be.
He buys a building in the ghetto with the idea of forcing out the tenants living there and making it a luxury house.It is true that Lee Grant steals the film and received a best supporting actress Oscar nomination.
pearl Bailey shows up in the film as a tenant in the building.
One of the moments is a movie called "The Landlord," an adept, racially-charged and thoughtful satire that makes "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner" looks like "Enchanted April".Wanting to leave his family's affluent Long Island abode, breezy, twenty-nine-year-old, blue blood Elgar Enders (Beau Bridges of "The Fabulous Baker Boys" and "Jerry Maguire") buys a tenement building in the Park Slope section of Brooklyn and hopes to convert into a rich hippie pad.
It's fascinating and ironic that a white director (despite being middle-age at the time, Ashby was quite the hippie) and a black screenwriter (Gunn was a writer of all trades) worked in sync to examine the racial, social and economical gaps between their ethic camps.
Directed by the great Hal Ashby, THE LANDLORD stars Beau Bridges as a not so spoiled rich kid from Long Island who decides to buy and refurbish a Brooklyn brownstone only to have his conscience raised once he meets the tenants...a group that includes foxy Diana Sand and her lunatic husband Lou Gossett Jr., along with rifle wielding Earth mother Pearl Bailey.
Bridges gives his best ever performance and he's matched by Sand, Gossett, Bailey, and Lee Grant, who's unforgettable as his faddist mother.
While Ashby's directing career would be made a year later with HAROLD AND MAUDE, THE LANDLORD should be seen again and again. |
tt0119273 | Heavy Metal 2000 | In ages past, a malevolent race called the Arakacians discovered a place where space-time leaked a type of fluid. This fluid granted immortality to anyone who consumed it. The Arakacians built an empire and enslaved the known universe for centuries; they were unstoppable. The Arakacians were finally vanquished after the fountain chamber (where they gathered the water of life) was sealed by freedom fighters. The key to the chamber, a glowing crystal that will lead the bearer back to the fountain, but would drive anyone who possessed it insane, was cast into space and lost among the stars.
In a present-day asteroid excavation, space crewman Tyler and his colleague find the key by accident. Tyler touches the key and instantly goes insane. Tyler kills his mining partner, and takes over the ship, killing most of the resisting crew except for Dr. Schechter, and the pilots Lambert and Germain. His search for the planet with the fountain leads to Eden, a planet that is designated F.A.K.K.² (Federation-Assigned Ketogenic Killzone to the second level), but has inhabitants whose bodies carry the immortality fluid. Tyler invades Eden, and kills many of the Edenites, capturing some so he can extract the immortality fluids from their bodies. He also keeps the attractive Kerrie for his own sexual purposes. When Germain resists the idea, he is left on Eden.
Kerrie's beautiful sister Julie, who survived the attack, finds Germain, and they team up to follow Tyler. At a renegade space station, Julie finds Tyler at a restaurant and critically injures him. However, he ingests a vial with the immortality serum and heals instantly. In the ensuing gunfight, Tyler blows up the club. Julie escapes the explosion; she and Germain board a shuttle-craft that latches onto Tyler's ship with a tractor beam before it jumps into hyperspace. Discovering them mid-travel, Tyler tries to shake them off, but the fight causes the hyperspace to collapse and the two ships to crash.
Julie wakes up on the desert planet called Oroboris, and meets a mysterious cloaked sage named Odin and his assistant, Zeek, a rock-like creature, both of whom are guardians of the ancient fountain. Elsewhere, Tyler's ship has been destroyed and most of his crew and abductees are dead. Tyler orders Dr. Schechter to extract Kerrie's fluids. He explores the planet and finds a race of reptilian beings, which he conquers by defeating their champion and then their leader in a death match. Julie enters the reptilian city in disguise as a woman that the reptiles found for Tyler. That night, she seduces Tyler, but when she tries to kill him, Zeek captures her and takes her back to Odin. Julie infiltrates Tyler's ship where she discovers Kerrie is still alive. She takes out Dr. Schechter, frees Kerrie, and escapes as the complex explodes. As a result, Tyler vows to make Julie immortal so he can "screw her and kill her every hour of every day for all eternity". With only three vials of serum, he orders his troops to storm the citadel where the immortality fountain is located.
At the citadel, Julie undergoes a ritual where she is outfitted in armor. She, Kerrie, and Germain help the fountain's guardians defend against Tyler's army. In the fighting, Lambert suffers a near-fatal injury and while reaching for Tyler's last vial of immortality serum, he knocks it loose from Tyler's belt and it breaks on the ground. Tyler, enraged, kills Lambert for the blunder. Tyler then walks to the pit of immortality and is about to put the crystal into the fountain's final lock but is stopped by Julie. She stabs Tyler in the left eye before he is able to place the crystal in the lock. A fight ensues, but Tyler appears to have the advantage, until Odin intervenes, which allows Julie to finally kill Tyler. Odin, throwing off his cloak, reveals himself to be the last of the Arakacians. He has been in hiding all these centuries, waiting for someone to find the chamber key and be drawn to the fountain. He intends to claim it as his own, and reestablish the Arakacian empire. However, Zeek pulls the crystal key from the pedestal, locking Odin inside the fountain chamber forever, and flies into outer space. As Germain and Kerrie help Julie to her feet, Zeek envelops the crystal into himself and becomes a new asteroid to hide the key for all time. | comedy, murder, violence, cult, insanity, revenge | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0851578 | Papurika | In the near future, a revolutionary new psychotherapy treatment called dream therapy has been invented. A device called the "DC Mini" allows the user to view people's dreams. The head of the team working on this treatment, Doctor Atsuko Chiba, begins using the machine illegally to help psychiatric patients outside the research facility, using her alter-ego "Paprika", a sentient persona that she assumes in the dream world.
Paprika counsels Detective Toshimi Konakawa, who is plagued by a recurring dream. Its incompleteness is a great source of anxiety for him. At the end of the session, she gives Konakawa a card with a name of a website on it. This type of counselling session is not officially sanctioned, so Chiba, her associates and Konakawa must be cautious that word does not leak out regarding the nature of the DC Mini and the existence of Paprika. Chiba's closest ally is Doctor Kōsaku Tokita, a genius man-child and the inventor of the DC Mini. Because they are unfinished, the DC Minis lack access restrictions, allowing anyone to enter another person's dreams, which poses grave consequences when they are stolen. Almost immediately, the chief of the department, Doctor Toratarō Shima, goes on a nonsensical tirade and jumps through a window, nearly killing himself.
Upon examining Shima's dream, consisting of a lively parade of objects, Tokita recognizes his assistant, Kei Himuro, which confirms their suspicion that the theft was an inside job. After two other scientists fall victim to the DC Mini, the chairman of the company, who was against the project to begin with, bans the use of the device completely. This fails to hinder the crazed parade, which manages to claim Tokita, who went inside Himuro's dream trying to find answers and intruded into Konakawa's dream. Paprika and Shima take matters into their own hands and find that Himuro is only an empty shell. The real culprit is the chairman, with the help of Doctor Morio Osanai, who believes that he must protect dreams from mankind's influence through dream therapy. Paprika is eventually captured by the pair after an exhausting chase. There, Osanai admits his love for Chiba and literally peels away Paprika's skin to reveal Chiba underneath. However, he is interrupted by the outraged Chairman who demands that they finish off Chiba; as the two share Osanai's body, they battle for control as they argue over Chiba's fate. Konakawa enters the dream from his own recurring dream, and flees with Chiba back into his. Osanai gives chase through Konakawa's recurring dream, which ends in Konakawa shooting Osanai to take control of the dream. The act actually kills Osanai's physical body with a real bullet wound.
Dreams and reality have now merged. The dream parade is running amok in the city, and reality itself is starting to unravel. Shima is nearly killed by a giant Japanese doll, but is saved by Paprika, who has become an entity separate from Chiba thanks to dreams and reality merging. Amidst the chaos, Tokita, in the form of a giant robot, eats Chiba and prepares to do the same for Paprika. A ghostly apparition of Chiba appears and reveals that she has been in love with Tokita this whole time and has simply been repressing these emotions. She comes to terms with her own repressed desires, reconciling herself with the part of her that is Paprika. The chairman returns in the form of a living nightmare, reveals his twisted dreams of omnipotence, and threatens to darken the world with his delusions. Paprika returns to Tokita, throwing herself into his body. A baby emerges from the robotic shell and sucks in the wind, aging as she sucks up the chairman himself, becoming a fully-grown combination of Chiba and Paprika. In this new form, she is able to consume the chairman's dream form and end the nightmare he created before fading away.
In the final scene, Chiba sits at Tokita's bedside as he wakes up. Later on, Konakawa visits the website from Paprika's card and receives a message from Paprika: "Atsuko will change her surname to Tokita...and I suggest watching the movie Dreaming Kids." Konakawa enters a movie theater and purchases a ticket for Dreaming Kids. | comedy, fantasy, boring, violence, alternate reality, atmospheric, flashback, psychedelic, philosophical, sci-fi | train | wikipedia | Examples include a marching band of inanimate objects, dolls and animals, a giant aquatic leviathan with a man's face and humanoid toys that act as vessels for their dreamers bodies.But what makes the film necessary viewing is not the visuals alone, it's the core of the story and varied themes that it poses.
I won't give away anything because I don't want to spoil a single scene, but I'd say that I see it as a movie about the power of movies over our life/dreams, and about the love people like me have for the Seventh Art. I don't know if that was Kon's original idea and honestly I don't care - it's not every day that you find a movie that amuses and says something to you in such an unpretentious way.
If you've ever seen and enjoyed Alfred Hitchcock's Spellbound, it'll help you understanding what's going on in the film.The cop forms a relationship with Paprika, a dream character who becomes his guide in helping him understand what happened in his past that makes him feel such shame in the present.
The music fascinated me, it was magnificent.I was strongly compelled to watch the movie.The story is based around a lovely lady named Paprika, she has mastered the ability to sail into others dreams and help them with their problems....
More lucid dreams from Satoshi Kon. I saw this two days ago at the New York Film Festival.The plot: What happens when we acquire technology that allows us to migrate the boundary between dreams & reality, and what happens when that boundary blurs?
The Animation: Stunning; Madhouse always does good work and Kon's movies always produce some fun reality bending sequences.The Music: Susumu Hirasawa who did the Paranoia Agent soundtrack came up with the score here too.
All do a fabulous job as usual, but Hayashibara really shines in her Paprika role.This film has great animation, music & actors, but the plot is really just a thin veneer for the lucid dreaming sequences that permeate so much of Satoshi Kon's work.
The story is complex so, if you want to know what all the fuzz is about read another review en check the film.it's my new love: Paprika 9 a.o.10.
But its never, for one moment boring, and i strongly suspect there are multiple deeper meanings going on here, this is a movie that will stand up to multiple viewings to try to decode all the sub plots and metaphors.Even if you are not a fan of anime, if you just like dazzling film making that will stretch your imagination - Paprika is for you (and no, i have no idea why she is called Paprika)..
The following review has been translated by Google:If dream and reality mergePaprika is one of the most unusual, most beautiful and craziest films, which I saw for a long time, decorated by an incomprehensible picture force and under from a fantastic music.
But Paprika production of Satoshi Kon, a further brilliat film director and draughtsman from Japan, which have responsibility among other things also for Tokyo Godfathers, Paranoia agent and Millennium Actress.
Having myself entertained myself with lucid dreaming for about a year(not so much these days though), and being fond of well-made anime movies, I instantly knew I needed to watch Paprika.
From the opening credits to the end credits, the music embodies the story, embracing the art fully, but it's crafted to avoid drawing attention to itself, making it all the more wonderful, listening to it on its own.All in all, this film is worth the buy, and I anticipate watching it many times, especially if I'm feeling down or uninspired.
The style and incoherence of this film will give them the added bonus of feeling like they "got" something deep, when in reality the movie is devoid of substance."Paprika" might be worth seeing for the visuals alone if you haven't seen anything similar before, but only because it comes in at a short 90 minutes.
They're a Japanese studio but paired with a writer on the level of Charlie Kaufman or someone of similar creativity and story-telling skill, they could accomplish something truly revolutionary.A note to the aforementioned anime fans: Do your genre a favor and stop drooling over movies like this so blindly.
The characters fall somewhat flat, especially our heroine Paprika, however this was a much more interesting anime than most, with a story which will interest those looking for great Japanese animation that does not derive from the Manga tradition(this film was based on a novel by Yasutaka Tsutsui), and which does deliver in cinematic beauty and whimsy, this is for you.
Paprika was originally conceived by author Yasutaka Tsutsui who is renowned for his futuristic tales, but it took his friend Satoshi Kon director of such films as Perfect Blue and Tokyo Godfathers to bring bring his dream to life.
With the help of the mysterious alter-ego Paprika, and a police detective who is himself a patient, the team try to infiltrate this unconscious world to track down the missing machine and the person controlling it.While Miyazaki may have the lions' share of international recognition for his masterful Japanese animation; in the west, science-fiction anime is for the most part still the reserve of a particularly geekish brand of teenage boys.
It's a bit of a head rush in parts, but still takes the time to establish meaningful characters with complex motivations.Sci-Fi stories of dreams and subconscious have of course been around for years, and in the concepts and visual ideas present here, one can detect hints of Strange Days, Brainstorm and Blade Runner.
All is not light in the film, as it concerns a theft of the device and the use of it to control others.Things do get very strange and somewhat incomprehensible, but in a very fascinating way that compels you to focus intently.The mixing of reality and dreams leaves a lot to think about, and will probably require more than one viewing of this film..
I found this movie to be a lot better than i first thought it would be and the animation was so well done, and then the story just perfect tho very different and a little odd but still so good.But the first thing that caught me was the soundtrack, i fell in love with it from the start.It isn't really a movie for kids a little more adult because of the little complicated story and a few sexual scenesTo not spoil anything i will only say: its a kinda fantasy story about a woman who goes in to other peoples dreams and help them out with all kinds of problems but something happens and this woman called "paprika" and a few who she works with tries to find out whats really going on with the world.
In "Paprika," a revolutionary device called a DC Mini - think like a Bluetooth headset with stiletto attachments - is stolen from a research facility where a group of psychiatrists are experimenting with technology that allows them to enter peoples' dreams.
When this theft happens, dreams literally collide head-on with reality, as the figments of peoples' imaginations are sprayed all over the real world.Atsuko Chiba is a researcher who along with the DC Mini's portly developer, a laboratory gnome, a homicide detective, and Chiba's gorgeous, dreamy alter-ego Paprika must enter the world of dreams to uncover the sinister plot behind the device's theft."Paprika" is one ambitious, fabulous-looking, and wondrous marvel of an Anime' (Japanese animation) feature.
But this is a facet of sci-fi that "Paprika" director Satoshi Kon, working from the novel by Japanese science fiction writer Yasutaka Tsutsui, has experimented with before, both in his earlier "Perfect Blue" (1998) and "Millennium Actress" (2001), the latter film of which I haven't seen, but parallels to those earlier films can be seen.This is certainly one of the most beautiful-looking Anime' features I've ever seen.
But with all the stigmas attached to animation from Japan, it's easy to see why American film-goers might be a little hesitant to give this film, or any others like it, a chance at the theater.I guess American movie-goers might think it's poison for the mind.Dream on!10/10.
I probably would have just dismissed this movie as "just another anime" if I had not been told about it from a friend, and I was not disappointed.Paprika uses beautiful and astonishing animation and truly unique imagination to bring us an adventurous story into the dreams of its characters.
Of Satoshi Kon's movies, it was Paprika that impressed me the most though Perfect Blue and Tokyo Godfathers are very impressive films too.
It has the power to control the dreams of people and as the story progresses it gets worse.PROS: An amazing soundtrack, story, animation, visuals are some of the qualities of this film.
But the device they use ends up getting stolen and weird things start to happen.But the thing I really love about this film is the animation.
It was really incredible it goes from movie references to bizarre things.So overall, "Paprika", is an amazing anime film that's worth watching if you're an anime fan or not.5/5.
When watching this anime, particularly in the parade scene, you will be amazed at the color and the imagination used to create these wonderful and rich dream sequences.
Like previous commenters said, it is quite weird, but it gives you a lot to think about if you chose, and if you're not into analyzing films, there are plenty of beautiful visuals to feats your eyes on.In a Q&A after the screening, Kon said that this would be the last of his films mixing dreams and reality, and hinted that the ending could be a topic of his next work..
When I was reading reviews about Paprika with such high ratings i thought i would be watching something valuable, even anime art movie.
Paprika takes advantage of all the strange things that can happen when a person enters the dream of someone else.This movie has become the last movie for the late director Satoshi Kon who've died of pancreatic cancer in 2010.
Naturally you are awake while watching the film, and it makes no sense like nightmares don't once you are awake, but it still creates that weird nightmare like feel to it.Even though this movie is mostly about dreams, I love how they were able to bring movies into it.But yeah, let's be honest, this movie is visually so beautiful!
Even when this movie gets so very freaky, it still looks amazing.Paprika is an interesting film and I wish I could write more about it, but unfortunately I think it would need a second watch - at least.
PAPRIKA is an exhilarating, mind-bending look at dreams and the nature of reality that is also one of the weirdest, most visually inventive things I've ever seen.
Aside from the story, which is very confusing at times because of not knowing what takes place in the dream world and what doesn't, the aspect I most liked in this film was the visuals.
Paprika, along with Millennium Actress, represent the greatest achievements of Satoshi Kon and certainly one of the landmarks of animated films.Paprika bests many movies from the great Hayao Myiazaki and is perhaps on the same level of classics such as "Spirited Away" and "My Neighbor Totoro".The plot is extremely creative and compelling, showing the viewers a somewhat hard to catch mix of dream and reality, which was never done so well.
Awarded Best Film honors at the 2007 Anime Awards in Tokyo, Japan, "Paprika " tells of a group of well-meaning scientists who invent a machine capable of controlling people's dreams - only to discover that the dreams, in a retaliatory measure, have actually begun controlling them.This cautionary tale about the abuse of science and technology may be confusing at times - not surprising given its near-constant merging of dreams and dreamlike states with "reality" - but the concept is an intriguing one, a tribute to the fertile imaginations that concocted it: writer Seishi Minakami and co-writer/director Satoshi Kan (working off the novel by Yasutaka Tsutsui), along with a handful of first-rate animation artists who have brought it all to miraculous life on film.
The execution is smart and visually compelling, filled with eerie scenes of abandoned amusement parks and bizarrely incongruous images (refrigerators dancing, toads playing musical instruments etc.) that effectively capture the bewildering and often discomfiting nature of dreams and nightmares.In addition, the characters are well-rounded and complex, the storyline endlessly inventive and challenging, and the moral and ethical issues dealt with in a manner that is both thought-provoking and evenhanded.Indeed, "Paprika" is so imaginative and visually stimulating that even non-anime fans may find themselves irresistibly drawn into the amazingly kaleidoscopic world it unfolds before them..
I saw this recently at the MIFF (Melbourne International Film Festival), This is my 2nd time seeing a Satoshi Kon feature since "Perfect Blue", I've got to say, it's an interesting yet confusing plot, but the visuals, suspense, setting and an intriguing script, as well as small pieces of humor.An enjoyable paranoia anime for fans and non-alike.It may strange, delusional and mixed up, but isn't that what a dream is?
What we are left with is a lot of self-important psycho-babble that sounds like it is coming from the lips of an overeager college freshman, and characters out of Anime 101 whom you never end up caring about.Overall, not a horrible movie, but do yourself a favor and watch "Perfect Blue" instead.
However, the ideas that are present throughout the film can be seen in Inception and it isn't hard to see what could have expired Nolan to make that film, along with the concept that the further we progress in the film, the vaguer the line between dream and reality is.Overall, the film was a pleasure to watch for me, the animation style is simplistic and beautiful, whilst also well-thought of.
This movie accurately portrays just how absurd dreams are and Paprika shows what happens when we allow our subconscious to run amok, causing chaos and confusion, sometimes in beautiful ways.
Characters were very fun to watch and the story, whether absurd or grounded, is engaging to follow along.Overall, I enjoyed it and would recommend it to anyone interested in Kon's work or wants to try something a little out of the norm for anime..
So, it's up to one of the therapists, Paprika, to enter folks dreams in order to stop the maniac.The animation is what you'd expect and the film quite good...albeit a bit confusing and very strange.
Bursting with untapped imagination, flowing with limitless creativity & presenting its story in an unabashedly freewheeling manner, Paprika (also known as Papurika) is part fantasy, part sci-fi & part mystery film with a bewildering plot that never makes any sense yet it manages to provide a cinematic experience that's dazzling, audacious & unique at the same time.Set in the near future, Paprika presents a world in which technology exists that allows users to see other people's dreams & is used by psychologists to help their patients by entering their dreams.
Chaos ensues when the device is stolen & used by the thief to distract people with their own dreams even when they are awake, thus forcing the titular character to find the one responsible before it's too late.Co-written & directed by Satoshi Kon in what is his fourth & final film before his tragic death in 2010, Paprika is captivating from its opening moments and is a surreal work that blends the worlds of dream & reality unlike any other example before.
The movie is not only breaking everyone's imagination but also limits, abilities, leaving the audiences in the confusion of not knowing what's actually real.When you think about it, this plot is kind of similar to 'Inception' US movie, but with higher graphic feels and more whimsical scenes, Papurika has pushed this concept of dreams up to a new level.I'm not a really good at writing but I have forced myself to compliment something on this fascinating movie.
From watching the title character maneuver through the opening credits to watching various characters' dreams, one can tell that Satoshi has an imagination unlike any other.One of the other things that makes this stand out from many traditional pieces of anime is that this film has a lot of heart that goes far beyond the complicated science driven plot.
Along with the plot of the dream invasion "Paprika" also shares the quality of eye-popping visuals with "Inception" in the form of Japanese anime.
The race is on, with our heroes getting the help of a mysterious girl named Paprika, who seems to be able to move with in dreams in ways that are completely unnatural.I liked this movie.
Kon blends the real and the dream in ways that can only be done through animation (see his earlier films for how good he is at it).
I know for some, myself included, the plot line may seem a bit of been there and done that (ie Dreamscape) but Kon's visual sense pushes the film from a run of the mill retread into something worth going out and seeing.(As I said I'm not going to go into some of the wild things that Kon has cooked up for his dream world since somethings should remain a surprise.) For those looking for some of the darkness of Kon's Perfect Blue or Paranoia Agent, its not really here, actually the movie is frequently very funny.
Its not the best thing that director Satoshi Kon has done, but its a good time in the movies (which it celebrates)..
Many of the images just wouldn't work in any form except anime.While the story itself follows an investigation into the theft of three devices that enable users to drop into people's dreams, the movie is also a homage to both films and television. |
tt3824458 | Tangerine | Transgender sex worker Sin-Dee Rella, who has just finished a 28-day prison sentence, meets her friend Alexandra, another trans sex worker, at a donut shop in Hollywood on Christmas Eve. Alexandra accidentally reveals that Sin-Dee's boyfriend and pimp Chester has been cheating on her with a cisgender woman. Sin-Dee storms out to search the neighborhood for Chester and the woman.
Alexandra hands out flyers for her musical performance that evening, and argues with a client who refuses to pay; their argument is broken up by the police. Razmik, an Armenian cab driver, picks up a prostitute, but ejects her from his cab when he discovers she is not transgender. He meets Alexandra and fellates her in a car wash, then goes home to eat Christmas dinner with his family. Alexandra goes to the bar for her performance, but no customers have arrived.
Sin-Dee finds the woman she is looking for, Dinah, at a brothel in a motel. She hauls her onto a bus to find Chester. Dinah taunts her for believing she is Chester's only girlfriend. Sin-Dee realizes she is late for Alexandra's performance and drags Dinah there. The two smoke crystal meth in the bar bathroom and Sin-Dee applies Dinah's make-up. Alexandra performs to a mostly empty bar.
Razmik leaves his family to attend Alexandra's performance, saying he has to work, but discovers he is too late and searches for Sin-Dee. Suspicious, his mother-in-law asks another Armenian cab driver to take her to him.
Sin-Dee, Alexandra and Dinah go to the donut shop, where Sin-Dee confronts Chester. He insists Dinah means nothing to him. Razmik arrives, followed by his mother-in-law; she calls Razmik's wife, who arrives with their infant daughter. An argument escalates until the shop owner calls the police. Razmik and his family go back to their apartment. Dinah walks back to the brothel, but is told there is no room for her.
Outside the donut shop, Chester tells Sin-Dee that he also slept with Alexandra. Hurt, Sin-Dee leaves and tries to pick up some clients; they throw urine in her face and drive away shouting transphobic slurs. Alexandra takes Sin-Dee to a laundromat to clean her clothes and wig, and gives her her own wig to wear while they wait. | revenge, violence | train | wikipedia | Furthermore, maybe because of the unique film techniques, it feels very real, like you were just tagging along for the duration.The story takes place over the course of about 12 hours, following the lives of two transgender prostitutes on Christmas Eve. Sin-dee has just been released from jail, and her best friend Alexandra lets slip that her boyfriend/pimp picked up with another women while she was away.
Co-written with Chris Bergoch and filmed entirely on iPhone 5s' (with cinematic apps), this gritty, no-frills film spotlights real problems of real people on a real day
on the real streets of Hollywood and Los Angeles.Personally, I haven't seen many (ok, any) films that focus on two transgender prostitutes (both, persons of color).
This is not the glitzy/celebrity side of Hollywood, but rather the underbelly of a melting pot city where the paths of transgender streetwalkers and Armenian cab drivers intersect.Sin-Dee (Kiki Kitana Rodriguez) and Alexandra (Mya Taylor) are opposite personality types, but clearly good friends as they chat while splitting a donut in the opening scene.
The story with taxi driver Razmik (Karren Karagulian) shows a family man drawn like a magnet to the world of Sin-Dee and Alexandra
he even finds a reason to skip out on Christmas Eve dinner with his family.
any variety of possible descriptions come to mind.But no matter how one tries to frame this uniquely crafted work, despite its very low production budget (this entire movie was filmed with iPhones?), it's still surprisingly entertaining.I could try to encapsulate the drama (and yes, drama, as in on the street, way over the edge drama) between the two main characters, and the meandering ill fated adventures that sprout up along the way, but actually, better that you simply watch and experience for yourself.No spoilers, not even a hint .
but what I will suggest here, the time spent to watch this will not be wasted.Kudos to a very clever bit of street drama compressed into a simple but engaging journey into and through a collection of lives that are all too real out in certain sections of town, which in this case happens to be West Hollywood..
As unconventional in content as it is in the way it's shot, this is one comedy that defies everything in its path.The story of Tangerine unfolds on Christmas Eve and follows two trans sex workers who are also best friends.
The film also breaks tradition in the casting department by employing two transgender actresses in the given roles & both of them deliver fantastic performances, with Mya Taylor playing her character in a balanced manner while Kitana Kiki Rodrigues going full crazy as Sin-Dee.On an overall scale, Tangerine is an inventive, distinctive & hysterical piece of indie cinema that allows its audience to settle down in the first act after which it instantly changes gears, gets more wild & vibrant with every passing minute, goes absolutely bonkers in its final act when all its different threads combine together to form a single whole, and finally concludes with a touching ode to friendship.
I know Tangerine is a first of sorts: a film about a certain kind of trans life and with trans actors, but I cannot for the life of me understand what makes it a good movie, never mind one of the best.
'TANGERINE': Four Stars (Out of Five)Critically acclaimed indie flick; about a transgender prostitute, searching for her boyfriend (a pimp who cheated on her), in Hollywood, on Christmas Eve. The movie was directed by Sean S.
The movie definitely seems like you're watching real people, doing real things; in a part of life, I'm not familiar with (which makes it all the more fascinating).
I don't for one moment believe this film to be a true reflection of life in the USA but if it is then I'm glad I don't live there.Admittedly I didn't see the last half - I had well and truly had enough by the half way mark.It's rubbish like this that is dragging the movie industry down and to try and kid yourself that the movie has something is only ensuring that we will continue to have this type nonsense thrust upon us..
And not substance in the form of a statement or message, but substance that is the richness of the characters' daily lives themselves, the richness found in the often unexplored areas of the world we live in.I wouldn't expect everyone to love the film because we're not conditioned to watch movies like this.
Perhaps it was the use of hand-held cameras, constantly moving along the sidewalks, and the mean streets of Los Angeles used as a backdrop, not blockaded off for the filming but with real people and real street activity used as background for the actors.But let's focus on the essentials, not just the voyeuristic thrill of glimpsing into a world the average person knows nothing of.
If the noteworthy Oscar push for Tangerine's two transgender leads to be recognized by the Academy was the sole point of originality for the film, it'd still be a pretty worthy discussion piece, but likely not a significant one after next year's Oscars pass (let's not kid, the nominations for these respective actresses are still a longshot).
Co-writer/director Sean Baker respects his subjects enough to allow them room to breathe in a film that is so free and unrestricted, its setting might as well be the continental United States rather than the streets of Hollywood.The film follows a slew of lonely, misunderstood, and even some contemptible and wretched characters on Christmas Eve, particularly two transgender female prostitutes, Sin-Dee Rella (Kitana Kiki Rodriguez) and Alexandra (Mya Taylor).
Sin-Dee has just finished serving a nearly month-long jail sentence only to learn from Alexandra that her pimp Chester (James Ransone, the commendable character actor from Sinister 2 I praised so heavily) has been cheating on her with a straight female named Dinah (Mickey O'Hagan).
Upon hearing such news, Sin-Dee storms out of Donut Time to find Chester, while Alexandra prepares for her one-woman show in West Hollywood, and Razmik (Karren Karagulian), an Armenian cab driver, earns money from fares all around the greater Los Angeles area to raise money for both women.Tangerine is such a liberating film, unchained and unshackled from the confines of gender, sexual, and racial prejudice by just being so free-form and accepting of what its characters can do and say.
Even the way Baker chooses to shoot Tangerine should make this evident; notice how Baker's camera - which is really a phone, being that he used three different iPhone 5s smartphones with external microphones to shoot the film due to a strained budget - does more than capture and showcase Sin-Dee and Alexandra, but really follows their every move.
well...Let's just say that it's a pretty terrible representation for transgenders because they are some of the most obnoxious and egocentric characters I've seen in a movie (the lead sin- dee especially).Anyway, I guess the acting is borderline decent as they all come across as what they are portraying, except for James Ransone (who I usually like) as the pimp who tries to speak ghetto-lingo but ends up sounding like someones dad trying to be hip.The story is very point a to point b simple, the visuals are alright and the soundtrack is good, but yeah overall I didn't like it.If you want to watch a movie about a transgender in the hood, may I suggest GUN HILL ROAD (2011) that's actually good, and a far better representation of transgenders in my opinion..
Especially from Mya Taylor who fully succeeds in making her character come over as a real-life person with strengths and flaws rather than a caricature or stereotype.Altogether, a very good film, very different to 'Starlet' but has many of what made that film as impressive as it was.
It is stylised, shaky, fires its plot like a machine gun, but most of all, is INCREDIBLY REAL.Unlike the Danish Girl, which so many have hailed as the land mark in transgenders being represented in cinema (i am not one of those people), Tangerine gets up close and very deep into the lives of LA transgender sex workers.
This film tells the story of two transgender prostitutes going around Los Angeles, and an Armenian taxi driver on Christmas Eve. Their day becomes more eventful by the minute.I had no idea what "Tangerine" is about, and I was in for a surprise.
I'm not a big fan of 'scripted reality' shows and this is basically an SR show made into a feature length film with a few added gimmicks thrown in to get attention.The film starts abruptly enough, and at this point I was thinking 'ok well judging by the reviews the film obviously has great characterisation or something' but no it just becomes a mess of bitching, swearing, walking about, "cool" music interludes and the protagonists being generally unpleasant to anyone and everyone they meet.Throw in the fact it's all shot on iPhone - which conveniently excuses the cast for their atrocious acting - and let's not forget the hype generated by the transgender / transsexual angle - and you've got a film which isn't going away in a hurry.It's great to see trans women - in fact anyone from an LGBT subgroup for that matter - represented on-screen by people from that actual community - but just imagine how much better it would be if they tried to actually act!I like the fact this film gives a voice and some screen time to otherwise marginalised actors and actresses - but it's done so amateurishly it's impossible to feel anything for any of the characters because they are depicted as either unlikable or just unrealistic human beings.
And in the character of the outwardly conventional cab driver who's smitten with the "girls" and the world they come from, the movie suggests that there are many out there who force themselves into categories that don't completely fit them and admire the kind of freedom in which those who don't conform live, even as they would likely condemn them for their behavior.And I would be remiss if I didn't also mention as part of this review that the movie is at times uproariously funny.Grade: A+.
The strange angles & loud dubstep music really make it difficult to establish a connection to a character that is not very sympathetic in the first place.However when the camera follows her friend Alexandra or Razmik, it's essentially a different, far superior film, which really encapsulates the experience of these marginalised groups of people and shows us their struggles in a sympathetic way (which is the director's specialty if his masterpiece The Florida Project is any indicator).Liked: -some characters
A cleverly structured screenplay that covers a 12-hour period during Christmas eve 2014 in the life of two trannie working girls, Kitana Kiki Rodriguez as Sin-Dee and Mya Taylor as Alexandra, whose banter right from the get-go makes sure the viewer gets the gist of who they are.
And there's notable cameos from Clu Gulager as a taxi passenger and Scott Krinsky (TV series Chuck) who is Alexandra's potential john.Though the use of iPhone 5 gives it a grittiness that makes it feel way too real, the use of Steadicam reduced the shaky feel that people would usually get from cellphone footage helped create that needed awareness of the unreality of the movie watching experience by giving an indie film a professional feel to it.The delicacy in handling the issues facing people who work the oldest profession face and the showing vantage point of transvestites was sucg masterstroke.
The plot sets on the Christmas Eve and revolves around two young black trans-prostitutes, Sin-Dee (Rodriguez) and Alexandra (Taylor), the former is newly released from jail for covering up her pimp-boyfriend Chester (Ransone), only to discover from the latter that Chester has been hooked up with a white tart Dinah (O'Hagan) during her one-month long prison time.
Eventually they meet again in the night but things will go haywire, their friendship must endure the test of an ugly truth.In Baker's book, Sin-Dee and Alexandra constitute a duet of love and dream, two things we cherish the most, but become so unattainable for their line-of-business, yet, even in the dimmest corner, there are anomalies like these two, on the surface, Sin-Dee is a crude spitfire, unrealistically naive, and unpleasantly aggressive, whereas Alexandra is less emotional, more elusive, yet, her manly side can effortlessly roar with lighter when she engages in a relentless grapple with a stingy client; but deep inside, they are two ordinary souls trying to fight for their lives, neither dishearten nor delusional, life may be hard for them, but their friendship bonds them together, a touching ending where both take off their wigs and reveal their biological appearance, that moment, a heartfelt understanding transcends all their exterior forms, no matter how singular they are, just as two tender human beings, they deserve our compassion and respect, it is a masterstroke rising from this gimmicky fare.A less-enticing sub-plot is about a trans-addicted taxi driver Razmik (Karagulian), an Armenian immigrant, a closeted-family man, who is obsessed with Sin-Dee and his secret will be disclosed by his hell-bent mother-in-law Ashken (Tumanian) on the Christmas Eve in the Donut Time.
This movie is basically good drama; as the film fest hype suggests, pic follows the day of a cross-dressing sex worker leaving a short prison term utterly p*ssed off that her boyfriend/pimp has cheated on her - eventually it becomes apparent that he's a loser and she can't see that his insincere support of her was self serving and deceptive anyway.Much of the movie is shot on location, with a modified iPhone 5, although some cast members and the films creative team have previous experience in professional film and television.
As expected for consumer level cameras, low light conditions produce some grain artifacts.The film has original content though, and explores enough dramatic possibilities and unusual situations to be considered a great movie in some sense; at heart the film hinges on the main characters romantic betrayal, and a subplot involving an Armenian cab driver with a family who has a paraphilia for paying a black trans sex worker to give him oral sex whilst driving through the blind, soapy mess of a American car wash somewhere in a seedy area of Hollywood on Christmas eve.Some people on IMDb seem to suggest that the film is either 'totally overrated' or 'against women'.
Shot for $100,000 (not that expensive) for an Indy, the story line is simple to follow: on Christmas eve, a Black trans sex worker out of 28 days in jail, hears a rumor that her squeeze Chester is having it on with a fish (argot for a real woman, a vagina).
Another issue is I wish we got to know more about Sin-Dee as a character like we know a little bit about her insecurities and longing through the subtle acting but how come there are characters who we see for only one scene get moments were they just talk about whatever is going on in their head.My expectations for Tangerine were definitely met and I dug this movie a lot.
Director Sean Baker's indie film "Tangerine" is not for the closed-minded tasters, but it's gritty, and its authentic look on street- life prostitution has plenty of deep scenes.
Karaguilan was brilliant as Razmik; and Mickey O' Hagan was stupendous as Dinah, the prostitute being chased by Sin-Dee. So even though it's not the feel good movie of the year, there is still plenty of cinematic flavor in "Tangerine".
Just released from prison on the eve of Christmas, Sin-Dee (Kitana Kiki Rodriguez) soon learns of her pimp Chester's (James Ransone) infidelities with local "fish" Dinah (Mickey O'Hagan), who quickly ignites the streets with her friend Alexandra (Mya Taylor) in a hunt for answers.
Did I happen to mention that Sin-Dee just got out of jail and is a trans working girl while her boyfriend is a pimp – that's just the beginning for this wild ride.The beauty of Tangerine is its simplicity, utilizing a plot that has been in existence since the days of Ancient Greece.
At its core, Tangerine is a journey film, true all the specifics may mask that fact, but Sin-Dee and the medley of characters are all on a journey of discovery that culminates to a fantastic and satisfying conclusion.In a way, director Sean Baker is a marketing mastermind.
Ultimately, it is a film about friendship between Alexandra and Sin-Dee, how people who we can count on in the worst of times are all that matter.
This is a day in the life type of film where you're spending time with two transgender prostitutes who are best friends, one is preparing to performance in her own show and the other is fresh out of jail looking for the woman she believes is cheating with her boyfriend/pimp.
Beyond the basic marketing ploys of "shot on iPhone" and "gritty and raw documentary style film about transgender working girls" there's not much to this Sundance darling in terms of actual story and character development.It's a "found footage" type of movie using the gimmicks of jump cuts (where continuity doesn't matter) and "shaky cam" - where you shouldn't eat or drink beforehand.
Basically Sin-Dee Rella (Kitana Kiki Rodriguez) is a transgender prostitute who has just been released from a 28-day prison sentence, it is Christmas Eve and she meets with her fellow transgender prostitute and friend Alexandra (Mya Taylor) in a donut shop in Hollywood.
The setting is Hollywood and his protagonists are trans-gender prostitutes (or should I say sex-workers?) Sin-dee Rella (Kitana Kiki Rodriguez) and Alexandra (Mya Taylor).The opening scene (shot in a donut shop) grabs you right away as just out of jail Sin-dee threatens to find her pimp/boyfriend Chester, who has been cheating on her with a non-transgender woman, Dinah, another prostitute. |
tt0326704 | Ran | Great Lord Hidetora Ichimonji, a powerful though now elderly warlord, decides to divide his territory among his three sons. Taro, the eldest, receives the First Castle and leadership of the Ichimonji clan, while Jiro and Saburo, as second and third sons, will be given the Second and Third Castles respectively; Hidetora is to retain the title of Great Lord. Two other visiting warlords, Lords Ayabe and Fujimaki, bear witness to the decision. Saburo objects, saying that it is foolish to rely on his brothers' loyalty. A faithful servant, Tango, also agrees. However, Hidetora takes Saburo's protests as an insult, and he exiles both men. However, Fujimaki, appreciating Saburo's frankness, takes him in.
Following the division of Hidetora's lands amongst the two remaining sons, Taro's wife Lady Kaede, resentful of Hidetora's ruthless killing of her family, urges Taro to oust Hidetora. Taro makes a pretext of a conflict arising from an insulting song sung by Kyoami, Hidetora's fool, demanding Hidetora renounce his title. His son's disrespect shames Hidetora, causing him to storm out of the castle in anger. Hidetora travels to Jiro's castle, meeting with meeting with him and his wife, Sué, only to discover that like Taro, Jiro too openly disrespects him. Hidetora leaves Jiro's castle in disgust, and eventually Tango appears, bringing further news of Taro's betrayal. Against Tango's advice, Hidetora listens to his advisor Ikuro, taking refuge in the abandoned Third Castle.
Shortly thereafter, the castle is besieged by Taro and Jiro's combined forces, and virtually all Hidetora's followers are slaughtered. In the confusion, Taro is also killed from behind by Jiro's general, Kurogane. Alone and unable to commit seppuku, Hidetora succumbs to madness and wanders away from the burning castle, in full view of the astonished enemy. Hidetora is joined by Tango and Kyoami, who remain loyal, and seeking refuge in the wilderness, the three encounter Tsurumaru, the brother of Lady Sué, blinded and left destitute by Hidetora. Horrified by Tsurumaru's haunting flute song, Hidetora flees with his two followers.
As Taro is dead, Jiro moves into the First Castle as Great Lord. Suspicious, Lady Kaede threatens him into admitting his part in her husband's fall in battle, before herself stating that she cares only for her own future, and seduces him. Falling under Kaede's control, Jiro orders Kurogane to obtain Lady Sué's head. In defiance, Kurogane brings back the head of a kitsune statue instead, attempting to warn Jiro of Kaede's dangerous influence.
Tango encounters and kills two spies for Jiro, who have since been abandoned by him. One of them is Ikuro, who before dying warns him that Jiro is sure to send assassins after Hidetora, causing Tango to ride off to alert Saburo. Meanwhile, Tsurumaru and Sué, fleeing from Jiro, arrive at the ruins of a castle, encountering a wandering Hidetora; in guilt, he becomes even more insane, losing Kyoami as he runs into a nearby plain.
Roused by Tango to seek his father, Saburo, Ayabe, Fujimaki, and their armies cross back into Jiro's territory. Goaded by Kaede to attack, and against the advice of his generals, Jiro hastily mobilizes his army for war. Notified by Kyoami of the situation, Saburo takes a small unit from the battlefield, successfully finding Hidetora, who has collapsed in the plain. Hidetora recovers his sanity, and he mournfully apologizes to Saburo for his foolishness, which Saburo accepts tearfully.
At the battlefield, Jiro attacks Saburo's force in Saburo's absence, but is forced to hastily retreat by the news that Ayabe, having deployed a decoy force, is in actuality marching on First Castle. While Saburo and Hidetora are returning together, a marksman in a unit of snipers sent by Jiro, shoots and kills Saburo. Overcome with grief, Hidetora also dies, and Tango and Kyoami mourn their deaths as Fujimaki and his army arrive bearing news of victory.
Sué, having given a picture of Amida Buddha to Tsurumaru to watch over him while he stays at the ruins, leaves to retrieve Tsurumaru's flute and is murdered by Jiro's vassal. As First Castle is attacked, Kurogane sees proof of Sué's death and confronts Kaede. She admits to her manipulation, having completed her plot for revenge now that the castle is doomed. Enraged, Kurogane decapitates Kaede in front of Jiro, before both Jiro and Kurogane go to their deaths in the subsequent battle.
A solemn funeral procession is held for Saburo and Hidetora. Meanwhile, alone in the castle ruins, Tsurumaru stumbles, dropping the Amida Buddha image into the gorge below. | non fiction | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0233418 | Cavale | Most of the film is silent and there are just as few dialogue lines as necessary.
In the initial sequence during the opening credits, in a black screen the audience can hear different sounds of prison gates opening and someone walking down corridors, then shouts are heard and the audience is brought just outside the prison where Bruno Le Roux, a former leftist revolutionary, has just escaped. An accomplice in a mask, Jean-Jean, is waiting for him, he shoots the searchlights and both climb into a car and escape through the streets into the country. They come across a police blockade but manage to escape through a hail of bullets. The next morning Bruno lies on the grass, Jean-Jean is dead. Bruno takes everything in the car and disguises himself.
He heads to Grenoble, France, in the train but runs into the police at the train station; he manages to escape and runs into a safe-house in a garage within an apartment complex. News of his escapade reach other people involved with him in his past, amongst them Jacquillat, a drug dealer and owner of a fronting company related to transportation of goods and Jeanne and Francis, former revolutionaries. Francis wanders if Bruno shall be coming to their place but she is sure that he will try to escape to Italy.
Bruno forges identifications and arranges many looks for himself, steals a car, changes the licence plates and connects a radio scanner so he can hear the feedback of the police on him. The Police are tailing Jeanne. That night Bruno pays a visit to Freddy, who obviously shares some past with him, Le Roux demands to see Jacquillat and Freddy reluctantly agrees to call him after offering help to take Bruno to Italy, which he will not do until some old scores have been settled with Jacquillat. Freddy goes to the back of the shop, Bruno sees from the window a group of policemen and also has a glimpse at Police Inspector Pascal Manise, whom he had seen earlier in the train station, and assumes that Freddy has betrayed him, he leaves the bar and sees Manise enter. He calls Freddy to tell him that it was not a smart move.
Jacquillat has made his office his refuge and sends his henchmen after Le Roux. Freddy fears for his life and has become paranoid as he runs the streets he sees Bruno everywhere but when he arrives at his apartment he seems more relaxed only to be shot at the entrance of his building by Le Roux. Bruno shows up at Jeanne's, it turns out that she was actually expecting him and gives him a bunch of keys that she has been keeping and burns communist pamphlets that she had hidden away in her son's closet for 15 years. While the Police investigate Freddy's murder, Bruno gets a glimpse at Jacquillat but does not engage him, because he is talking to Manise.
Bruno pays a visit to Madame Guiot, the mother of Jean-Jean and tells her that he is dead and that now he will take care of her, she refuses and throws him out. Le Roux goes to an apartment with the new keys but he tries to open the wrong door and a neighbour emerges from the apartment, he apologizes for the mistake and goes to his apartment, but now there is a witness about his looks and knows that he must change his plans. He takes a lot of explosive materials from the apartment and guns and burns the apartment. He bombs the Court House. This triggers the police to arrest Jeanne for questioning but she is still loyal to him and will not say a word.
In the meantime, Le Roux has been following Jacquillat's henchmen and ends up following Banane, a petty drug dealer, who while selling drugs on the street ends up beating a woman, at first Le Roux does not intervene but the beating is so strong that he cannot take it anymore and engages Banane with his gun and forces him to open the letterbox where he hides his drugs, she takes all she can and leaves. Bruno frisks Banane and finds a photo of the woman who has just left; Banane has been ordered not to sell her anything. Bruno poses then as "Yvan" says that he wants to meet Jacquillat. Just as he is about to leave, the woman comes back with news that the police is all around the place. They must wait it out but she is very sick from withdrawal syndrome, she offers to take him to her place where he will be safe after she figures out that the police is looking for him, her husband is Manise and no one shall look for him there.
Once at the apartment she shoots up and falls asleep. Just as he is about to leave, Agnès (the woman) keels over and is about to die due to overdose, Bruno hesitates but finally saves her. While he is washing her wounds in the bathroom she tells him that in 15 years of marriage, her husband has always provided her with all the drugs she wanted but now he has stopped and it is the first time that she has had to buy her own fixes. He promises her to help her get more drugs. He tells her that his name is Pierre.
Jeanne is liberated. Early in the morning Bruno goes to Banane's and learns that a meeting with Jacquillat has been set at 23:00. Later that same morning, while Jeanne is preparing a little celebration for her liberation, Bruno asks her to help him that night, she refuses to help him and the only thing that she will do for him is cross him over the border into Italy. He refuses and reminds her that she has been free and able to live her life only because he and all the others who have spent time in prison have kept their mouths shut, therefore she owes them, he will come at 22:45 for her. Agnès takes "Pierre" to a chalet in the mountains and promises him to get a car.
In the chalet, while preparing for that evening, Bruno is confronted by Cécile the owner of the chalet, because Cécile thinks that her husband is having an affair with Agnès. They tell her that he is Pierre an unemployed machinist and Agnès' lover, after Cécile is more calm she offers to get him a job and leaves.
Bruno goes to Jeanne's but she is not there. He goes alone to the meeting which turns out to be an ambush, there is a shoot out, many are killed. Bruno manages to escape and calls for Jeanne to help him. She takes him to the chalet, where they discuss about Bruno's outdated ideas and demands to know that if he can justify the deaths of several innocent people that they have killed during their terrorist attacks. Jeanne confesses to Francis what she did (she had said earlier that she was helping a friend), but when asked about Le Roux's whereabouts, she still will not say anything.
The next day at the chalet Bruno is confronted again by Cécile, who now believes that he is Agnès' dealer and the one who is blackmailing Manise but he denies it and tells her that Manise actually is a wife beater, she leaves. Bruno knows he has to leave and steals a car that happened to be near the chalet. Once in the city he is cut off by many police blockades, he dumps the car and goes to Jeanne's, but she is not there. When she arrives, Bruno beats Francis to force her to help him. She unwittingly reveals that the police will not search her car because they are not looking for a woman with a child. Bruno has Jeanne tie Francis up and they leave her apartment with the child. They pass the blockade and he then manages to arrive at his safe house in the garage, but does not know that Jeanne has followed him. She then goes to Manise's place and tells him where to find Le Roux. Manise discloses Le Roux's location to both the police and Jacquillat.
Le Roux hears movements outside his hide out and manages to escape, the police and Jacquillat's henchmen have engaged in a shoot out which gives him the opportunity to leave undetected. He goes to Jacquillat's office where he shoots him and takes his car with which he goes to the chalet. He starts climbing the Alps in order to escape to Italy but on the top of a mountain he walks into a crevasse, he tries to climb out but he cannot and sinks to the bottom. | avant garde | train | wikipedia | "On the Run (Cavale)" is the first third of an engrossing experiment in story telling that crosses "Rashomon" with a television miniseries to show us an ensemble of intersecting characters over a couple of days to gradually reveal the complicated truth about each.
Writer/director Lucas Belvaux uses a clever technique to communicate just how differently the characters perceive the same situations-- they are literally in different movies and, a la "Rules of the Game," everyone has their reasons.
"On the Run"is a tense, fast-paced escaped con on-the-run Raoul Walsh-feeling film, with the auteur himself playing a Humphrey Bogart-type who can be cruel or kind; "An Amazing Couple (Un couple épatant)" is an Ernest Lubitch-inspired laugh-out-loud comedy of mistaken communication; and "After the Life (Après la vie)" is a Sidney Lumet-feeling gritty, conflicted cop melodrama with seamy and tender moments.
"Time Code" experimented turning the two-dimensions of film into three with multiple digital video screens.
This trilogy is more effective in showing us what happens as characters leave the frame.
Belvaux goes beyond the techniques used in the cancelled TV series "Boomtown" or the films of Alejandro González Iñárritu in "Amores Perros" and "21 Grams" with their stream-of-consciousness flashbacks character by character.I don't see how I can deal with each film separately.
Theoretically, one can see the three movies alone or independently out of order, but that would be like watching one episode of a series like "The Wire" or "The Sopranos" and wondering what the big deal is.
Only a handful of patrons in my theater joined me in a one-day triple-feature; I guess the others have a better memory than I do that they could see each film on separate days, though a marathon does inevitably lead to some mind-wandering that could miss important clues and revelations so this is ideal for a triple-packed DVD.
On DVD we'll be able to replay the excellent acting to see if in fact the actors do shade their performances differently when particular scenes are enacted from different characters' viewpoints -- are these takes from the same staging or not?
Or are we bringing our increasing knowledge (and constantly changing sympathies) about each character to our impressions of the repeating scenes?
One reason this conceit works is because of the unifying theme of obsession - each character is so completely single-minded in their focus on one issue that they are blind to what else is happening even as they evolve to find catharsis.
The slow revelation technique also works because of the parallel theme of aging and acceptance of the consequences of their actions, as some can face how they have changed and some can't change.
You need to see all three films to learn about each character's past and conclusion, as secondary characters in one film are thrust to the fore in another in explaining a key piece of motivation.
It is when you alone know the truth and the rest of the world is controlled by the enemy.
This film shows you from the terrorist perspective his path out of jail and back to his struggle from 15 years ago.
First, you are with him, escaping the police, fleeing, contacting former comrades and then, little by little you get to know the face of his murders.
And then the corollary question: if 15 years later, when the world has changed, a terrorist can resume his fight while he is the only one left, what to expect in a time where many think his cause is just ?.
This film (which can be seen as a standalone film) is part of a trilogy.
Three films, not consecutive, but parallel.
Three stories, simultaneous, with same actors, same characters.
Main actors in one film are secondary actors in the two others.
There are common scenes between each movie, but always shown in a different way, a different point of vue.
"Un couple epatant" is a comedy, with (Ornella Muti/Francois Morel),"Cavale" is a thriller, with (Lucas Belvaux/Catherine Frot), and "Apres la vie" is a drama, with (Gilbert Melki/Dominique Blanc).You can see only one or two of these movies, but it is really better to see all of them, as each one enlights some dark moments of the two others.
The supposed order is the one i used, but you can see these films in any order.Individually speaking, the films are average (except "Apres la vie", the best one), but globally the experience is very good and very exciting..
Bruno le Roux, a former terrorist, has escaped from prison and he rediscovers his former hiding places where are his explosive and foods reserves.
Bruno contacts also Jacquillat, a local godfather who was before put up the money for the attacks.
In fact, Bruno searches after the man who denounces the organization to the police to kill it.
But, a policeman is searching him and Bruno is obliged to run away all the time and to kill all men that chase him.
The movie is a captivating thriller and very well acted by Lucas Belvaux as are the first part (An amazing couple - "Un couple épatant") and the third part (After the life - "Après la vie").
The entire trilogy seems to me to be big movies..
I saw this film at the SF International Film Festival, and unfortunately was only able to this one film out of the trilogy.
Yet I enjoyed this film greatly, and have not seen many thrillers like it.
Using very little dialogue, it follows the life of a former militant leftist who just escaped from prison.
He finds himself trying to live the same life he left 15 years ago, yet he finds trouble in trying to flee from the police and detectives.
Very good cinematography and well acted.
I highly recommend seeing this film, and hope that I myself as well will be able to see the complete trilogy..
wonderful film.
too bad the subtitles did not include all the chatter (some of the police band radio, the tv, small bits of conversation) -- LOVED this picture which was shot, edited, directed and acted with clarity, economy and emotion played simply & directly.
lucas did amazing work as both actor & director (& writer) and richly deserves the accolades he is getting on this project.use of the location was also good, i actually recognised the gare de grenoble as they approached it on the train & one really got the feeling of being EN CAVALE with all the POV shots in the cars, on the train, going through the woods, climbing --.
This makes me real bitter that intelligent, thorough, and stylistically unique films are being made elsewhere, but the American market doesn't seem interested because...
The acting and writing are still better even if you do have to read the translated subtitles.
You know what, I should boycott American movies for a while because I really haven't had much experience with foreign films, but of the last three films I saw, two of them were French, and one was from Hollywood.
Cavale was one of the best thrillers I've ever seen.
It was full of humanity, which is another thing that American films seem to be lacking.
One of the things I liked best about it was the underlying subtlety in the characters.
If you haven't seen Cavale, do so, you're going to love it..
This is just about the best film I have seen in the last 5 or so years.The acting, direction, cinematography and editing are all first class and the unintrusive yet effective soundtrack music using just a double bass was inspired.
Lucas Belvaux has produced a masterpiece and assembled a superb cast to bring the story to life.
I am really looking forward to the rest of the trilogy..
First part of an incredible trilogy.
This is probably the best place to start on Belvaux's incredible trilogy.
On its own, it is a more than satisfying thriller, starring the director.
But in context with the accompanying two films, one has to wonder where this guy has been hiding all this time.
As the story unfolds you start to learn more and more of the lead character's persona, his motivations and his potential for destruction.
This is no ordinary "action" film where the hero can do no wrong.
Some people may be dissatisfied with the ending, but I think that it's exactly where the story has to go.
And this is born out when you see the other two parts, Un Couple epatant and Apres la vie.
If this trilogy gets the recognition it deserves, I'm sure it will be referred to as the cinematic masterpiece that it is, along with recent films like Memento and Amores Perros..
I found this movie very slow moving and ultimately boring, i only stayed until the end because i figured it was building to an interesting climax but in the end it just petered out slowly, leaving a bad taste in my mouth.
However I liked some of the editing ideas and the sound design was very good, a lot of the action was told only with sound as there is very little dialogue.
The sudden bursts of violence and action were well done, and in most cases shocking and realistic, they jolted me awake occasionly, unfortunately i just didn't really get the characters and their relationships, back story etc.
Maybe more will become clear if i see the other two films in the trilogy.
However i can't recommend this as a stand alone film at all..
This trilogy reminds me something.
Actually this trilogy looks very the same as Nicolas Winding Refn's one called PUSHER.
The main character in one of the three films is only a supporting one in the next movie; very interesting indeed.
I guess there were more schemes like this one in other movies..
Belgian film from 2003, the first part of a trilogy that I had never heard of and that was recommended to me by a cinéphile friend, precisely, from Belgium.With only this movie Lucas Belvaux is a candidate to enter my personal Olympus of Filmmakers.
I do not know how the other two movies are yet but this one is good cinema, shocking, sober but extremely violent.
It has been 15 years since it was made but it still stands as a solid production with a forceful story.
Belvaux himself (who made an acting career in France) leads the cast as Bruno, a leftist ex-militant who escapes from prison, where he has served 15 years of a sentence.
Bruno returns to settle accounts to those who were traitors to the cause, to fight for the proletarian masses, to exterminate the oppressors: so convinced is the man that he unleashes a wave of violence and manifests features of extreme cruelty that catch you by surprise.
Now I'm going for the second installment, in which characters that were secondary in the first one come to the fore.
Winner of the Prix Louis Delluc and the award of the French Syndicate of Cinema Critics for Best Film of the Year..
Well worth seeing, but much more so if you see the whole 'Trilogy'.
The first part of Belvaux's 'The Trilogy', where three films with very different tones overlap some characters and incidents.
This first part is a taught, well made, violent thriller, following an escaped communist revolutionary, determined to return to the bombing and violence that put him in jail 20 years ago, while settling old scores with enemies, and re-contacting old allies.
Belvaux shows daring in not working to make his character very sympathetic, and allowing our initial almost automatic sympathy for our lead character to be ever more harshly challenged.
We come slowly to realize this is a violent zealot, unmoved by the fact that the revolution that seemed to make sense as a young man now seems arbitrary and insane, and that his callous disregard for his victims isn't much of a start on a new world order.
In a vacuum, this dark, cynical noir would still be a good film, but with the next part of the Trilogy, it gains in levels and meanings.
But it's never boring, always involving, and with the next film, it's something more..
Although being the first part of a trilogy, I'm reviewing 'On the Run' now, separately, as its the only part I've seen, as yet.French cinema pioneered the perfect heist movie and whilst this is essentially more a fugitive chase after a jail break, it never lets up.
Films such as The French Connection, Ronin, Leon and Nikkita are all Gallic set or influenced and may have influenced Belcaux in the making of this.
(I'd recommend all those titles on their own merit, too).There's a stone-cold calculating ruthlessness about the lead, like Edward Fox's "Day of the Jackal" (French set, of course; comparisons can be made, though that film's sheer slickness isn't quite there).
The French are currently doing some excellent crime drama but this takes it further as we are whistle-stopped around some wonderful Alpine locations.
We know that there's an element of a political, possibly local terrorism cell that may get re-ignited running through this film and we're not told everything either, which adds to the suspense.
Noted French financed films such as 'Battle of Algiers' and 'Z' have paved the way for, often paler Hollywood impersonations.
This film isn't about shooting 'em up, Stallone style.
It's multi-layered, with repercussions rippling outwards....The near two-hour runtime doesn't drag and whilst there might not be the lead charisma, cleverness, wit perhaps or sheer scale of the very best US blockbuster, there are many memorable twists and turns and has a gritty sense of realism.
Belvaux's trilogy: See all three together.
Lucas Belvaux's trilogy of films is meant to be taken as one multi-faceted unit, and indeed it is best viewed as such.
The first (as I saw them), "On the Run" ("Cavale"), is a `thriller,' and, indeed, the prison break that opens the picture has some thrilling chase sequences, and the denouement features a nerve-rattling gunfight with the main character, a convicted terrorist (Belvaux himself), escaped to settle scores and look up an old flame (Catherine Frot) who has settled down with a family.
In between, we get our first glimpses of a relationship between the escapee and the drug-addicted wife (Dominique Blanc) of a down on his luck cop (Gilbert Melki), and the first hints of events in the second film, the romantic comedy, "An Amazing Couple." The trilogy ties up with a character study (or `melodrama'), "After the Life", about Melki's cop and Blanc's drug-addled wife.
The thriller is hobbled a bit, I thought, by it's involvement with the other interwoven stories.
Or, as a friend of mine recommended, maybe I should just watch Kieslowski's `Three Colors' trilogy instead
?.
If he didn't exactly invent/patent the concept of the trilogy using the same event(s) setting(s) and characters then Alan Ayckbourne certainly exploited it to the full and will be forever associated with the genre via such plays as 'The Norman Conquests' and 'House', 'Garden'.
Lucas Belvaux borrows the concept and applies a touch of spin.
In the Ayckbourne works the characters tend to have equal weight in each play so that when one walks offstage in a play set in the Living Room he/she will walk ON stage at the same chronological moment in a play set in the Garden.
With Belvaux leading players of one part of the trilogie are reduced to spear-carriers in others.
The PR says that each movie stands alone and may be viewed in any order.
Perversely I saw them in reverse order, 3, 2, 1 and though it WAS clear what was going on it would certainly make for a richer viewing to see them sequentially.
One: This introduces - however fleetingly - all of the principals but it is primarily the story of Bruno Le Roux (Belvaux himself) a political prisoner or terrorist depending on your point of view, who has busted out of the slammer and come to Grenoble to cut up a few old touches.
Catherine Frot gets the Lion's share of the supporting roles as Jeanne Rivet who, 20 years ago, was part of the Revolutionary movement alongside Le Roux but now doesn't want to know.
She is now teaching school and two of her colleagues, Agnes Manise (Dominique Blanc) and Cecile Costes (Ornella Muti) will figure peripherally in One and star in Two (Muti) and 3 (Blanc).
Also important to the plot is Jacquillat (Patrick Descamps) an underworld character.
Whilst on the lam Bruno stumbles across a man beating a woman savagely.
She confesses to Bruno that her husband, a detective, has been supplying her for years but suddenly stopped.
She takes Bruno home with her (husband is on the graveyard shift) and then borrows the key to a holiday chalet from a colleague (Muti), who is not best pleased to become involved in what she assumes to be a sordid liaison.
We now know all we need to enjoy (or not, as the case may be) Two: (the story of Cecile and erratic hubby) and Three: (The story of Agnes and Pascal).
If Belvaux doesn't quite succeed in bringing off three genres - Thriller-Comedy-Polar then he makes a decent stab at it and joins the ranks of Actor-Directors led by Orson Welles with an honorable mention for Clint Eastwood.
If you enjoy Policiers the chances are you will enjoy Three; if comedy is your thing the chances are you will be disappointed with Two; if Thrillers light your fire you'll probably like more than dislike One. 6/10.
A man escapes from prison.
That's the whole movie.
spoiler alert?)As a technical treat and a minimalist story, it has its value and it is interesting to watch.
It's just a little obnoxious to follow a movie about a person grasping to uphold his values only to "randomly" (as a point) fall into a blank hole. |
tt0054167 | Peeping Tom | Mark Lewis meets Dora, a prostitute, covertly filming her with a camera hidden under his coat. Shown from the point of view of the camera viewfinder, tension builds as he follows the woman into her home, murders her and later watches the film in his den as the credits roll on the screen.
Lewis is a member of a film crew who aspires to become a filmmaker himself. He also works part-time photographing soft-porn pin-up pictures of women, sold under the counter. He is a shy, reclusive young man who hardly ever socialises outside of his workplace. He lives in the house of his late father, renting most of it via an agent, while posing as a tenant himself. Helen, a sweet-natured young woman who lives with her blind mother in the flat below his, befriends him out of curiosity after he has been discovered spying on her on her 21st birthday party.
Mark reveals to Helen through home movies taken by his father that, as a child, he was used as a guinea pig for his father's psychological experiments on fear and the nervous system. Mark's father would study his son's reaction to various stimuli, such as lizards he put on his bed and would film the boy in all sorts of situations, even going as far as recording his son's reactions as he sat with his mother on her deathbed. He kept his son under constant watch and even wired all the rooms so that he could spy on him. Mark's father's studies enhanced his reputation as a renowned psychologist.
Mark arranges with Vivian, a stand-in at the studio, to make a film after the set is closed; he then kills her and stuffs her into a prop trunk. The body is discovered later during shooting by a female cast member who has already antagonised the director by fainting for real at points, which are not in the script. The police link the two murders and notice that each victim died with a look of utter terror on her face. They interview everyone on the set, including Mark, who always keeps his camera running, claiming that he is making a documentary.
Helen goes out to dinner with Mark, even persuading him to leave his camera behind for once. Her blind mother finds his behaviour peculiar, aware, despite her blindness, how often Mark looks through Helen's window. Mrs. Stephens is waiting inside Mark's flat after his evening out with her daughter. Unable to wait until she leaves due to his compulsion, he begins screening his latest snuff film with her still in the room. She senses how emotionally disturbed he is and threatens to move, but Mark reassures her that he will never photograph or film Helen.
A psychiatrist is called to the set to console the upset star of the movie. He chats with Mark and is familiar with Mark's father's work. The psychiatrist relates the details of the conversation to the police, noting that Mark has "his father's eyes." Mark is tailed by the police who follow him to the newsagents where he takes photographs of the pin-up model Milly (two versions of this scene were shot; the more risqué version is credited as being the first female nude scene in a major British feature, although even on the racier version, Milly only exposes one breast for a few seconds). Slightly later, it emerges that Mark must have killed Milly before returning home.
Helen, who is curious about Mark's films, finally runs one of them. She becomes visibly upset and then frightened when he catches her. Mark reveals that he makes the movies so that he can capture the fear of his victims. He has mounted a round mirror atop his camera, so that he can capture the reactions of his victims as they see their impending deaths. He points the tripod's knife towards Helen's throat, but refuses to kill her.
The police arrive and Mark realises he is cornered. As he had planned from the very beginning, he impales himself on the knife with the camera running, providing the finale for his documentary. The last shot shows Helen crying over Mark's dead body as the police enter the room. | insanity, suspenseful, atmospheric, home movie | train | wikipedia | The abrupt death of Powell's career can virtually be pinned down to one film, his most uncompromising portrait of madness, 1960's Peeping Tom. Powell's infamous shocker opens with a movie camera-wielding Mark Lewis (Carl Boehm) following a prostitute to her boarding house room.
Mark's own experiment of filming his murder victims leads him on a downward spiral of insanity to the film's tragic conclusion.Despite Peeping Tom's sensational subject matter, Powell's intention was deadly serious: to make a sober study of sexual violence, as well as a meditation on the audience's role of voyeur.
But Britain's premiere 'glamour' pinup queen Pamela Green - Peeping Tom's photo-model and penultimate victim - would offer clues to Powell's hidden agenda.Green became his leading choice for the role, although she had not appeared outside 8mm stag films, after seeing a life-sized nude portrait in her business partner Harrison Mark's studio.
When Peeping Tom hit the big screen, it was rejected by the public and crucified by the critics, and left Powell's hitherto glorious career in ruin.A film cameraman, Mark Lewis (Karl Boehm), displays psychotic tendencies as he murders women with a spiked tripod attached to the bottom of his camera, capturing on celluloid their final screams of agony.
'John Doe' (Kevin Spacey) and 'Buffalo Bill' (Ted Levine) are laughable travesties of their real life counterparts, who seem harmless when approaching or luring a potential victim.One of the things that critics of his time could not forgive Powell is that he makes his killer 'Mark Lewis' (Karl Boehm) human and likeable.
a sensitive and intelligent young man, he is the product of bestial cruelty inflicted upon him in childhood (the scenes showing film of him being tortured as a boy by his scientist father are horrifying in the true sense of the word)This is a sophisticated film demanding of the viewer that he or she not only takes part in watching a compelling thriller but are also provoked into contemplating the forces that work on a man who commits such crimes.After watching 'Peeping Tom' one does not have the customary closure common in such thrillers of seeing a 'monster' the viewer could not emphasise with destroyed and the world made safe again, (much the theory behind the justification of capital punishment).
Michael Powell, the distinguished English director, probably contributed to his own demise from the film industry with "Peeping Tom", a movie that proved to be well ahead of its times and a masterpiece by this man who gave so much to enhance the industry in Great Britain.
In fact, it's a shame this was almost the last film he directed before going on to a kind of exile in Australia."Peeping Tom" is an exercise in voyeurism Mr. Powell, and his screen writer, Leo Marks, created to prove to what extent how one is capable of watching things one shouldn't watch.
Mark has been scarred for life thanks to what his own father did to him during a period of his growing years that formed his character into the reclusive man who feels at home doing the despicable crimes he commits.One of the strengths of the film is the amazing portrayal of Mark Lewis by the German actor, Carl Boehm, who made a superb contribution to the movie.
Moira Shearer, Anna Massey, Maxime Audley, Brenda Bruce, Bartlett Mullins, are among the most prominent players one sees in the film.The newly restored copy we saw as part of the retrospective shown at the Walter Reade this year has been enhanced in ways one didn't think would be possible and it's a tribute to the great director, who should have been proud of how today's audiences are reacting when they discover his movies that seem will live forever.It's ironic that Mr. Powell didn't get the recognition he deserved during his lifetime..
This aspect also helps explain why Peeping Tom was so fiercely condemned in 1960.(The scenes between Bohm and Massey remind me of those between Gustav Diesel and Louise Brooks in the last part of Pandora's Box (1928), and you can bet the Michael Powell was familiar with Pabst's work.)The idea that scrutiny = punishment was explored by Michel Foucault in his book Surveiller et Punir, which I happened to read a long time ago.
`Peeping Tom' all but completely destroyed Powell's career; and however much and for whatever reasons critics and audiences may have loathed the film, this simply ought not have happened - especially since, good or bad, it's manifestly the work of a director at the height of his powers.
Meanwhile , two police inspectors , Jack Watson and Nígel Davenport , are investigating the weird events .Disturbing subject matter about a psychopatic cameraman who uses his camera to record women's agonies , it is rendered breathtakingly by a great director , the British Michael Powell who performs briefly the part of Mark's abusive daddy , as he is shown on home movies harassing and tormenting the little boy ; furthermore , including a brilliant cinematography by Otto Heller.
While I do think that comparisons to its contemporary PSYCHO (1960) are a bit tenuous, it has to be said that both films can be thought of as belonging to the horror genre in fact, PEEPING TOM was the third British "slasher" movie in a row, following HORRORS OF THE BLACK MUSEUM (1959) and CIRCUS OF HORRORS (1960) - but can also lay claim to being a very dark sort of black comedy.
No wonder, the film is saying, that he has grown into this disturbed person who has no real life away from either recording things on a camera, or watching the results in his darkened room.Anna Massey has perhaps the prime female role in the film, as Mark's downstairs neighbour Helen Stephens.
Norman, Have I Got a Friend for You. An effectively off-beat serial killer film from Michael Powell, the visionary director that gave us "Black Narcissus" (one of my favorites of all time) and "The Red Shoes." As with those films, he chooses to shoot everything in vibrant color, enhancing the luridness of this lurid story.Carl Boehm plays the disturbed young man who enjoys filming women as he kills them and then watching the films later.
PEEPING TOM plays it straight all the way through, effectively showing how a tormented childhood turned an innocent boy into a killer who wants to see the fear on his victim's faces.I watched it with interest but with a certain detachment, never becoming completely involved in the story.
I'm a fan of the Archers (their films A Matter of Life and Death and Colonel Blimp are masterpieces) but I cannot understand what Michael Powell was thinking of when he decided to make Peeping Tom. I've tried looking for the hidden depths, but there simply doesn't seem to be any point to this film.
i saw peeping tom on rob zombies underground cinema on turner classics,i have to admit it is a good movie,scary like Alfred Hitchcock's;psycho.but for some reason i did'nt think it was a movie in color.anyway its a highly recommended film.if rob zombie says its good i have to agree with him.he knows good horror/monster films.i don't really know anyone in the cast except Moira shearer, who did some movie called the red shoes,heard of it but did'nt see it.
What Mark also has is a deep dark obsession of photographing women whom he, in order to get the very full impact, murders as they realize their about to be run through with a steel spike attached to his movie camera!"Peeping Tom" is the obvious British version of the American horror classic "Paycho".
The movie even has an Alfred Hitchcock look-alike Milles Malleson in the film in what seems to be its imitating the great directors, "of the film "Psycho", cameo scene in it.Mark against his better judgment ends up getting very friendly with one of the tenants in his boarding house, that he inherited from his late father, mosey Helen Stephens, Anna Massey, who seems to be just crazy about him.
It's the start of Powell and Marks' ploy to make us complicit in Lewis' actions, and then the makers challenge us to sympathise with him as his back story is revealed and also as he struggles with his affections for Helen Stephens (Massey) in the present day.There is also a sly aside to the movie industry running through the picture, something which no doubt irked critics and film distributors back in 1960.
1960 was too early and, as a result, its director (Michael Powell) was pretty much blacklisted from ever making movies again.Powell, a Brit who influenced (amongst others) Martin Scorsese, was also responsible for the 1943 film "The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp," an unarguable masterpiece."Peeping Tom" is about a man who videotapes his victims as he kills them.
Audiences, and critics, felt this very quickly and reciprocated the feelings, (by staying away from the movie in droves), virtually killing Powell's career stone-dead, (as with other highly talented directors who 'turned their backs' on the mere film-goer, such as Von Stroheim and Welles).Wind forward twenty years and the young Hollywwod 'Brat Pack' are aiming to rediscover mass popular film entertainment, (in the shape of "Star Wars", "Close Encounters", "Jaws" etc.), and 'discover' half of the team behind "A Matter of Life and Death", "The Red Shoes", (above all), "The Thief of Baghdad" etc.
And on the terms it's a a creepy, atmospheric masterpiece, a work of skill technically that should not be too lightly looked on as being as strong as that of the Red Shoes, and probably was ahead of its time in pressing forward the subjective angle of a mad killer as being more than just that.What's superb about just watching Peeping Tom is seeing how Powell, as he did with Red Shoes and Tales of Hoffmann, makes a unique color palette.
Another of those significant movies that helped to change the genre in the 60s is without a doubt Michael Powell's "Peeping Tom", a morbid tale of horror and suspense about voyeurism that follows that very same path of psychological horror and, like "Psycho" (released three months after "Peeping Tom"), elevates it to an art-form."Peeping Tom" is the story of Mark Lewis (Karlheinz Böhm), a young focus puller in a British film studio who aspires to become a filmmaker himself.
Unlike Hitchcock's "Psycho" (a movie often compared to "Peeping Tom"), the serial killer is not seen through the eyes of those around him, in this film we are living the story entirely from his perspective, discovering the person behind the psychopath personality as well as the reasons behind such a disturbed mind.
In a way, it's a deeper humanization of the serial killer character, although interestingly, it doesn't attempt to glorify him or justify him (like posterior movies of the same type did), as the movie centers on his attempt to stop doing what he knows is wrong and his desire to have a normal life.Using a strikingly beautiful color cinematography (by Otto Heller) and a remarkably skillful use of the first person viewpoint, director Michael Powell conceives "Peeping Tom" as a bizarre chant to the voyeur we all have inside, and the pleasure we get from watching others.
As Helen's mother, Maxine Audley is effective and has a couple of excellent scenes, although it must be said that the film ultimately belongs to Böhm and Massey, as its their relationship what becomes the central focus of the story.As one can imagine, this movie is not the typical horror movie, it's complex and dark, but also disturbingly very human; definitely not what people expected from director Michael Powell, whom along Emeric Pressburger made some of the most cherished British film of the 50s.
Michael Powell's Peeping Tom (1960) is a horrifying movie.The main character is even somewhat likable.I think it's far more interesting to have a bad guy with some good qualities than have him all bad.Maybe it's Karlheinz Böhm's ability to make Mark a sympathetic character.He's perfect for the role.Anna Massey is also perfect as Ms. Stephens.Her blind mother is played by Maxine Audley, and she does her part brilliantly.This is extremely psychological, mostly Freudian, portrait of this man, Mark Lewis.His scientist-father shot every moment of his growing with a video camera.That's why he has become this man, with his obsession.The movie ends very dramatically.I think it couldn't have had any other kind of ending..
And the scenes that were clearly intended to generate terror were, in the long run, the most laughable of all.One of Peeping Tom's biggest let-downs was actor Carl Boehm's disappointing portrayal of Mark Lewis, the film's psychotic title character.Boehm presented Lewis as such a nervous, effeminate, one-dimensional wall-flower that, before long, it became impossible for me to really believe that such a nothing-person as this could ever be capable of such brutally cruel and murderous crimes.With all of the sick & twisted serial killer movies that have since followed in Peeping Tom's footsteps over these past 54 years, it's hard for me to imagine that anyone could honestly get a genuine thrill of satisfaction out of watching this listless, out-of-date, thumb-twiddling dud..
The direction and cinematography are the stars in Peeping Tom. The film effectively ruined Powell's career - no one was expecting a serial killer film from the man who brought you Stairway to Heaven - but, looking back on it, it only seems like one of his greatest achievements.
At least, that's what Mark Lewis thinks in Peeping Tom. Mark is a shy and reclusive man on the outside, but inside he is deeply disturbed as he goes around with his camera, murdering women with it, filming their gruesome deaths the whole time.
PEEPING TOM is a psychological thriller with elements of horror, which, in a perverse way, examines fear and obsession of one voyeur.The main protagonist meets a prostitute, covertly filming her with a camera hidden under his coat.
Critically, by dint of Böhm's taciturn, sensitive and inner-struggling performance, Powell pegs Mark as both a victimizer and a victim, an approach doesn't fall in line with moral rigidity but sequentially humanizes our monster, particularly, by pairing him with a guileless if somewhat cheeky girl-next-door Helen Stephens (a feisty Massey, holds our attention in her brilliant reaction shots when the crunch demands), to whom he might have a slender chance of a normal relationship if he can suppress his morbid proclivity (at one point, she even successfully persuades him to have a date with her without his phantom limb, the 16mm movie camera), yet that faint, precious chink of warmth is inevitably diminished after his another wanton surge, he has no alternative but to exact his final act to seal his preordained seal, and simultaneously, sate his persisting fixation.Apart from Massey's counterpoising presence of innocuousness, other two supporting performances are also noteworthy, famed ballerina Moira Shearer (in her third and last collaboration with Powell), as a clueless stand-in Vivian, obliviously twirls around Mark as he carefully prepare for her impending quietus, makes a striking example of a beauty's tragic end, which is sheer in contrast to Maxine Audley's steely lucidity as Helen's blind mother, who is luckily spared for her visual unresponsiveness, a thinly veiled metaphor of an aging/unassuming woman's vanishing sex appeal (she is only three years older than Shearer).Deeply steeped in its counter-genre variegated shades and musician Brian Easdale's compelling virtuosity and cadenza, to all intents and purposes, PEEPING TOM thrives as a thought-provoking tall tale whose message might be well ahead of its time, but in terms of cinematic grandeur, it is a trailblazer that often imitated but rarely eclipsed..
An interesting journey into the mind of a serial killer that also touches on themes of voyeurism, loneliness, childhood trauma, sexual repression & the art of filmmaking, Peeping Tom was torn to shreds by critics when it premiered but just like any other film that was ahead of its time, it has garnered a cult following and is now regarded as a genre classic.Set in London, the story of Peeping Tom follows a lonely young man obsessed with the effects of fear and is making a documentary on it, the content of which involves him recording the final expressions of victims as he murders them.
Anna Massey is in as the girl next door but her work is mediocre at best while her mother, played by Maxine Audley, manages to leave an impression of her own despite her limited screen time.On an overall scale, Peeping Tom is a fascinating example of psychological horror that's skilfully directed by Michael Powell and is brilliantly steered by Carl Boehm's terrific rendition of his simultaneously creepy & pitiful character but there are slow patches in the middle that make the ride a bit tedious at times plus the interaction between our protagonist & his girl friend isn't quite engaging either.
It's a three-dimensionality of perceptions, one layer more disturbing than another.Mark was named after the screenwriter, and Powell played Mark's father in the footage, responsible for some of the most shocking conduct against a kid to be ever shown on a movie, that Powell's son played the son eliminates any doubt about the film's being a symbolization of the most pervert yet subversively brilliant aspect of film-making.And with the help of two great performances from Carl Boehm, soft-spoken, shy, handsome and crazy, the delightful Anna Massey who embodies our curiosity and her mother, Maxine Audley our suspicion, the film swings back and forth between the delights of watching and the horrors, the joy and the shock, the fascinating character study and introspection into the roots of voyeurism and the heart-pounding pioneer of slasher films, driven by an unforgettable jazzy tempo.Michael Powell's "Peeping Tom" accomplishes something that has probably no equivalent in the history of cinema: it captures all in one film the two diametrically opposed applications of cinema or to be more technical, the eye of a camera.
But Mark is a serial killer and wants to make documentary about his activities.Peeping Tom is a certainly a bold film for time and it easy to see why it was controversial when it was first released. |
tt0218619 | Soul Survivors | Cassie and Sean, as well as ex-boyfriend Matt and good friend Annabel, go to a club situated in an old church. There Cassie sees a man with a clear, plastic mask (Carl Paoli) and an imposing man with a scarred face (Ken Moreno). Deathmask tries to grab her on the dance floor, but she pushes him away and steps outside the club with Sean.
In the parking lot, Matt eavesdrops on their conversation. Sean confesses his love for Cassie, who claims she feels the same way. When Sean returns to the club, Matt convinces Cassie to give him a last 'goodbye' kiss. Sean sees this, and reacts badly to it, giving Cassie the silent treatment as they drive off. Cassie, who is behind the wheel, continually looks away from the road until the car crashes. Cassie's next memory is of being rushed to the hospital; Matt and Annabel are unharmed, but Sean has been killed on impact.
During the school term that follows, Cassie has several visions of Sean. She also has visions of Deathmask and Hideous Dancer in the company of Matt and Annabel. On several occasions, she believes she is being chased by the two men, although Annabel and Matt assure her that the incidents are all in her mind. After one chase, Cassie faints and is rescued by Father Jude, a young priest who is sympathetic to her fears and offers to listen if she ever needs someone to talk to.
A few nights later, after being chased again, Cassie knocks at the church door, and Father Jude gives her sanctuary. He gives her an amulet depicting St Jude and allows her to sleep in his small room in the church. Upon awakening that morning, Cassie sees that the calendar in the room reads 1981. She enters the office of the attending priest (Rick Snyder) and asks to speak to Father Jude but is told that Father Jude died in 1981.
After a swim competition in which she has been made to participate, Cassie is chased by Deathmask. Defending herself with the tube of a fluorescent lamp, she ends up stabbing him in the stomach but when Cassie returns with Matt, they find there is no body in the pool. Even though she believes that Matt and Annabel are conspiring against her with Deathmask and Hideous Dancer, Cassie requests that Matt take her home to her mother. Instead he drives Cassie to the club, saying that he wishes to pick up Annabel. Cassie follows him but gets lost, eventually finding Annabel with a new lover called Raven (Angela Featherstone) who has precognitive powers. When Raven tells Cassie to "leave or die" Cassie exits the club and makes her way back to the parking lot. There Matt drunkenly insists on another 'goodbye forever' kiss, but Cassie smashes a bottle on his head knocking him unconscious before pushing him from the car and driving away.
In a scene resembling the original accident, Cassie wrecks the car. She again comes to in the hospital. On a gurney next to her is Raven, who speaks a few words of comfort before dying. Father Jude arrives and asks if she would be willing to die in order to save Sean's life. She agrees and he then asks her if she would be willing to live for him. Cassie says that she doesn't want to die.
An episode follows in which Deathmask and Hideous Dancer strangle her with her protective medallion, from which Cassie wakes to find that everything she has experienced has been a sort of coma-dream: in the original accident, Cassie and Sean had survived, while Matt and Annabel were killed. The occupants of the other car — Raven, Deathmask, and Hideous Dancer — were also fatally injured. Cassie has spent the course of the film in an astral state, wherein those who were killed in the accident attempt to keep her with them. Father Jude, and Cassie's visions of Sean were what brought her back to life. | alternate reality | train | wikipedia | null |
tt3263614 | Kumiko, the Treasure Hunter | Kumiko is a twenty-nine year old office lady who lives in utter solitude in Tokyo. She works a dreadful, dead-end job under a boss she hates, is intimidated by her well-off peers, and nagged by her overbearing mother to find a man and get married. The only joys in her life come from her pet rabbit, Bunzo, and a VHS copy of the film Fargo, which she found in a secluded cave on the shore. Convinced the film is based on a true story, Kumiko obsesses over a scene in which a character played by Steve Buscemi buries a satchel of ransom money along a snowy highway and begins taking notes while watching the worn-out tape. Kumiko even attempts to steal an atlas from a library, only to be caught by the security guard, who pities her and allows her to take the page on Minnesota.
With the threat of a young hire usurping her position at work and increasing pressure from her unsympathetic mother to return home, Kumiko abandons Bunzo on a train and boards a plane to Minneapolis using her boss's company card. With a hand-stitched treasure map and a quixotic spirit, Kumiko embarks on a journey over the Pacific and through the frozen Minnesota plains to find the purported fortune. Once there, she quickly finds herself unprepared for the harsh winter, having a weak grasp of English, and, with the card cancelled, lacking funds. She is picked up by an old lady, but sneaks off when the lady tries to convince her to stay at her home.
A sheriff's deputy picks her up after a passerby reports her wandering through the streets and tries to help her, believing her to be lost. She shows him the film and he attempts to understand her, gaining her trust. The officer takes her to a Chinese buffet restaurant, erroneously believing that someone there would be able to speak Japanese, to explain to her that the film is fiction. While at the restaurant, Kumiko calls her mother from a payphone hoping that she would be able to wire her money only for her mother to accuse her of theft from her workplace and further criticize her for being unmarried. This leads to Kumiko breaking down in front of the officer. While buying her winter attire, Kumiko kisses the officer, but he explains that he is married and tries again to explain to her that the treasure isn't real; she becomes upset, runs from the store and leaves in a taxi. The deaf taxi driver drives towards Fargo and when they stop and she is unable to pay the fare, she flees across a field. She soon wanders across a frozen lake where, while looking through the ice, she sees what appears to be a suitcase. Convinced that this is the treasure, she spends a long time attempting to break the ice, only to find a badly decayed oar.
That night, during a snowstorm, Kumiko wanders deeper into the forest and next morning the camera shows only a human-sized mound of snow. In the following scenes, Kumiko emerges from the snow, takes a ski lift to what appears to be the setting of the Fargo scene and sees the marker indicating the location of the treasure. She finds the satchel containing the money. Overjoyed with her triumph, she exclaims "I was right after all". She then sees her pet rabbit Bunzo and, reunited with him, proudly walks into the distance. | dark | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0229557 | Manuelita | The story begins with an old bird named the Patriarch of the Birds, who tells many other animals something that happened many years ago: The story of Manuela turtle. Manuela's story is told since she was in the egg had not hatched, her parents and grandfather were preparing the house and preparing for the arrival of Manuela, the new family member. When she hatched, Manuela was full of adventure and curiosity. A few years passed and Manuela grows and starts first grade with her two best friends, Dopi and Bartolito, the son of the headmistress. When they walk to school, a group of crooks, who are three dogs, bother them every time they go from school to their homes. At school, we meet Larguirucho the mouse, who makes another appearance in Manuel Garcia Ferre's movie. The trio goes home as school finished, and the crooks again. They start to attack, but are stopped by Larguirucho by being chased away. That night, Manuelita has an imagination of Bartolito as a knight, and the crooks as a three headed dragons. The Patriarch tells that the years passed and Manuela turned into a beautiful teenager, and Bartolito is now a handsome find young man. Bartolito is in love with Manuela and confesses his feelings for her in a letter but when he tries to deliver, they discover that there is a fair circus Pehuajó, where Manuela, her parents, her grandfather, Bartolito and Dopi live. Since the family was going the fair, Bartolito decided to save the note for later and join them.
Seeing a giant balloon, Manuela asks permission to ride her mom but her mom and dad would not let her, but Grandpa convinced them other wise, since he rode in balloons in his young years. Larguirucho holds onto the ropes that held the balloon on the ground, but the wind carries it, along with Manuela, before they could climb. Bartolito tried the same and go with Manuela, but wasn't fast enough. They all decided get Manuela back no matter what happened. Manuela, at first, enjoying the trip but a big bird pops the balloon. Manuela falls in the middle of what appears to be the Atlantic Ocean. There, she is picked up by a boat of pigs pirates saw the box of the globe seems to be nothing inside, onto the ship believing that is a treasure but, finding there no treasure but it is Manuela. Not knowing what to do with her, the captain orders his men for her to be thrown in the brig of the ship until he decides what to do with. Manuela starts cries until some mice appear and cheer her up with a song. They started to sing and dance waking up the captain, who orders his men to stop it. Manuela and the mice managed to escape outside. They are surrounded, but the weight of the pigs causes the boat to sink. Manuela and the mice manage to grab a board and swim, while the pigs are stranded on their sunk ship. The crew starts to dance the song the mice sang, much to the captain's dismay and annoyance. Manuela and mice see something, believing that it is an island but is actually a giant old turtle water. The turtle takes them all to the nearest city that is Paris before departing further toward the blue.
There, Manuela and mice are separated and each goes their own ways. Looking for a place to sleep, Manuela stops to watch a show where just had a parade and gets to play was parading as models parade when he discovers a man named François (pronunciation of the French name François, i.e. Francisco), the owner of the building. While all this was happening, Bartolito, Dopi, Larguirucho and grandfather Manuela try to create a balloon to go look but none goes well. Thanks to François and the fashion designer Coco Liche (which is the representation of Coco Chanel ), who had also been the organizer of the parade, Manuela becomes a famous model and her family finds out when in a beauty shop, her mother is combing and see on the cover of a fashion magazine, amazing everyone, especially Bartolito. Finally, after several failed attempts, Larguirucho, Bartolito, Dopie and Grandpa they construct a fit to blow balloon. Larguirucho and Dopie climb onto the balloon while Bartolito and grandpa stay behind and look for a compess. However, by accident, they cut the ropes up the globe, leaving without Grampa and Bartolito, who is now even more heartbroken. They go looking for Manuela, and manage to defeat the same that popped the balloon. Manuela every month gives money to fransua to have it sent to their parents in Pehuajó and letters to Bartolito, but Francios always lies to say yes Manuela sent it, as he hides the money in his case and the letters in a desk. After several days of travel, Larguirucho and Dopie arrive in Paris, without knowing that Manuela is there, as the balloon floats away and start looking for a room where they can spend the night. While on the streets of Paris looking for Manuela, Lanky and Dopie meets several celebrities asking them if they saw Manuela, found the statue of The Thinker, and Carlos Gardel.
Meanwhile, Manuela discovers that François has lied to her about sending the noted, but doesn't know about the money cheating yet. Afraid he might get exposed, Francois decides to destroy Manuela's career. During a fashion show, Francois rips Manuela dress, but is discovered. Manuela soon finds Francois and discovers the money. In panic, Francois accidentally drops his bag of money and it flies out. He tries catch it all, but falls out of the balcony and onto a pole, presumed to be arrest for his crimes. Manuela leaves the agency, with only a few dollars, and gets lost in the great city of Paris, to wander and begins to dream of her past and happy life, wondering what the others will think. The next day, however, she soon gets the message when she heard music coming from under the bridge where she was walking and listening to a bow (the representation of Edith Piaf) Manuela singing the song and so is Larguirucho and Dopie playing the bandoneon under a bridge. They are see each other again and the three travel home on plane with the money Manuela has. When she finally returned to Pehuajó, Manuela reunites with her family who are overjoyed to see her. When Manuela asked about Bartolito, they tell her that Bartolito is now the master of the school, following after his mother's retirement, much to Manuela's happiness. She goes to school, after it ended with same kids they were if when they were kids(possibly their kids since it has been years and they had to get older to be parents) and finds Bartolito drawing two hearts, one above the other. She, to surprise him, draws an arrow through two hearts symbolizing the hearts of two of them. Bartolito was surprise and looks towards Manuela and was overjoyed as well. Manuela and Bartolito embrace, happy to see each other, and Larguirucho calls for a wedding celebration. The next scene is the marriage of Manuela with Bartolito. In this wedding, all of Pehuajó, including the families of Manuela and Bartolito, attend. Several of the most important cartoons of the company's director of the film appear as well, such as Anteojito, Oaky, Hijitus and Trapito as well as the Patriarch of the birds, revealing to have narrated up until the present, and telling audience that the couple had a bright future together. Manuela and Bartolito exit and get a cheer of the crowd, as they, for the first, kiss each other on the lips. Manuela and Bartolito start traveling in a hot air balloon, waving goodbye to everyone, to start their honeymoon as the credits start, the film ends and fades to black. | psychedelic | train | wikipedia | Emotional movie, perfect for all family members. Manuelita is a proof of animated Disney movies aren't the only good ones, with such a sweet story about a little turtle who wants to fly and travel the world, this film will surprise you with the lovely songs, characters, scenarios, and an atmosphere of tenderness that leaves a pleasant sensation. In every way, this is a recommended movie for all audiences and the little ones love it. Is admirable quality of the animation, as well as that of the characters denoting that have been the result of hard work as each of them have very specific characteristics that make them special. Another point to highlight is the story, where a small turtle becomes a model in Paris, and will have to go through tough situations but after all this will leave a teaching in the audience. Maybe it's something very different from what kids are used to seeing, but still that's what makes it so special to this film, because it shows an adult world from a vision adapted for children. Also as a guarantee, this is a film of Garcia Ferre which is like Walt Disney in South America, so do not hesitate. A film of great quality that you can not miss, give it a chance, u will not regret!. Boring & without merits to fight for an Oscar. I don´t have a simple clue why the Argentine Academy choose this movie to represent the country for the Oscar. May be they thought that if the Academy can choose a Disney 's film could do the same thing with "Manuelita". Wrong. I like animation movies and I watch and enjoy it with my daughter but this was too much. If you have insomnia this is a good option. I really can sleep confortable because in ten minutes "Manuelita" closed my eyes until the end. The story (coming from a famous argentine kids song)is slow and boring and use some old characters from argentine TV mixed in a bad taste soup with new ones. If you have a choice between "Manuelita" and another one... Don´t think more about it: the other movie will be better, sure. |
tt2355495 | Barefoot | Jay Wheeler, the "black sheep" son of a rich family meets Daisy, a young psychiatric patient who has been raised in isolation her entire life. He takes the naïve young woman home for his brother's wedding to convince his family that he has finally straightened out his life. She impresses the family with her genuine, if unstable, charm. His father, suspecting that something is amiss, presses her for information at the wedding. She suffers a panic attack, and Jay shuffles her into a car and they head to his parents' house. After searching through his father's cars for keys, they find a set in a classic RV and set out for home. At Shreveport, Louisiana, he leaves her in a bus station, but ends up having a change of heart and goes back for her and they head towards his home.
They then have fun along the way. But when they make a stopover, he makes a phone call to the doctor who was handling Daisy. She then overhears his conversation that he is going to take her back to Los Angeles only to bring her back to the psychiatric hospital. She then cries and goes to the RV alone and drives the RV in circles before crashing it. Jay then opens the RV's door and hurries to take her to a diner. Jay, curious about Daisy who tells him that she killed her mother then asks her what she means by her killing her mother. Later, he discovers that she didn't kill her mother - her mother was dying and Daisy never heard voices, it was her mother who heard them.
As Jay kisses Daisy, the cops come in, handcuff Jay and take Daisy away from him. Jay's mother finds out that Jay is in jail and then persuades Jason to bail him out. When Jay is bailed out, he returns to his apartment, only to find out that the door is busted and someone has broken into his apartment. He then looks at the window and sees the man to whom he owes money. He then runs from the guy and hurries to the psychiatric hospital to see Daisy, but the security and the Doctor tell him to leave.
Desperate, Jay goes to the train station and lies down on the rail to get people to think that he's crazy. The scene then moves to the psychiatric hospital when the Doctor who is handling Daisy is releasing him because he knows Jay's motive is only to get to see Daisy. The doctor eventually lets Jay be a patient. The man to whom Jay owes money works together with Frakel, the guy whom Jay punched when that guy was trying to trick Daisy that he was a doctor In order to rape her. The man then comes to Jay's room and strangles him with a chain, but luckily, one of Jay's patient friends appears from behind and hits the guy with a broom stick.
The doctor then visits Jay and apologizes to him, saying that he is right about Daisy's mother and Frakel. The Doctor then understands that he needs to release Daisy and Jay. After that, Jay receives a note and a check for $40,000 from his father to pay his debt and to come back home. Daisy then meets with Jay and they share a hug and a kiss.
The last scene shows Daisy and Jay riding a merry-go-round. | cute, romantic | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0050562 | Jet Pilot | A Russian defector lands a jet fighter aircraft on an American airstrip. The base commander, Air Force Colonel Jim Shannon (John Wayne) is surprised to find that the pilot is an attractive woman, Lieutenant Anna Marladovna (Janet Leigh). When she asks for asylum, but refuses to disclose any military information, Shannon is assigned to seduce her. They fall in love. Worried about the possibility of deportation, Jim marries her without permission.
When they return from their unauthorized honeymoon, Major General Black (Jay C. Flippen) takes Jim aside and informs him that his new wife is a spy, sent to relay information back to the USSR. The Americans decide to play along, and escalate the situation.
Shannon goes home to tell Anna that she is to be imprisoned for years, then deported when she is finally released. To save her, they hatch an escape plan, steal an aircraft and fly to Soviet airspace. Their arrival is not shown, but Anna is criticized for allowing Shannon to crash the more advanced American aircraft when Russian fighters closed in, rather than fighting back. She says that she considered shooting him, then decided that he would be more valuable for his knowledge than the plane would have been.
While they are there, Shannon discovers that Anna is pregnant. Shannon is then assigned to help test new aircraft, a pretext for drugging him and pumping him for information about American aircraft. He learns much about Soviet capabilities from the questions he is asked, while only giving up outdated information in return. When Anna discovers this, she initially plans to turn him in, learns he is to be drugged into permanent insensibility, then lets her personal feelings override her sense of duty. She finds herself under suspicion, disposes of the agent sent to keep an eye on her, steals an aircraft and escapes back to the West with Shannon. | cult, violence | train | wikipedia | Howard Hughes produced this ahead-of-its-time film in the late 1940's, but couldn't get it released until US Air Force clearance was approved in 1957.
John Wayne is his usual macho self, an American flyer, ladies man, infatuated with a Russian pilot who treats him like a spy.
A very young Janet Leigh is the pilot who falls in love with tough-guy Wayne and agrees to defect to the US as his wife.The special effects in this film are quite convincing in spite of its age.
Thought that the idea of a female Russian pilot was interesting since the movie was made long before women's lib.John Wayne and Janet Leigh are especially good together as are the usual cast of colorful characters who help pad out the storyline.
The result is a compelling story and a very romantic movie, with Wayne and Janet Leigh rocketing through the skies in their twin jets or discussing sex and politics.
Not only is Wayne at the top of his game, but Janet Leigh is particularly appealing as the shapely Russian pilot.
Unlike John Wayne's more famous movie turkey, The Conquerer, this film is so bad that it is lots of fun to watch.
It stars off with a landing on an air force base and the pilot turns out to be Janet Leigh.
John Wayne is good as usual and Janet Leigh is very sexy in this movie, just watch the first scene in John Wayne's office, you'll see what i mean..
Howard Hughes original intension was to do another Hell's Angels for the Cold War Era. Remember that film was equally famous for the aviation shots as for the debut of Jean Harlow as sex symbol.Well if sex and flying worked before, why not again.
Jet Pilot was released seven years after it was originally filmed and by then the planes really looked out of date.
Air Force Colonel John Wayne interrogates Janet about the latest in Soviet technology, but then he gets other things on his mind.
Remember this was released on top of The Conqueror and between them they put and end to Wayne's seven year reign as number one at the box office.By the way at the time this was being filmed, Howard Hughes was panting after Janet Leigh the same way he'd earlier panted after Ava Gardner.
Janet Leigh who just passed away last Sunday was a very attractive actress and was a credible young Russian pilot cum spy.
8 years after it was made.The technical point of view is also interesting : F89 Scorpion, F86 Sabre, T33 Tbird, B36 huge bomber, F94c night interceptor, B29 Superfortress as the motherplane for the X1 and last but not least, the last flight of the aircraft (Bell X1) which exceeded the speed of sound in 1947 piloted by no less than Chuck Yeager himself.Some of the aerobatics in F86 supposed to be made by the Duke were actually performed by Chuck and are worth seeing them.But 55 years after, who cares that the film was actually seen much later than originally thought : Janet Leigh and John Wayne were eight years younger : this is the bonus of the film !.
As ludicrous as the narrative and dramatics are, this movie has some of the best, even wonderful, jet-age aerial scenes ever filmed.
It's like a historical (occassionally hysterical) air museum in motion.The fact that it avoided grainy/phony stock shots, that the aerial footage was shot especially for this movie, that Chuck Yeager performed much of the stunt flying, and that there is actual original footage of the Bell X-1 in flight, makes this movie a true gem for military aviation buffs.For Paul Frees fans, his brief appearance is incredibly energetic.Oddly, the DVD is letterboxed, but the 1950 production (with a delayed 1957 release) was shot before the widescreen era, and should have been uncropped full-screen on video...
It sure looks like the Duke is having a good time in the movie, which is very tongue-in-cheek.One little distraction among many historical inaccuracies, this is supposedly 1957 and in the colorized (?)version I saw recently o n AMC, it looks like Wayne is wearing a USAAF uniform.
The plot seems as though it was made up as they went along (on a few occasions, I thought a reel must be missing) and I don't think I'm giving anything away (like there was any suspense anyway) by saying John Wayne must really love Janet Leigh to stay with her after she pistol whips him.
Ninotchka comes to mind, and in a way - a hilarious way - Janet Leigh as the (intentionally?) grounded Russian jet pilot is in the footsteps of Greta Garbo here.
So-so picture portraying an American pilot in love with a defecting Russian spy , including earth-shaking scenes and spectacular flying.
It deals with Air Force Col. Jim Shannon (John Wayne) is tasked to escort a defecting Soviet pilot Lt. Anna Marladovna Shannon / Olga Orlief (cute-pie spy played by attractive Janet Leigh) who is scheming to lure Shannon to the USSR .
Amiable acting by John Wayne , in real life a staunch anti-communist, who shambles through the action with a permanent sympathetic grin , he plays a jet pilot in charge of Alaskian Air Force base who falls in love with a defecting pilot , a gorgeous Janet Leigh .
Brilliant cinematography in Cinemascope and Technicolor by Winton Hoch , John Ford 's usual cameraman , shot on location , the filming for the Russian air base was done at George Air Force Base, a World War II air base with many of its wartime structures still intact, giving the base a primitive appearance .
Sure it's bad, but it more looked a comedy than a war movie.John Wayne plays a US Air Force Colonel that is forced to escort a defecting soviet pilot (Janet Leigh) to Russia, and then all hell breaks loose, and in a funny way.
Paul Fix is the comic relief while Hans Conried did his best with the material he was given.However there was a good thing about this movie (that's why I rated it 7); the nice figther planes and the aerial shots, very ahead of its time (made in 1951, but not released until 1957)..
Unless you're willing to concede that the the movie was made as a farce, which I don't happen to believe, then the plot and acting are one cringeworthy moment after another, starting with Janet Leigh's improbably striptease after landing her Soviet fighter at a US airbase, not that there's anything wrong with her stripping, of course.
Were there other reasons for holding this film back?Whatever the reason, by the time of its release, "Jet Pilot" was clearly the first tongue-in-cheek treatment of the Cold War and Soviet Union that would reach its zenith in 1964 with "Dr. Strangelove." More than half a century later, the flying scenes in "Jet Pilot" are exciting and fun to watch.
Janet Leigh and the Duke have really good chemistry in this film which makes the romance jump off the screen.
Janet Leigh was fabulous in the film and took the spotlight in much of the film as a beautiful Russian jet pilot..
As a film, this is pretty awful: a crude piece of American patriotism with a stereotypical view of the Soviet Union shown at the height of the Cold War. In fact, the work was produced by RKO in 1950 which was owned by Howard Hughes but, by the time it was released in 1957, Hughes had sold RKO and the film was released by Universal.
It is presented as a kind of old-fashioned rom-com with John Wayne (a strong anti- communist) playing a United State Air Force colonel opposite Janet Leigh who is appallingly miscast as a Soviet defector (she makes no attempt at a Russian accent).For aviation buffs, however, the film has some interest.
However, the real motivation behind this film may have been more subtle, such as putting Janet Leigh's kissy face and contour-friendly mammary gland dimensions opposite John Wayne, to propel her into the national "silver screen" luminary spotlight.
And as smiling fate would have it, Janet's career went full bore right into the 60's, complete with "Psycho" shower scene immortality, without so much as a "leg up" from this film, which was finally released in 1957 for political red red tape reasons far in excess of any political statement this film actually makes.The most compelling question surrounding this film has to do with the V.I.P. treatment this "off course" seductive female Soviet fighter pilot receives, courtesy of the U.S. military, as John Wayne is assigned the task of escorting her on a whirlwind tour of parties, clubs and dances, ad nauseam.
That Janet Leigh, complete with jet-age bra support, has no pretensions to a Russian accent is in itself strangely disarming, setting the tone of a complex artifice that caricatures and manipulates the images and mannerisms of Cold War America.
But I wonder what it would've been considered if released back when it was written; Just as poor or rather interesting?Well I'm a movie lover, not a movie reviewer, but I can easily say this was a dog.I bet even John & Janet were rather embarrassed by this one.Still, I watched it and found myself quite taken by Janet Leigh's beauty and enchanting eyes, along with Johnny's youthful amorousity.The plot(?) is a sham, the "Commies" are treated as the usual moron's we were taught to believe them to be in every other propaganda flic, but it still serves to remind us of a time when even seduction was innocently provocative.Return to an earlier time while viewing this comedy-that-never-was, and please don't expect to walk away with a moral, or inspired.It's just a 'cute' way to blow an hour or two, and to remember what Studs Janet and John were in their day....get the popcorn popping' and leave the Kleenex on the shelf, you won't need it for this one..
It was made in 1949 when its shallow plot would have barely made political sense to movie goers; but wasn't released until 1957, four years after the US Air Force had trounced the North Koreans and Russians in aerial combat in the Korean War. Art didn't even imitate reality here.
Anything in it that doesn't directly involve us admiring Janet Leigh's goodies in tight swimsuits and dresses (including one absolutely steaming scene in the office where she strips down to a tight T-shirt and then after she's had a shower, appears in a towel), like the flimsy espionage plot, is merely a method to get around the censors of the time and put Leigh in situations where she'll have to look sexy.Or its boring footage of planes flying that only a flying enthusiast like Howard Hughes would be turned on by.Howard Hughes didn't know anything about the movies - sex sells, alright, but too much eroticism in a serious picture is a distraction.
I can watch this film just for the flying.I'd love to get my hands on all of the footage and remake it with a descent plot.Although intended to showcase American airpower in the 50's, it could be redone as cold war retro flick because the footage is still cool and beautiful.
John Wayne...this time winning the cold war Janet Leigh play..well ..Sweater Girl but does it really well she was such a beautiful woman it is easy to forgive the really terrible acting and just enjoy her hmmmmm eyes.
The movie is pure formula but not a bad spending of 90 min and even with the bad writing there are a few scenes where you can almost believe that Russian women pilots can not only fly everything yet do it without mussing up their hair and pack in a small jet at least 4 outfits including dress uniforms..
On screen romance of John Wayne and Janet Leigh steels the show.
However, John Wayne is in prime form here, and the onscreen romance between his character and Janet Leigh's works well.
Its difficult to believe that Josef Von Sternberg, the great master of atmospheric romances, the man who helmed Marlene Dietrich through all her great early 1930s films--The Blue Angel, Morocco and Shanghai Express--was supposed to have been around to direct this shambles; while fans of John Wayne who will accept almost anything The Duke appeared in may be pleased to see him outwit Russian spy Janet Leigh in really impressive Technicolor, and may be happy to see the incredibly grand jet fighter footage probably provided courtesy of Howard Hughes, those of us who want a little believability with our tales may find it difficult to accept Janet Leigh as a Russian spy with perfect Hollywood articulation, especially when wrapped up in some maroon and gold sparkly drag from what might be an old Maria Montez jungle epic; the best Russian vs.
Right-wing to the bone, John Wayne enjoyed every minute of it and it shows, but at least it is nice to see him laugh for a change, while he falls for a pilot (Janet Leigh) who has defected from the USSR.
When it is mentioned, it is as yet another Howard Hughes folly (for what it is worth, Hawks' own collaboration with the notoriously volatile producer on THE OUTLAW {1943} had proved equally disastrous if somewhat more rewarding as a film) or as one of 4 cinematic embarrassments that clouded the career of its legendary star, John Wayne – the others being the Commie-baiting BIG JIM McLAIN (1952), THE CONQUEROR (1956; with "The Duke" a most unlikely Genghis Khan!) and the flag-waving Vietnam War epic THE GREEN BERETS (1968).Though he respected Hughes and looked forward to working with scriptwriter Furthman again, Sternberg was humiliated into being asked to make a directing test before the start of shooting – having been away from film-making for almost a decade, with only a documentary short to his name in the interim and uncredited work on another troubled "Sex Western" as THE OUTLAW was i.e. the David O.
To get back to JET PILOT, the person to go through this cultural switch is young Russian aviatrix Janet Leigh: in true Hughes fashion, she was chosen for her natural attributes more than anything else but, in hindsight, she proves delightfully perky – even involving the usually stoic "Duke" into situations of sexual innuendo that, again, were a Hawksian prerogative and, where Wayne is concerned, would be featured most prominently in his relationship with Angie Dickinson in RIO BRAVO (1959).
All in all, JET PILOT (which I had first watched not too long ago on late-night Italian TV as a double-bill with the afore-mentioned THE CONQUEROR{!} – both would ultimately be released on DVD as part of Universal's 5-movie set JOHN WAYNE: AN American ICON) is reasonably enjoyable in a 'classic Hollywood' sort of way, despite being itself no such thing; making the viewing that more palatable are the notable contributions of cinematographer Winton C.
Way back in 1949, Howard Hughes signed Josef von Sternberg to direct a tatty romantic comedy by Jules Furthman about a U.S. Air Force pilot (John Wayne) who falls in love with a Russian aviator (Janet Leigh, would you believe?) and marries the girl.
Although "Jet Pilot" is a movie that does absolutely no credit to any of the people involved, either on screen or off, it's nonetheless an entertainingly gosh-awful foray into the comic strip fantasy land which Hughes obviously believed was the terrain of the United States Air Force.
He plays Air Force Col. Jim Shannon who get a surprise landing at his base by none other Janet Leigh.
In separate jets, Leigh and Wayne have landed at a Russian base.
------------HE TELLS HER TO "TURN RIGHT!!!"Well, this apparently works, because in the next scene they are at dinner, presumably in Vienna, and Janet is enjoying immensely her steak, the size of one Hoss might enjoy on "Bonanza."She then says something about how she'd like for the folks in her country (remember, she's a 1950's, Cold War-period Russkie) to become more interested in these (i.e. steaks) than guns.Immediately after this sage comment, Big John leans toward her and plants a kiss as the film ends.Movies can't be much more fun than this..
The tantalizing views of Janet Leigh make the movie well worth the time..
A defecting Soviet pilot (Leigh) is given a totally free rein (no detention, no interrogation, nothing!) and even allowed to fly modern US jet fighters, watched only by Wayne's character, who has fallen for her.
Its also hard to imagine the young Ms. Leigh, in her early 20s at the time, as a world wise Russian spy who speaks perfect English who is also an ace pilot.I'm sure that Mr. Hughes relished the flying sequences in this film as they are the best thing in it.
The scenes were shot in the American Southwest, including Edwards Air Force Base, from which I once caught a lift to Rome, New York.John Wayne is an Air Force colonel who get mixed up with Janet Leigh, a Soviet agent posing as a defector.
Janet Leigh, looking supernally beautiful and sensuous, first arrives at the Alaskan Air Force base and Wayne has to search her.
Well, not back then, in this movie, our Russian, played by Janet Leigh, speaks perfect American English!
I cannot think of another JOHN WAYNE film where a woman has looked so sexy.
But WAYNE looked kind of nasty in this film.The plane flying scenes are great to look at.
I watched the movie Jet Pilot with John Wayne and Janet Leigh and I would have to rate it at least 8 out of 10 scale.
Each bet a coin on whether Col. Shannon (John Wayne) who was flying with Lt. Anna Marladovna (Janet Leigh) would make contact (on radar) with a large cargo type plane (B-36)in 35 seconds.
John Wayne compliments Janet Leigh on her JET PILOT producer Howard Hughes-designed twin-torpedo brassiere. |
tt0098691 | Ying hung boon sik III: Zik yeung ji gor | In 1974, during the final days of the Vietnam War, Mark Lee arrives in Saigon, intending to bring his uncle and cousin Michael Cheung Chi-mun back to Hong Kong with him. After arriving at the airport, Mark is confined by corrupt security guards who strip and attempt to rob him, but he is saved by Chow Ying-kit, who seems to have some measure of influence.
Mark and Michael later encounter Kit in a nightclub, where they discover the woman is a criminal and gun runner. Kit takes an interest in the cousins and invites them to accompany her on a deal with a local Vietnamese warlord. The deal goes bad, but the three escape. Kit is impressed with the way Mark and Michael handled themselves and helps them escape Vietnam, taking them under her wing.
Over the next few months, Kit trains the cousins in her business and marksmanship. Mark and Michael develop an attraction to her and Kit is attracted to Mark. Despite his feelings, Mark does not reciprocate Kit's affections to avoid hurting Michael, who thinks Kit is in love with him.
Kit manages to secure safe passage for Mark, Michael, and Michael's father back to Hong Kong. The three return and start a new business there.
The leader of the arms smuggling company (and Kit's former lover), Sam Ho Cheung-ching, returns after a three-year absence when he was presumed dead. Jealous of Kit's relationship with Mark and Michael, he plots to kill the cousins. Ho sends a bomb to the business, which kills Michael's father. Ho and his men capture and beat Mark and Mun, warning them to stay away from Kit.
Kit expresses her regret for Michael's father's death and to share her feelings with Mark, which he reciprocates. Ho returns to Vietnam, taking Kit with him, to complete the deal with the Vietnamese warlord encountered earlier in the film.
Mark and Michael follow Ho back to Saigon, intending to kill him. Mark steps off the plane attired in his iconic outfit as seen in the first A Better Tomorrow: black duster, sunglasses, and matchstick in his mouth.
At an abandoned temple, where Kit meets Michael to give him two plane tickets to leave Saigon with Mark they are unexpectedly surrounded by Viet congs. They engage in a shootout with them. While trying to escape from them in a jeep driven by Pat, due to the bumpy ride, Michael falls off the jeep and gets caught in an explosion. Mark confronts Kit in her hotel concerning Michael's assumed death accusing her of betrayal and keeping secrets from him. Then enraged by her answers to his accusations he slapped her a few times. Before he leaves her room, he told her he wants nothing to do with her.
Ho and Kit head to their deal with the Vietnamese warlord. The warlord attempts to double-cross Ho. A shootout ensued. Mark came in the room dual wielding two M-16 rifles, intending to take his revenge on Ho after the shootout between the warlord and Ho died down. During the shootout between Ho and Mark, Kit is severely wounded by one of Ho's men and Ho is killed by the warlord.
Michael, who survived the explosion, arrives with Pat to help Mark make his getaway with the wounded Kit. The four are pursued by the warlord in a tank, but Mark manages to destroy the tank with explosives, killing the warlord.
With Kit dying, Mark and Michael rush Kit to the embassy, where a mass evacuation is taking place due to the Fall of Saigon. Showing Kit's travel pass to the guards, the three are granted aboard on the last chopper leaving the embassy, which lifts off just as the crowds rush in past the gate and the North Vietnamese flag is raised.
Succumbing to her severe injury, Kit dies in Mark's arms. Cradling Kit's lifeless body, Mark contemplates as the chopper flies off into the sunset. | tragedy, violence | train | wikipedia | While loyal John Woo fans (like myself) may feel offended that a sequel was done without his involvement, this film stands alone as a true masterpiece of Tsui Hark's.
Anita Mui is fantastic and lends real credibility and sensitivity to this film as the woman who teaches Yun Fat's "Mark" how to both "be cool" and use 2 guns at once.
A Better Tomorrow III:Love and death in Saigon (1989) is an underrated masterpiece.
The film takes place during the final days of the Vietnam War. Mark Go (Yun-Fat Chow) and his friend (Tony Leung Ka-Fai) are in South Vietnam on a business trip and also to meet Leung's father.
Mark Go learns a lot from Ms. Mui as she teaches him how to survive in a brutal environment.A great film from the ever reliable Tsui Hark.
I say,"So what!" The film is an essential action film from the master Tsui Hark.Highly recommended.Anita Mui also performs the songs in the film.
If it goes in a different direction (like in this case) it runs the risk of alienating a lot of loyal fans.Not sure how many of you knew the storyline prior to watching the film.
I remember a scene in the original ABT where Mark talks about the "old days" of making counterfeit deals with Ho in Indoesia!!
Prequel to John Woo's first two "Tomorrow" films.
Tsui Hark directed this sequel (1989) to John Woo's classic heroic bloodshed films Better Tomorrow 1 and 2 made couple of years earlier, and this third installment is more a prequel than sequel.
They meet mysterious female assassin Kit (the beautiful sweetheart Anita Mui) and both of the men are attracted by Kit. The film concentrates pretty much on the war infested Saigon and the hell that's free in there, so there isn't any particular plot in the film, but that doesn't mean it's not interesting.I think there's couple of strong scenes of social criticism, mostly the horrific "customs scene" at the airport when Mark, Mun, Kit and Mun's father try to travel away from the country and are abused by the corrupted custom officers.
Fortunately Tsui's attitude isn't this time as underlining as in his Once Upon a Time in China (1991), and Tomorrow 3 is therefore perhaps more noteworthy film as commenting society.The visuals are also brilliant as can be expected from this director.
The ending is little irritating due to it's prolonged gun battles and fire power, and I think it should have stopped little earlier in order to be more effective finale for the otherwise pretty great film.Better Tomorrow 3 is not as great and interesting as Woo's films, but still this is much more than average effort from Hollywood, and due to Tomorrow 3's great look and visuals, I give this gladly 8/10 rating and think this is among the greatest films Tsui Hark has directed himself.
A Better Tomorrow 3 takes place during the Vietnam war and goes back to show how Mark became the professional killer that he is.
This beautiful romantic action-drama classic is just another proof that Woo has NOTHING on Tsui Hark's genius !!.
this film has something Woo never had, and that's a very good idealistic, detailed but at the same time a complex screenplay that is also opening the door for many various interpretations of the viewer as far as characters beliefs and motivations go; very long spontaneous but also intense dramatic moments led sometimes by the three characters at the very same time, brilliantly structured moody cinematography and "many" distinct characters differing one from another with their own issues interconnected throughout the story, and most of all the ability telling a story mainly only by the images and songs.
Although, one thing one could find lacking here that many fans of the first two films were affected by, which are the action sequences that this film has clearly no such interest in or simply not being as focused on as many Woo's films, though, such scenes appear here now and then if sporadically but when they show up they're coming with a sense of the unanticipation, shock and philosophical meaningness.
As one biographer wrote: "In The Killer Woo shows two men firing guns, back to back, a sort of enclosed circle; Tsui Hark has the same shot in A Better Tomorrow III, except that it's Ho and Kit!
Likewise, Tsui has no interest in copying Woo's "bullet ballet" style of directing action sequences; instead, Tsui emphasizes the characters and the situations.
Woo directs action for the sake of the action; Tsui directs it for the sake of the story!" Why people usually prefer the first one to this much dramatically superior film was already many times explained before and one of the things very often mentioned is the element of the commercialism and the appeal well-disposed to the western tastes that was ironically and effectively sold out.
This time the meaning of the film is not about the traditional honor, loyalty or brotherhood we've already seen in a never ending line of similar maudlin homo-erotic movies; Here we are introduced to the very meditative themes about the complexities of love and equality, and above all Tsui Hark makes a much more ambitious effort as he brings these themes to a world swallowed by chaos.
Otherwise he brings plentiful other themes resonating with the modern time, among the politics, the fear of the 97 handover and the sprawling examination of gender roles, the film's background centers on the celebration of the Chinese nationality by the usage of the mutual heritage in favor of all or the Chinese notion of fate circling around all the main characters, basically involving Anita Mui's meditative Kit pondering over all her doomed life that's conversely gonna reflect the life of Fat's Mark Gor later in his gangster period (previous sequels -- mind you).Each 24 or 20 frames per second are filled with an incredible ingenious sense for the timing and meaningful idea that both come along making a totally explosive impact on the mind of the viewer, either verbally or visually.
The film employs a jaggy, documentary style to capture the chaos of its time; then later in more quiet moments of the film's time-frame it's creating a lovely montage of Mun, Mark and Kit shopping, using gradated filters for a dreamy, romantic feel that's bringing a sort of allegorical meaning that life continues even under the worst situations, and can also continue with joy.There's another thing that makes this timeless masterpiece different from other installments: this is one of the very few films that can never be REMADE.
Different to John Woo's original two films, but it's almost as good.
The action scenes although lacking the finesse of the John Woo trademark mayhem, are still high velocity and powerful.
Though people have been saying how much of a disappointment this prequel is, I watched it anyways, being a fan of the first two movies.
And to be fair, it wasn't a bad experience at all.I can see how people would be frustrated going in expecting more of the same and getting an action/drama movie instead, but I was told that it was less action and more romance beforehand.
Which is an above average movie overall.The Good: Chow Yun Fat returns to his character from the first film, which is great.
No, there are no scenes like the finale of A Better Tomorrow 2, but come on, did you really expect that kind of scene again?
The ending of A Better Tomorrow 2 is so spectacular, can you blame the prequel for not trying to top it and go elsewhere instead?
The chemistry between Chow Yun Fat's Mark and Anita Mui's Kit is great, especially with Kit.
Great job.The not so good: Many people accuse John Woo's films of totally ignoring women.
But when it comes to A Better Tomorrow, many people criticize part three for placing a woman in the mix.
There should be more women representation is some of John Woo's work, but with this series, many fans prefer a team of friends, guys, more specifically Ho, Mark, and Kit from the first in the series.
I would rather have had part three be a true sequel picking up where the second left off [with Ho and Mark's brother Ken (also played by Fat)] and tell about there struggles and how they are getting over the events of the last movie.
Then you can put Anita Mui in the storyline somewhere and have her help them out in some way.Overall, A Better Tomorrow 3 is pretty good.
Action plot was a mess, whoever gave Hark Tsui a go on this movie instead of John Woo should be fined .The main actress was gorgeous though , with that - 5/10.
We get to know how Mark Gor(Yun-Fat`s legendary ultracool gangster from ABT1) became a gun-toting gangster in Vietnam in the 1970`s.
The action is directed by Tsui Hark, a very good actiondirector, but not a patch on John Woo.
I expected the same classic shootouts and drama like the first two "Better Tomorrow"'s.
The back cover said that this movie was about "Mark" becoming the hit-man he was in "Better Tomorrow 1".
These action scenes cannot be compared to John Woo's sequences.
Mark Gor (Chow Yun Fat) goes to Saigon to fetch his cousin and uncle during the Vietnam war.
Directed by Tsui Hark (who produced the first 2 movies) instead of John Woo. Not as great as the first, but worth a look.True to the "Better Tomorrow" series, as well as the whole John-Woo-aesthetic, the movie's about male-bonding.
But this movie also focuses on romance: Mark and his cousin Mun (Tony Leung Ka Fai) both fall for sexy gang leader Kit (Anita Mui).It was great to see a woman as a gangster for once, and Anita Mui was cool as hell.
Her neon-orange-red lips practically glow and bleed into every scene she's in.Of interest to fans: the movie shows Kit teaching Mark how to shoot a gun, and explains where Mark got his trademark coat and sunglasses.Also notable is that this movie contains Chow Yun Fat's most authentic kiss with a woman.
"A Better Tomorrow III" is a desperate attempt to make some cash out of the legendary character Mark Gor, the three words before "III" in the title and the man they call Chow Yun Fat. It would have been somewhat more watchable if they changed this film to another chapter in the lives of Ho, Lung and Ken Gor but director Hark Tsui made the crucial mistake of making this a prequel: way back to the Vietnam war.
Chow Yun Fat still makes another charismatic mark on the film but the action scenes are really terrible if you just watch this after something like Hard-Boiled.
You should do better than this...But non-fans of CYF and the BT series will be pleased with the character study of Mark Gor and the off-beat romance he has with Anita Mui. It's not a complete disappointment to mainstream viewers, but to loyal Hong Kong action fans: YES..
Would've been a bit better if John Woo had directed it.
In 1986, director John Woo and producer Tsui Hark teamed up to make a box office hit, 'A BETTER TOMORROW', which became a huge success.
In 1987, John Woo directed a sequel called 'A BETTER TOMORROW II' and in 1989, producer Tsui Hark, directed the prequel to the popular smash hit series, 'A BETTER TOMORROW III'.
Well, from the star rating I gave it, it means it's the best in the series although it's got almost nothing to do with the first two films and it obviously does try to copy the John Woo style of directing but that doesn't stop it from being a great movie.Set after the Vietnam war, Cheung (Tony Leung Ka Fei) goes to Saigon so he could bring his uncle and his cousin, Mark (Chow Yun-Fat) back to Hong Kong.
However, while Cheung is in Saigon, he meets a beautiful woman named Chow (Anita Mui), who is a dangerous gang leader, who could help Mark and his uncle return safely to Hong Kong.The action scenes are really good, although they are no match to the Woo standard, what else is great about the film is its haunting but very beautiful theme song sung by Chinese pop star, Anita Mui. If you liked the first two movies, you might be able to enjoy this one, even though it has got almost nothing to do with the series..
Chow Yun-Fat reprises his iconic role as Mark Lee, the epitome of cool gangster immortalized in the first A Better Tomorrow film, directed by John Woo. This time around we get a prequel, depicting Mark's early days in the midst of the Vietnam War as he tries to rescue his uncle and cousin from amidst the horrors of war, in the process meeting a woman and learning the skills he would later use to rise to the top echelons of the Triad.It's a workable plot and definitely something anyone who has seen the original films would be interested in seeing.
The problem is that they changed the director from John Woo to Tsui Hark, and unfortunately he doesn't have the skills of the master whose boots he's supposed to fill.
John Woo still produced the film and you can see touches of his style in the film, but overall it feels like a cheap imitation.
The action scenes lack the impact of the previous two films, the characters are not as deep or as well-defined, and the overall story lacks coherence and tension.Now, that being said, it's by no means a bad film.
It still has Chow Yun-Fat playing Mark Lee, which alone makes the film worth checking out if you liked the originals.
And the new characters are not bad either, with Anita Mui's Kit being an excellent female protagonist, who teaches Mark everything he would later use in his life.The film isn't as good as it could have been.
Tsui Hark, who did us a favor in not directing part one of this series, is here to remind us, that it better that way.
Since John Woo(ldn't) want to have any of this sequel/prequel or whatever you like to call it, they had to find somebody else.
Watch "Bullet in the Head" instead to see, how this could've looked like, if Woo directed it!
Now this is a prequel to the first film, so rather than ABT 3 I might have suggested they call it A Better Yesterday, but I wasn't there at the time.This time Woo is out and Tsui Hark is in the director's chair, (leading to the worst film in the trilogy).
Is it any wonder that Woo and Hark were once peers and that only one went on to direct internationally while the other stayed in Hong Kong making films?
(In Tsui Hark's defense Woo's only real strength is action sequences, his films are otherwise no better or worse.
It is like Tsui Hark said I can't promise you'll enjoy it, so I'll make it bloodier and more far fetched.A young Mark (Chow Yun Fat) goes to Vietnam in 1974 at the tail end of the Vietnam war to meet his cousin Mun as he released from prison for being involved in the black market.Mun only turned to crime to assist his ailing father to leave Vietnam and return to Hong Kong, but he got caught up in the wrong crowd and ended up in jail.
A Better Tomorrow III: Love And Death In Saigon (Tsui Hark, 1989) **.
I had watched the previous two entries in the series also featuring Chow Yun-Fat but it's been too long to really make comparisons, except to say that I recall enjoying them.
Actually a prequel, set in Saigon at the time of the Vietnam War, this was made with no involvement from the director of the earlier films (John Woo).
However, it's bogged down by a dreary romantic triangle plot line...Even if I was disappointed by this third film in the series (there's yet another follow-up, from a new director, called RETURN TO A BETTER TOMORROW [1994] - which is available at my local DVD outlet...but I don't think I'll be renting it anytime soon), I still have another Tsui Hark epic waiting to be watched this week, SEVEN SWORDS (2005), which does sound promising....
Even if he wanted to push the envelope on the series by making a prequel, he should've done a wayyyyy better job.The storyline takes Mark back to Vietnam, where we learn his life as a younger, much less "gangly" individual.
It also has a take on his romantic days with a mysterious mob boss' girlfriend, Anita Mui, and the love square they all shared with the Japanese boss and Tony Leung.Let's talk what's important 1st in these movies.
Whatever you can expect in a late 80's, early 90's action Hong Kong film = it's all there.
Tsui Hark definitely made it through with the gun fighting scenes.
THEN he's somehow involved with Anita Mui. I'm sorry, but some scenes where Mark is caught up in love made me lose respect for the character of Mark that I know.What makes these ABT films is through the theme of brotherhood - in this movie, there simply wasn't enough - or it just wasn't standing out.
This is the prequel to Chow Yun-Fat's bullet ballet A Better Tomorrow, where Mark Gor travels to Saigon near the end of the Vietnam war to get his cousin, Mun (Tony Leung Kai-Fai) and uncle out of jail.
He falls in love with female gangster Chow Ying-Kit (Anita Mui), and her dangerous ex-boyfriend complicates the mission.Like the original movie, this movie has a powerful plot from start to finish, from the intense drama between the Mark Gor and his cousin to the war suspense in Vietnam.There is plenty of mind-blowing action, some to the point that is a little overkill. |
tt0063240 | The Lost Continent | The film begins with a ship slowly moving through mist and a pan shot down the vessel reveals an odd collection of people – Spanish conquistadores, priests, pirates, seamen and finally to the captain of ship who is reading the burial rites over a coffin. The coffin is subsequently ditched overboard and the captain asks "What happened to us? How did we all get here...?" The film then cuts back in time to previous events.
On the bridge of the tramp steamer Corita, Captain Lansen (Eric Porter) orders his crew to avoid the repeated requests of a customs launch from the port of Freetown to stop for inspection. The captain orders the ship full steam ahead and to avoid the usual shipping lanes on its way to Caracas.
The passengers on board all have various reasons for leaving Freetown – amongst them a Dr Webster (Nigel Stock) and his daughter Unity (Suzanna Leigh) for his indiscretions with patients, an alcoholic conman Harry Tyler (Tony Beckley), and Ms Eva Peters (Hildegard Knef) who has stolen bearer bonds to pay for the ransom on her son in Caracas, but who has a lawyer, Ricaldi (Ben Carruthers), after her to retrieve them.
In the ship's hold the crew comes across a large cache of unknown yellow containers. The captain tells the crew to not ask what is inside the containers but that they must be kept dry and handled securely. The captain is also informed of a storm ahead but ploughs on regardless knowing that the passengers do not want to return to the African port.
Captain Lansen informs his First Officer Hemmings (Neil McCullum) that they are transporting a dangerous explosive – Phosphor B ('Phosphore Blanc', i.e. white phosphorus) – and he demonstrates in a sink what happens if it comes into contact with water - it explodes violently.
When some crew members are ordered to take some slack out of the anchor chain, the anchor windlass breaks and sends the anchor crashing down the side of the ship, holing the hull right where the explosives are stored. When the emergency pumps are started to try and pump out the store room, the generator breaks down and all power is lost.
The crew convince the First Officer that it’s too dangerous on board and that they need to abandon ship. Overpowering Captain Lansen and clubbing the ship's Indian chef (Shivendra Sinha) unconscious, they take to a lifeboat. The passengers and engine room crew decide to remain on board as the call to abandon ship hasn’t been made by the captain. While they attempt to lower the lifeboat, Lansen opens fire on the mutineers and the lifeboat crashes into the sea. The boat survives and the crew row away.
Lansen informs the passengers about the cargo and they help him move it from the flooding storage room. However, the Chief Engineer, Nick (James Cossins), tells Lansen that he cannot fix the generator, so the captain decides to abandon ship and gets the remaining crew and passengers into a lifeboat.
The lifeboat survives the storm and the captain tries to maintain morale but argument breaks out about the supplies and too many people in the lifeboat. The alcoholic Tyler manages to drink a flagon of rum, and he and Dr Webster end up in the sea. While Tyler tries to rescue Webster, the doctor is devoured by a shark, and a subsequent fight in the lifeboat sees another crew member, who was trying to stab the captain, shot with a flare gun.
In the morning the lifeboat finds itself surrounded by odd-looking seaweed. Lansen picks a piece of it up and it immediately tightly wraps itself around his hand, drawing blood. Lansen just manages to pull it off. However, the injured cook goes delirious, tumbles overboard and is quickly enveloped up by the carnivorous seaweed. The lifeboat then bumps into a ship. It transpires to be the Corita, with the bartender (Jimmy Hanley) still aboard. They all get aboard, but find the propellers are fouled with the seaweed and they are left drifting with the currents. During the night, the lawyer is attacked and dragged overboard by a huge octopus.
The next day, a girl called Sarah (Dana Gillespie) appears walking on the weed, using large shoes and lighter-than-air balloons attached to her shoulders. She tells the captain they will be attacked soon and shortly thereafter the ship is attacked by a number of Spanish soldiers/pirates. The crew and passengers fight them off and the surviving attackers return to a Spanish galleon. On board the galleon we find a child leader – "El Supremo" (Darryl Read) – the descendent of the Spanish Conquistadores, and members of the Spanish Inquisition who ordered the attack on the Corita in order to get stores. The failure of the attack sees the leader of the attackers thrown into a pit in the ship that contains a sea monster that devours him.
Sarah tells the captain about how her ancestors were trapped in the Sargasso Sea many years before and that they live on an island. They have been at war with the Spanish descendants for many years. Sarah then takes an opportunity to try and return to her island. The ship's chief and bartender, the conman go after her but get lost in the mist. Sarah finds them but they decide to stay on an island for the night and find the ship in the morning. While on the rock the bartender is attacked and killed by a giant hermit crab which itself is then attacked by a giant scorpion and killed after it is shot in the eye while the scorpion escapes. Sarah, the ship's chief, and the conman are then captured by the Spanish and taken to the galleon.
Lansen then appears on the galleon to rescue his people and tells the Spanish that they can join him rather than be under the control of the religious zealots. Even the child leader "El Supremo" wants to come along, but he is killed by the head of the Inquisition. The crew battles some of the galleon's crew and use the Phosphor B explosives to set alight the galleon and the seaweed.
The captain and his crew, along with those Spaniards who have decided to join Lansen, withdraw to the Corita. We then return to the start of the film with the burial of the child leader. The ship is seen moving through the mist – leaving the viewer to decide whether they are still trapped or sailing away from the "Lost Continent". | murder, flashback | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0465188 | Nuovomondo | The first major segment of the film introduces the poor Mancuso family (headed by the widowed Salvatore, Vincenzo Amato), from Sicily, Italy,at the turn of the 20th century residing in a rural mountainous region, who decide to emigrate to the United States after receiving a sign from God in the form of American postcards depicting giant produce and chickens.Their dreams about the land of opportunity where giant vegetables are grown, people swim in milk, and coins fall from the sky propel their decision, which gives the viewer insight into the unrealistic expectations that many immigrants held about America. Salvatore takes his family consisting of his two sons as well as his old mother, Fortunata, who we learn is the village witch doctor and involved heavily in mystique.(Aurora Quattrocchi). The dramatic scene that opens up the next segment of the film, the boat trip, visually depicts a sea of people being separated , those on the dock and those on the boat metaphorically representing the departure of the old and the new world respectively.
While aboard the ship to America, the introduction of an enigmatic character in the form of a red-headed British woman named Lucy (Charlotte Gainsbourg) who is traveling alone , stands out as both an attractive and elusive woman, catching the attention of the men for her beauty and the women for her classiness and independence. Salvatore is immediately smitten with this woman throughout the journey. Upon arrival at Ellis Island, Lucy asks Salvatore to marry her purely for administrative reasons, as being a woman she is unable to enter the United States alone. He agrees; he understands that she is not in love with him yet, but expects that will come with time. Their complex relationship highlights the troubling dynamic of the time, as women must still submit to male authority in the new world in order to even hope for the lesser freedom they so desire.
At Ellis Island, the final major segment of the film, the family join the rest of the immigrants on board to undergo extensive and humiliating physical and psychological examinations and questioning. The value of class that separated the immigrants on the ship becomes irrelevant in this final segment, as all of the immigrant's places in the new world are not guaranteed; they are all deemed equal. The ending of the movie reveals a surprising transfer of power between Pietro and Fortunata, as Pietro voices to Salvatore that his grandmother wishes to return home. After the tests are conducted, Salvatore is informed that Pietro (Filippo Pucillo) is about to be sent back for being mute, and Salvatore's mother for insufficient intelligence. The viewers are then left with the dilemma of whether Salvatore chooses to return home with his family or enter the United States. | romantic, flashback | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0342735 | Manderlay | The film is told in eight straight chapters:
In which we happen upon Manderlay and meet the people there
"The freed enterprise of Manderlay"
"The Old Lady's Garden"
In which Grace means business
"Shoulder to Shoulder"
Hard times at Manderlay
"Harvest"
In which Grace settles with Manderlay and the film ends
Set in the 1933, the film takes up the story of Grace and her father after burning the town of Dogville at the end of the previous film. Grace and her father travel in convoy with a number of gunmen through rural Alabama where they stop briefly outside a plantation called Manderlay. As the gangsters converse, a black woman emerges from Manderlay's front gates complaining that someone is about to be whipped for stealing a bottle of wine.
Grace enters the plantation and learns that within it, slavery persists, roughly 70 years after the American Civil War and the Emancipation Proclamation. Grace is appalled, and insists on staying at the plantation with a small contingent of gunmen and her father's lawyer, Joseph, in order to guarantee the slaves' safe transition to freedom. Shortly after Grace's father and the remaining gangsters depart, Mam, the master of the house, dies, but not before asking Grace to burn a notebook containing "Mam's Law," an exhaustive code of conduct for the entire plantation and all its inhabitants, free and slave. She reads the descriptions of each variety of slave that can be encountered, which include:
Group 1: Proudy Nigger
Group 2: Talkin' Nigger
Group 3: Weepin' Nigger
Group 4: Hittin' Nigger
Group 5: Clownin' Nigger
Group 6: Losin' Nigger
Group 7: Pleasin' Nigger (also known as a chameleon, a person of the kind who can transform himself into exactly the type the beholder would like to see)
The principal seven divisions are each populated by a single adult slave at Manderlay, who congregate daily and converse on a "parade ground," with Roman numerals of the numbers 1 through 7 designating where each slave stands. "Mam's Law" contains further provisions against the use of cash by slaves, or the felling of trees on the property for timber.
All of this information disgusts Grace, and inspires her to take charge of the plantation in order to punish the slave owners and prepare the slaves for life as free individuals. In order to guarantee that the former slaves will not continue to be exploited as sharecroppers, Grace orders Joseph to draw up contracts for all Manderlay's inhabitants, institutionalizing a communistic form of cooperative living in which the white family works as slaves and the blacks collectively own the plantation and its crops. Throughout this process, Grace lectures all those present about the notions of freedom and democracy, using rhetoric entirely in keeping with the ideology of racial equality which most contemporary Americans had yet to embrace.
However, as the film progresses, Grace fails to embed these principles in Manderlay's community in a form she considers satisfactory. Furthermore, her suggestions for improving the conditions of the community backfire on several occasions, such as using the surrounding trees for timber, which leaves the crops vulnerable to dust storms. After a year of such tribulations, the community harvests its cotton and successfully sells it, marking the high point of Grace's involvement. Subsequently she un-enthusiastically has sex with one of the ex-slaves who also steals and gambles away all of the cotton profits. Finally admitting her failure, Grace contacts her father and attempts to leave the plantation only to be stopped by the plantation's blacks. At this point it is revealed that "Mam's Law" was not conceived and enforced by Mam or any of the other whites, but instead by Wilhelm, the community's eldest member, as a means of maintaining the status quo after the abolition of slavery, protecting the blacks from a hostile outside world. As in many von Trier films, the idealistic main character becomes frustrated by the reality he or she encounters. | thought-provoking, melodrama, flashback | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0072417 | A Woman Under the Influence | Los Angeles housewife and mother Mabel loves her construction worker husband Nick and desperately wants to please him, but the strange mannerisms and increasingly odd behavior she displays while in the company of others has him concerned. Convinced she has become a threat to herself and others, he reluctantly commits her to an institution, where she undergoes treatment for six months.
Left alone with his three children, Nick proves to be neither wiser nor better than his wife in the way he relates to and interacts with them or accepts the role society expects him to play.
After six months Mabel returns home but she is not prepared to do so emotionally or mentally, and neither is her husband prepared correctly for her return. At first Nick invites a large group of people to the house for a party to celebrate his wife's return, but realizing at the last minute that this is foolish, he sends most of them home. Mabel then returns with mostly only close family, including her parents, Nick's parents, and their three children to greet her but even this is overwhelming and the evening disintegrates into yet another emotionally and psychologically devastating event.
Nick kicks the family out of the house, leaving husband and wife alone. After yet another psychotic episode where Mabel cuts herself, Nick decides to put the children to bed. The youngsters profess their love for their mother as she tucks them in. Nick and Mabel themselves ready their bed for the night as the film ends. | suspenseful, depressing, bleak, insanity, claustrophobic, melodrama, romantic | train | wikipedia | Gena Rowlands' portrayal of the likable but frail Mabel is nothing short of incredible, and Peter Falk gives an equally remarkable performance as Mabel's husband Nick.
This is just another confirmation that Cassavetes, along with Dreyer and Tarkovsky, is one of the very small number of geniuses in film, whose every film is an extension of their genius -- some more mature than others, but impossible to be "bad"; they are beyond terms like "good" or "bad" -- they are the great art works of the century.This film isn't about a "crazy" lady; it's not about putting a woman in an institution; and it's not about people talking about your crazy wife, though all of this happens in the film.
What Cassavetes does is turn *us* into children -- it's as if we're experiencing things for the first time all over again, because it's a totally new experience, the same with watching a movie like "Andrei Rublev." That is an amazing thing to pass onto an audience.
It's not a screamy moment with a woman hiding in the bathroom; his avuncular twang is disarming.There's a complete lack of self-consciousness in the film, and I mean that in terms of the characters (during Mable's key freak out scene, Rowlands does, I think, go too far) -- that's why the kids are s terrific in the film.
She's a frenetic, guideless woman trying to do the guiding.The way Cassavetes sets up the film, with ominous piano music that comes in when Falk is trying to speak, blinded by frustration; or setting the film inside this house with gigantic rooms, makes everything feel larger and emptier at the same time.
Peter Falk is underrated as Nick, the husband who tries to deal with Mabel's condition, with such severity sometimes, that even himself can't control his own reactions.This is the set-up of the film, it's a drama, that couldn't have been directed by anyone but the great John Cassavettes.
Every look on Gena's eyes, every way she deforms her face, every noise or weird hand gesture she makes is the expression of a poor little a soul trying to communicate a part of what remains in the bottom, what remains of Mabel's personality.Confronted to Mabel's emotional clumsiness, Nick looks totally helpless, yet he's not exempt from reproaches.
If Mabel acts under Nick's influence, Nick's life and behavior are equally influenced by Mabel's problem, the effects on the couple, on the family and the relationships with the friends are disturbingly heart-breaking.Disturbing, Cassavetes' masterpiece is because it reflects our own fears with a gripping realism, it's a journey into the deepest bottom of the human soul, made of anger, fear, sadness, happiness, reason, craziness, men, women, children, human relationships.
"A Woman under the Influence"'s direction turns it into a chaotic journey into human relationships, and a very exhausting experience in reality.Gena Rowlands gave the best performance I've ever seen, and the fact she won or not an Oscar doesn't even matter ...
Director John Cassavetes follows a few months in the life of a family whose mother and wife (Gena Rowlands) is suffering from mental illness, and the movie consists of one long scene after another of her cracking up, or trying not to crack up, and the various family members' reactions to her cracking up.
The highlight of the film (or low point, depending on your point of view) comes when Rowlands's character returns home from a stay in an institution, and her family works overtime to convince themselves that everything's fine when the audience can see clearly that everything is not.Bruising is the best word I can think of to describe this film.Grade: A-.
Her performance is on par with the best study of nervous breakdown I've seen, and this is Liv Ullmann in Bergman's "Face to Face".Peter Falks was also a revelation - I love him as Lt. Columbo in the TV series but he is a completely different character here; in a way, he is as mentally unbalanced as his wife is.
Falk meanwhile is a revelation to those who know him only from Colombo - his portrayal of the inarticulate, confused, occasionally violent but still very loving Nick is perfect - he just IS this guy.Incidentally, you can see where Scorsese took many of the ideas for his most personal films from (notably "Mean Streets" which apparently he made after Cassavetes criticised "Boxcar Bertha") although he tidied them up and made them commercial.
While John Cassavetes is (rightly) revered for this film and other under his belt, wife/key-star Gena Rowlands is the most fascinating and emotionally gripping part to this work, Woman Under the Influence.
And as it happens, Falk finds some of his most daring work here as Nick, a character who in his own way has become as nuts as Mabel with the everyday grind of living (which for both of them is filled with people, talk, pure humanity).
Within its two-and-a-half hour running time, John Cassavetes touches on some of the most indescribable emotional states that human beings ever experience.Technically, the film is equally excellent, with a nice minimalist score by Bill Harwood, softly beautiful cinematography, and fascinating editing.
I have met people who are truly mentally disturbed, yet I've never seen any of them act quite like Gena Rowlands in A Woman Under the Influence.
I have met people who are truly mentally disturbed, yet I've never seen any of them act quite like Gena Rowlands in A Woman Under the Influence.
A fascinating study of mental illness, "A Woman Under the Influence" rests on two strengths - the spectacular performances by Peter Falk and Gena Rowlands, and Cassavetes's groundbreaking style of direction.
In one example of great main leads in his films, Cassavetes' real-wife Rowlands is playing Mabel, the woman of the title, the house-wife of a Peter Falk's construction foreman Nick.
Filmmaker John Cassavetes was criticized at the time for creating what some saw as a preconceived tour-de-force for actress-spouse Gena Rowlands, yet she seems to fully inhabit the neuroses of this unstable woman, giving the role enough batty flourish to cover several performances.
"A Woman Under the Influence" (1974) is a romantic drama about a marriage between Nick Longhetti, played by Peter Falk, and Mabel Longhetti, played by Gina Rowlands.
In a Los Angeles suburb, Mabel (Gena Rowlands) is a stay-at-home Mom married to Nick (Peter Falk) who works in construction and has good friendships with his colleagues.
Gena Rowlands gave one really really great performance.But it is not just Mabel and her mental illness which the film is all concerned about.
But thanks to the characterisations of Gena Rowlands (Cassavete's wife in the part of Mabel Longhetti) and Peter Falk (as her husband Nick) a rather simple story like this gets complex and multi-layered.
"A woman under the influence" is,along with "a child is waiting" and maybe "husbands" John Cassavetes's most accessible work.Accessible,but not necessary palatable for everyone.Improvisation has a large part,the spaghetti scene was probably filmed like that,that's why Cassavetes has his own actors troup:here we find Gena Rowlands(dazzling),Peter Falk(a thousand miles away from Colombo) and Cassavetes's own mother.One of the child is played by Matthew Laborteaux,who will be very popular as Albert in the "little house" series.
Rowlands plays a very normal woman,living in a rather Italian macho world,where woman has got to content herself with cooking ,gardening,and child care.But after a problem at her husband's work,everything seems to go wrong:Mabel's games with the children seem odd to her family circle,and,one night,she sleeps with the first to come.She's gone nuts,as her family thinks.
After a psychiatric hospital stay,Mabel comes back ,a new Mabel,all smiling.She seems to have changed,but her behavior is too contrived,too polite,without the spontaneity she had before,in a nutshell,her psyche is shot.After a suicide attempt,her husband understands that the true Mabel was the one before.Will they be able to pick up the pieces?This is a very long movie (2 hours and a half)with very long scenes that might bore some.Cassavetes is closer to European mood,that's why he 's so revered here.You will be highly rewarded if you follow Mabel's rocky road in this man's man's man's world though..
While this may have been annoying in some scenes of Faces, in a work like A Woman Under the Influence it makes us become more involved in the chaos of the Longhetti family.He certainly is helped by all the cators he chooses in the film.
There are no black screens ending the scenes, the fights are long and unbearable, the uncomfortable situations that Rowland's state of mind leads to are never ended abruptly, we often stay for the whole events, stay for the beginning, the middle and the end of every single little tragedy that happens everyday.The husband shouting, the wife making strange sounds, the kids crying.
Mabel Longhetti (Gena Rowlands), a wife and mother, is loved by her husband Nick (Peter Falk) but her madness proves to be a problem in the marriage.
A Tale of Woe. Fresh to Cassavetes' canon, A WOMAN UNDER THE INFLUENCE is tiresome and exhausting for my first-time viewing, throughout the entire running time (155 minutes), we watch a series of intense clashes between Mabel (Gena Rowlands) and Nick (Peter Falk), sometimes catalyzed by their family members or close friends, and the repercussions includes Mabel exacerbates her mental disability and the collateral damage to their 3 young children.
Cassavetes constructs the whole thing as a study on the role of madness in the American family, how it buries in and makes an impact on the entire household.Rather than strictly making it a study of the psychotic Mabel, he makes an intimate point in exploring Falk's Nick, the loving and eternally trying husband.
I think a lot of scenes go on too long and there's no reason for this to be over two hours, but the eerie sensation Cassavetes is able to bring out of these extended interactions was very interesting to me.Where the film doesn't work for me and what dragged it down a lot, unfortunately, was in Rowlands' performance.
In an Oscar-nominated performance, Gena Rowlands plays Mabel Longhetti, a mentally unstable housewife married to blue-collar worker, Nick.
So authentic.The drama is almost unbearable to watch so despite the good acting I don't think I will be watching this movie again in the near future (read on IMDb that Rowlands persuaded Cassavetes not to set this up as a play as it would not have been possible to play Mabel Longhetti on a regular basis).Still.
This movie is about a mother/wife who is somewhat odd or even could be considered a little crazy and thus makes the marriage very strenuous.We get a feel for how Mabel's life works, we see her in the very beginning rushing around the house with her kids trying to get them ready to go to her mothers house for the night.
In director John Cassavete's brilliant film, "A Woman under the Influence", Gena Rowlands plays Mabel Longhetti a housewife who boarders on insanity.
The love that Mabel has for them despite her own psychiatric problems shows that the Longhetti family is a secure unit even if they don't conform to the standards of what the average mother should really act like.Nick too strives to be a good parent.
In this particular movie, the main character, Mabel Longhetti (played by Gena Rowlands - wife to the director), is mentally ill.
This movie asks the questions: "What is insanity?", "When is someone so mentally unstable that they should be institutionalized?", "Who has the authority to commit someone against their will?" These questions could be the basis for a great movie, but I found the histrionics on display here annoying and, after over two and a half hours, exhausting.The woman whose mental status is in question is Mabel (Gina Rowlands) with Nick (Peter Falk) her working-class husband.
While her husband seems to play the classic father role model, with their three kids that added a spontaneous and sincere climate to the movie.The scene where Nick brought his friends with him and Mabel asked whether they want to have spaghetti for breakfast.
the emotions shared between the children and Mabel were really the only truthful ones throughout the whole movie, that is to say children did easily interact with their mothers behavior, notwithstanding the emotion disorder that Mabel is suffering from.On the contrary, for her mother in law and her husband both of them think that she is out of her mind and started to get nutty and mad so they decided to take her to a psychiatric hospital where she will be treated.After Mabel came back from the hospital, the whole of her family gathered in order to welcome her so she will feel secure and safe again, but it was until her husband cracked up telling to go back to her old self, starting from that scene both the husband and wife showed simultaneously that the real problem is with both of them.This is my first John Cassavetes film, which as I noticed is someone who focus more on the emotional experience than the quality or the awe that can a beautiful picture make as impact on us, thus the active camera seemingly going everywhere, so if someone is interested in the film he or she has to really get into the heart of the movie otherwise it won't be that attractive, therefore it will be difficult to grasp the crux of the movie.
moreover John cassavetes loved to work with the people he already knew we can take his wife Gena Rowlands and his friend Peter Falk as examples, it means that John wanted to have that emotional fluidity which enable the movie to be more realistic and influential.Still, I can't say exactly under which influence Mabel was, sure it's an influence and nothing more because Melba still is a better parent than her husband, but I would extremely disagree with the people that naively qualify Mabel as someone crazy, out of her mind because '' This woman cooks, sews, makes the bed, washes the bathroom; what the hell is crazy about that?''..
And here Cassavetes is in 1975 saying married women were under the influence of their husbands, that Mabel is under the influence of Nick (played by Peter Falk), under his control, he's the man of the house, and he's the one who tells her what to do, how to act.
From actor and independent writer/director John Cassavetes, A Woman Under the Influence gives the viewer a look at a working class family with a problem of mental instability.
The husband, Nick (played by Peter Falk) is a blue collar worker who has trouble showing his wife, Mabel (played by Gena Rowlands) the amount of attention that she deserves.
If, as viewers, we believe that the influence affecting Mabel (the Gena Rowlands character) is alcohol or drugs than we must have watched only the first thirty minutes of the film.
The excessively domineering Peter Falk character (Mabel's husband Nick) would drive any person to acting unusually; indeed, Mabel's mental illness seems more of a result of her loving him rather than any internal mental problem.The childlike innocence of Gena Rowlands' insanity is touching if even a little overdone.
Post viewing the film A Woman Under the Influence (1974), by director John Cassavetes, I couldn't help but feel like I was the one losing my mind and falling out of reality.
Rowlands so completely commands the screen with this performance that during the 30-45 minutes when her character is not screen (when Mabel has been committed), the film comes to a screeching halt.Peter Falk is explosive in an almost Brando-esque turn as Nick, a husband who is at a loss how to help the woman he loves more than life.
Poor Mabel (Rowlands), she was at the mercy of his anger and emotionally did what she had to do to cope.But this was a different era; it was shown, through Cassavetes' writing and direction, that it was acceptable then, in some American blue-collar homes, to slap women around, threaten people, give children alcohol, as long as it was the man of the house doing it.How times have changed, and it was through movies like this, where bizarre social behavior that was on the borderline of acceptable in that era, may have been a catalyst for the audience to examine their own emotions and mores..
Gena Rowlands and Peter Falk give 2 of the best performances that I have ever seen as a mentally ill, and possibly alcoholic and morphine addict (although this is only implied), woman and her angry husband who desperately wants her to be normal, to the point of trying to force this upon her.The film starts with Mabel sending her children to her mother in law's house, expecting her husband to come home since he promised her a "love night".
Shocking, at times brutal and horrifying, A WOMAN UNDER THE INFLUENCE is the kind of film anyone interested in independent cinema should watch, not just for its cinema-verite feel, but for the sheer power of Gena Rowlands and Peter Falk's acting as they literally become their roles.
The film tells of the incidences that lead her to suffer a nervous breakdown, the toll Mabel's struggles have on her husband Nick (Peter Falk) and three children, and her shaky readjustment to normal life after a 6-month stay in a mental hospital.Gena Rowlands' performance as a troubled house-wife is powerful and electrifying.
"A Woman Under the Influence" (John Cassavetes, 1974) could easily be re-titled "An Audience Under the Influence." Through the use of confining technical tricks, Cassavetes manages to have a serious affect on those who view this film, drawing them into the lives of Mabel and Nick Longhetti (Gena Rowlands, Peter Falk). |
tt0022074 | The Smiling Lieutenant | In Vienna, Lieutenant Nikolaus "Niki" von Preyn (Maurice Chevalier) meets Franzi (Claudette Colbert), the leader of an all-female-orchestra. They soon fall in love with each other. While standing in formation before a parade honoring the visiting royal family of Flausenthurm, Niki takes the opportunity to wink at Franzi in the crowd. Unfortunately the gesture is intercepted by Anna, the Princess of Flausenthurm (Miriam Hopkins). The naive Princess assumes offense, leading the lieutenant to convince her that he slighted her because she is thought to be very beautiful. Besotted, the Princess demands she has to marry the lieutenant, or, she'll marry an American instead. The international incident is narrowly averted by having them get married.
The Lieutenant sneaks away from his bride to wander the streets of Flausenthurm to find his girlfriend. The princess learns of this and decides to confront Franzi. After the initial confrontation, Franzi sees that the princess is in fact deeply in love with the lieutenant, and decides to save the marriage by giving the princess a makeover, singing "Jazz up your lingerie!"
The results are a complete success as the Lieutenant follows his satin-clad, cigarette-puffing bride into the bedroom and closes the door – only to open it and give the audience a last song and a suggestive wink. | romantic | train | wikipedia | There is more real sexuality between male and female in five minutes of a Lubitsch musical than in two and a half hours of any average film you're likely to see today.
A fabulous show-case for the talents of three new Paramount stars - Maurice Chevalier has never been better, Claudette Colbert is buoyant - and Miriam Hopkins is an absolute marvel as the innocent princess.
The film often recalls the lilting grace of Lubitsch's "The Love Parade" but it also looks ahead to the ironic romantic triangle of Lubitsch's lauded masterpiece "Trouble in Paradise".Here, Chavalier's Lieutenant Niki is torn between an aristocratic princess Anna (Miriam Hopkins) and a working class violinist Franzi (Claudette Colbert), the same way Herbert Marshall's Gaston in "Trouble in Paradise" must choose either Kay Francis's wealthy Madame Colete or his fellow thief, Miriam Hopkin's Lily.
But the film's charm or brilliance lies in its joyous musical numbers and songs, and its ironic immoral look at its characters.
There is, for instance, an irony and immorality in the lovely number "Jazz Up Your Lingerie", as Princess Anna tries to emulate Franzi in order to look sexy for Niki."The Smiling Lieutenant" remains Lubitsch's most underrated musical.
The results - THE SMILING LIEUTENANT.Director Ernst Lubitsch created a triumph in this scintillating pre-Code film which is as light and airy now as it was when first released.
The fact that this worked so beautifully with both his dialogue and the film music - (songs and background music, which serve to move the plot right along) - only one year after Hollywood fully embraced sound pictures shows the genius of the director's craft.Oozing Gallic charm, Maurice Chevalier lets his musical skills and highly facile face telegraph to the audience exactly what kind of an amorous rogue his character is.
Madly in love with the beautiful Claudette Colbert, but forced to wed the (slightly) frumpy Miriam Hopkins, he is highly amusing as he watches his romantic house of cards come crashing down.
The ladies also add greatly to the fun, with sleek Colbert advising pouty Hopkins in song to jazz up her lingerie if she wants to win Chevalier's attentions.
It took me several films before I finally appreciated Lubitsch and out of what I have seen, The Smiling Lieutenant (1931) has quickly surpassed the also excellent To Be or Not (1942) to Be as my favorite.
It has a delightful cast, especially Claudette Colbert and Miriam Hopkins as the women who find themselves drawn to Maurice Chevalier's lusty lieutenant.
If the film has a flaw, then it's that some of the musical numbers are a touch forgettable, but Colbert's wonderful "Jazz Up Your Lingerie" more than makes up for that!
The Smiling Lieutenant was his first collaboration with screenwriter Samson Raphaelson, and while Lubitsch was no doubt the driving personality behind his famous "touch", it seems Raphaelson (who would have a hand in most of the director's subsequent hits) thought enough along the same lines to make the pictures he wrote by far the most "touched".
So while Lubitsch gives us visual clues such as the young lady using a secret knock to get into Maurice Chevalier's room, followed by a close-up of a light going on and off, it was probably Raphaelson who contributed some of that witty wordplay that adequately sets the tone.
My favourite example of this has to be Chevalier's reply to Miriam Hopkins asking if married people winked; "Oh they do, but not at each other!" And then there are Clifford Grey's lyrics, which playfully delve into some of the more inventive innuendo, most memorably in "Breakfast Table Love".Chevalier is the perfect star for this kind of understated ribaldry.
She is excellent here as the naïve and frumpy young princess, displaying her finest comedic sensibilities.The Smiling Lieutenant contains only five songs, far fewer than previous Lubitsch musicals.
Once more, thanks to TCM, we get the chance of watching this wonderful, charming, early talkie by the master of sophisticated comedy and innuendo, Ernst Lubitsch.This is an absolutely entertaining and absorbing tale of a carefree, debonair Viennese Lieutenant, who falls for a violin player, thus finding his perfect sexual counterpart, but because of circumstances, becoming married to a prudish, mousey, princess.Chevalier is the perfect "Smiling Lieutenant" of the title, singing in great from with his heavy trademark, french-accent.
Miriam Hopkins is excellent as the princess, who falls madly in love with Chevalier, and who will do anything to have him!!Just as it happened with "Trouble in Paradise", I really hope that this gem, as well as "Design for Living", "Monte Carlo", "The Love Parade", "Love Me Tonight", "One Hour With You", will become available on DVD, in decent form, as they deserve, as primary examples, of the long gone Pre-Code Era!!!.
The casting is perfect: a flirtatious, mugging Chevalier; a young and nicely naughty Claudette Colbert; and most notably Miriam Hopkins effectively playing the extremes - a prim, virginal innocent who learns the ways of a vamp in order to hold her man.
This film will please anyone looking for an easy time at the movies thanks to Ernst Lubitsch..
It must have been that the movie-going public loved seeing Maurice Chevalier in those tight uniforms, he seemed to be in them in most of those early talkies he made for American studios.
Maurice is busy planning his latest campaign when a friend played by Charlie Ruggles asks him with that Chevalier charm to intercede for him with a female violinist in Claudette Colbert.Maurice does, but the sly rogue gets her for himself.
And then he's put on duty to greet the visiting royal house of Flausenthurm which includes King George Barbier and Princess Miriam Hopkins.In one of those priceless Ernst Lubitsch moments, Chevalier while at attention spots Colbert across the street and throws a few knowing smiles and winks.
Of course Maurice the old campaigner likes the idea of being married to the dowdy Hopkins if he's got Claudette on the side.I won't go any farther, but as you can see just by what I tell you The Smiling Lieutenant is a film made before the Code was put in place.
But it's what also makes it hold up very well for today's audience.No big song hits come from The Smiling Lieutenant, but Chevalier delivers what's there with his Gallic charm.
Chevalier is at his most delightfully awful in The Smiling Lieutenant, playing a philandering Viennese officer currently courting violinist Claudette Colbert.
Claudette Colbert teaches Miriam Hopkins about modern fashions in "Jazz Up Your Lingerie", easily the best number in the film and, in my mind, one of the weirdest and most entertaining in cinema history.
Popular Continental crooner Maurice Chevalier plays his typical role of a Viennese roué who steals the girl (an almost unrecognizably young Claudette Colbert appearing as a concert violinist) of his comrade-in-arms (Charles Ruggles, who unaccountably disappears from the film after the first few scenes!); standing guard at the ceremony of visiting royalty, he creates a diplomatic scandal for seemingly winking at the naïve princess (Miriam Hopkins) when in fact he had been making eyes at Colbert who was watching the parade from the sidelines!
As is customary for Lubitsch, what is left unsaid is about as important as what is spelled out and THE SMILING LIEUTENANT provides the director several instances wherein to indulge his subtle wit: the very opening sequence showing a tailor, who had called at Chevalier's to demand payment, leaving when the door is unanswered while a girl is ushered inside soon afterwards by the accomplice-butler; the sequence showing Ruggles trailing behind Chevalier and Colbert and carrying her violin case; Colbert's indoctrination of the stuffy Hopkins into what the modern woman wears and which music she plays, etc..
In old Vienna, lieutenant playboy Maurice Chevalier (as Nikolaus "Niki" von Preyn) woos cute violinist Claudette Colbert (as Franzi) into an affair.
When Mr. Chevalier makes flirty love-muffin faces at Ms. Colbert during a parade, relatively plain Miriam Hopkins (as Princess Anna) rides by in her carriage and catches him winking at her highness.
Royal father George Barbier (as King Adolf XV) expects Chevalier to atone for the affront by taking Ms. Hopkins' hand in marriage...This high-brow comedy-musical is very nicely produced and directed by Ernst Lubitsch.
The musical highlight is "Jazz up Your Lingerie" as sung by Colbert and Hopkins; after all these years, that's still good advice.****** The Smiling Lieutenant (7/10/31) Ernst Lubitsch ~ Maurice Chevalier, Claudette Colbert, Miriam Hopkins, George Barbier.
THE SMILING LIEUTENANT (Paramount, 1931), directed by Ernst Lubitsch, adapted from "The Waltz Dream" by Leopold Jacobson and Felix Dormann, is a real sort-after re-discovery early screen musical starring the legendary entertainer and Frenchman, Maurice Chevalier.
While successful upon its release and nominated for an Academy Award as Best Picture, it was only, until in recent years that, unlike other Chevalier releases during his Paramount period (1929-1933), particularly those opposite his most popular co-star, Jeanette MacDonald, including THE LOVE PARADE (1929), ONE HOUR WITH YOU (1932) and LOVE ME TONIGHT (1932), THE SMILING LIEUTENANT never surfaced on commercial or public television.
Upon arising from his sleep following an unseen fling with a young blonde, Niki is approached by his fellow officer friend named Max (Charles Ruggles), a married man (which really doesn't matter to him) who is madly in love with Franzi (Claudette Colbert), a female violinist and leader of an all girls band working at a Beer Garden Cafe.
Some time later, Niki and his regiment receive orders to attend the arrival of the visiting King Adolph (George Barbier) and his daughter, Princess Anna (Miriam Hopkins) from Flausenthurm.
With music and lyrics by Oscar Struss and Clifford Grey, songs include: "That's the Army" (sung by Maurice Chevalier); "Live for Today" (sung by Claudette Colbert); "Breakfast Table Love" (sung by Chevalier and Colbert); "Live for Today"/"I Like Him" (compiled in separate scenes as sung by Chevalier and Colbert, and Miriam Hopkins); "Jazz Up Your Lingerie" (sung by Colbert and Hopkins); and "That's the Army" (reprise sung by Chevalier).
In spite the songs being unmemorable, the two that come off best are "Live for Today," and the lively "Jazz Up Your Lingerie." What's more interesting is not only some of the risqué lyrics ("With every bit of liver I start to quiver"), but finding Colbert (telling Hopkins: "Be a good girl") and Hopkins (responding, "I won't!") in rare form singing.
In Chevalier tradition, as in THE LOVE PARADE and ONE HOUR WITH YOU, his singing solos are sung directly towards the camera.According to sources, THE SMILING LIEUTENANT, which had been previously filmed in Germany as EIN WALZERTRAUM (1925) with Mady Christians and Willy Fritzch, also included a French language version filmed simultaneously with this production, each featuring the main leads of Chevalier, Colbert and Hopkins.For a 1931 release, THE SMILING LIEUTENANT, except for several violin solos performed by Colbert, includes extensive use of underscoring, indicating that early talkies such as this did not actually play without some sort of underscoring to set the mood or pace.
I think I've seen my fill of Ernst Lubitsch's early movies starring Maurice Chevalier.I discovered Lubitsch's later films -- "Ninotchka," "The Shop Around the Corner," "To Be or Not to Be" -- first, and instantly fell in love with them.
His early musicals are all right, I suppose, if you're in the mood for them, but they're missing the trace of sweet melancholy that make his later films so unique.But mostly, I've discovered that I just dislike Maurice Chevalier.
In "The Smiling Lieutenant," he's nearly always on screen, but one of the only times he's not, during a musical number in which Claudette Colbert and Miriam Hopkins sing about spicing up Hopkins' wardrobe of lingerie, ends up being the highlight of the film.Grade: C.
I love Lubitsch, I worship the golden age and I am a great fan of the early talkies and the jazz age, but this film has been a sad disappointment to me.
This is the fourth and final film directed by Ernst Lubitsch that starred Maurice Chevalier.
Since he is such a great lover, she instantly falls for him and they "do it" in a scene that is surprisingly frank for the times.A bit later, Chevalier is at a parade for visiting King Adolf (no relation with the nasty tempered nut-case of WWII fame) and his daughter (Miriam Hopkins).
In this film, Maurice Chevalier plays Danny Zuko, Claudette Colbert plays Rizzo and Miriam Hopkins plays Sandy in a delightful musical comedy in which the square Sandy gets a sexy makeover from a bad-girl Pink Lady and wins the heart of the bad-boy smiling lieutenant of the Thunderbirds.OK, OK, it's not a perfect analogy, but watch the last few minutes in which Sandy, er, I mean Princess Anna, learns to dress sexy, smoke cigarettes seductively and dance - and tell me it's not, at root, the same story.The plot develops differently, of course.
Come to think of it, Claudette Colbert who plays Franzi is a real-life Frenchy, so perhaps the analogy is closer than I first thought.A great pre-code sexy musical comedy that may, just may, remind you of Grease..
But this factoid is of interest in that, 3 years later, MGM would try the same thing, once again with M Chevalier directed by Ernst Lubitsch, on another of the major hits of the Viennese musical stage during the first decade of the 20th century, and that time the result would be a smash success: The Merry Widow.
(Replacing Miriam Hopkins with Jeannette McDonald helped a lot, as did Lehar's music, which is a lot better that Straus's.) This movie didn't do much for me - neither does A Waltzdream, frankly - but it's interesting to see a first attempt at something MGM, Lubitsch, and Chevalier would soon do so much better..
But then Niki, called to duty as the captain of the guard while the King and Princess Anna (Miriam Hopkins) of Flausenthurm are welcomed into Vienna with a grand procession, smiles and winks at Franzi from across the cobblestone street
just as the king and princess pass by in their open coach.
The smiling Lieutenant begins as a sweet,funny and old fashioned operetta and finishes as one of the most daring,surprising and irresistible musicals of all time.I'ts Lubitsch at his best:a sort of Ninotchka of his musical period.The story is simple: a seductive lieutenant is in love with a musician,Franzi.When he smiled to her during the passage of a little country's princess,the princess interpret wrongly his intention and decide to marry him.Some months later,unhappy husband of a unhappy wife he find Franzi again...But spoilers herein and here is the most brilliant point of the script:Chevalier doesn't end with Franzi but his own wife after the musician gave her some "lessons" of seduction.The actors are all quite good:Maurice Chevalier is as charming and funny as always.Claudette Colbert great in one of her earlier performance.And she shows a barely known talent for singing.But I think the first prize comes to the Miriam Hopkins,in the princess's part she is just magnificent.She's as convincing as the cute and old falhsioned dove as the femme fatale.I've already seen a bit of his comic talent in "Trouble in Paradise" in which she does an exhilarating naive secretary .She's even better there.
Charlie Ruggles does a nice although too short demonstration of his comic talent.There's not so much song in it but they're all great.The lieutenant "Ra-Ta-Ta-Ta'" acts as a pleasant leitmotiv."Breakfast is time for love" has the soft charm of One Hour With You.But my favorite stays "Jazz Up Your Lingerie"Certainly one of the greatest number of all time!.
Claudette Colbert and a little bit of pre-Code naughtiness makes this one good.
The plot has a somewhat dippy Maurice Chevalier marrying a Princess (Miriam Hopkins) to avoid an international incident, thus breaking his lover's (Colbert's) heart.
The movie is pre-Code which made scenes like that possible, as well as allude to unmarried sex between Colbert and Chevalier, and Hopkins's desire to consummate her marriage.
In this fictional European country (with a funny name that the country folk can't even pronounce!), the king's daughter (Miriam Hopkins) falls in love with the King's bodyguard (Chevalier), unaware that he is very much in love with the violin player (Claudette Colbert) of a popular girl's orchestra.
Hopkins transforms from an impish brat into sexy vamp, getting rid of those Princess Leia like rolls on the side of her head when Colbert (in her second film with Chevalier) is charmingly alluring.
104: The Smiling Lieutenant (1931) - released 8/1/1931, viewed 7/2/08.DOUG: For his follow-up to the dreary Monte Carlo, Lubitsch gathered three of his most reliable muses, Maurice Chevalier, Miriam Hopkins, and Claudette Colbert, all in one movie.
Colbert plays Franzi, Niki's spunky violinist girlfriend, and Miriam Hopkins plays the princess, endearingly sexually repressed and prone to crying spells.
Especially charming are the scenes between Franzi and Anna, particularly the racy musical number "Jazz up your Lingerie." (That can't be Code approved.) As in the best Lubitsch fare, everyone's that unique brand of crazy that's endearingly charming and sexy and funny.
Right along with Trouble in Paradise, this is one of Lubitsch's best, and one of the great Pre-code comedy-musicals.KEVIN: And now we flash back to the first meeting of Ernst Lubitsch with the beautiful bag of wonderfulness called Miriam Hopkins.
Lubitsch again teams with Maurice Chevalier (as the titular lieutenant), and also brings in Claudette Colbert, who's never looked lovelier as the titular lieutenant's initial love interest.
Plus, it leads us to the image of Miriam Hopkins that we would come to love in later films.
in other words his penis, is exclaimed at one point by Lieutenant Maurice Chevalier to a young Claudette Colbert with their love affair heating up.
Mordaunt Hall of The New York Times selected The Smiling Lieutenant as one of the "Ten Best Films of 1931".
Many of the situations recall The Love Parade (1929) in which Maurice Chevalier starred for producer/director Lubitsch opposite Jeanette MacDonald. |
tt0157616 | Far from the Madding Crowd | Gabriel Oak is a young shepherd. With the savings of a frugal life, and a loan, he has leased and stocked a sheep farm. He falls in love with a newcomer six years his junior, Bathsheba Everdene, a proud beauty who arrives to live with her aunt, Mrs. Hurst. Over time, Bathsheba and Gabriel grow to like each other well enough, and Bathsheba even saves his life once. However, when he makes her an unadorned offer of marriage, she refuses; she values her independence too much, and him too little. Feeling betrayed and embarrassed, Gabriel offers blunt protestations that only foster her haughtiness. After a few days, she moves to Weatherbury, a village some miles off.
When next they meet, their circumstances have changed drastically. An inexperienced new sheepdog drives Gabriel's flock over a cliff, ruining him. After selling off everything of value, he manages to settle all his debts but emerges penniless. He seeks employment at a hiring fair in the town of Casterbridge. When he finds none, he heads to another such fair in Shottsford, a town about ten miles from Weatherbury. On the way, he happens upon a dangerous fire on a farm and leads the bystanders in putting it out. When the veiled owner comes to thank him, he asks if she needs a shepherd. She uncovers her face and reveals herself to be none other than Bathsheba. She has recently inherited her uncle's estate and is now wealthy. Though somewhat uncomfortable, she employs him.
=== Bathsheba's valentine to Boldwood ===
Meanwhile, Bathsheba has a new admirer: the lonely and repressed William Boldwood. Boldwood is a prosperous farmer of about forty, whose ardour Bathsheba unwittingly awakens when – her curiosity piqued because he has never bestowed on her the customary admiring glance – she playfully sends him a valentine sealed with red wax on which she has embossed the words, "Marry me". Boldwood, not realising the valentine was a jest, becomes obsessed with Bathsheba and soon proposes marriage. Although she does not love him, she toys with the idea of accepting his offer; he is, after all, the most eligible bachelor in the district. However, she postpones giving him a definite answer. When Gabriel rebukes her for her thoughtlessness regarding Boldwood, she fires him.
When Bathsheba's sheep begin dying from bloat, she discovers to her chagrin that Gabriel is the only man who knows how to cure them. Her pride delays the inevitable, but finally she is forced to beg him for help. Afterwards, she offers him back his job and their friendship is restored.
=== Sergeant Troy returns ===
At this point, the dashing Sergeant Francis "Frank" Troy returns to his native Weatherbury and by chance encounters Bathsheba one night. Her initial dislike turns to infatuation after he excites her with a private display of swordsmanship. Gabriel observes Bathsheba's interest in the young soldier and tries to discourage it, telling her she would be better off marrying Boldwood. Boldwood becomes aggressive towards Troy, and Bathsheba goes to Bath to prevent Troy returning to Weatherbury, as she fears Troy may be harmed on meeting Boldwood. On their return, Boldwood offers his rival a large bribe to give up Bathsheba. Troy pretends to consider the offer, then scornfully announces they are already married. Boldwood withdraws, humiliated, and vows revenge.
Bathsheba soon discovers that her new husband is an improvident gambler with little interest in farming. Worse, she begins to suspect he does not love her. In fact, Troy's heart belongs to her former servant, Fanny Robin. Before meeting Bathsheba, Troy had promised to marry Fanny; on the wedding day, however, the luckless girl went to the wrong church. She explained her mistake, but Troy, humiliated at being left at the altar, angrily called off the wedding. When they parted, unbeknownst to Troy, Fanny was pregnant with his child.
=== Fanny Robin ===
Some months later, Troy and Bathsheba encounter Fanny on the road, destitute, as she painfully makes her way toward the Casterbridge workhouse. Troy sends his wife onward with the horse and gig before she can recognise the girl, then gives Fanny all the money in his pocket, telling her he will give her more in a few days. Fanny uses up the last of her strength to reach her destination. A few hours later, she dies in childbirth, along with the baby. Mother and child are then placed in a coffin and sent home to Weatherbury for interment. Gabriel, who has long known of Troy's relationship with Fanny, tries to conceal the child's existence – but Bathsheba agrees that the coffin can be left in her house overnight, from her sense of duty towards a former servant of the household. Her new servant, Liddy, repeats the rumour that Fanny had a child; when all the servants are in bed, Bathsheba unscrews the lid and sees the two bodies inside.
Troy then comes home from Casterbridge, where he had gone to keep his appointment with Fanny. Seeing the reason for her failure to meet him, he gently kisses the corpse and tells the anguished Bathsheba, "This woman is more to me, dead as she is, than ever you were, or are, or can be". The next day he spends all his money on a marble tombstone with the inscription: "Erected by Francis Troy in beloved memory of Fanny Robin ..." Then, loathing himself and unable to bear Bathsheba's company, he leaves. After a long walk he bathes in the sea, leaving his clothes on the beach. A strong current carries him away, but he is rescued by a rowing boat.
=== Climax ===
A year later, with Troy presumed drowned, Boldwood renews his suit. Burdened with guilt over the pain she has caused him, Bathsheba reluctantly consents to marry him in six years, long enough to have Troy declared dead.
Troy, however, is not dead. When he learns that Boldwood is again courting Bathsheba, he returns to Weatherbury on Christmas Eve to claim his wife. He goes to Boldwood's house, where a party is under way, and orders Bathsheba to come with him; when she shrinks back in surprise, he seizes her arm, and she screams. At this, Boldwood shoots Troy dead and tries unsuccessfully to turn the gun on himself. Although Boldwood is condemned to hang for murder, his friends petition the Home Secretary for mercy, citing insanity. This is granted, and Boldwood's sentence is changed to "confinement during Her Majesty's pleasure". Bathsheba, profoundly chastened by guilt and grief, buries her husband in the same grave as Fanny and the child, and adds a suitable inscription.
=== Ending ===
Throughout her tribulations, Bathsheba comes to rely increasingly on her oldest and, as she admits to herself, only real friend, Gabriel. When he gives notice that he is leaving her employ, she realises how important he has become to her well-being. That night, she goes alone to visit him in his cottage, to find out why he is deserting her. Pressed, he reluctantly reveals that it is because people have been injuring her good name by gossiping that he wants to marry her. She exclaims that it is "... too absurd – too soon – to think of, by far!" He bitterly agrees that it is absurd, but when she corrects him, saying that it is only "too soon", he is emboldened to ask once again for her hand in marriage. She accepts, and the two are quietly wed. | romantic, murder | train | wikipedia | As a native of 'Hardy country', I feel I have a duty to comment on this production.
The accents, one of the major stumbling blocks to American acceptance, are accurate enough to satisfy English viewers (including those with the same accent!), while at the same time allowing American viewers to understand the dialogue.
Particular praise should, I feel, go to Nathaniel Parker, who has achieved something very spectacular, in eclipsing Alan Bates' 1967 performance as the faithful shepherd Gabriel Oak. All in all, a feast of Wessex magic which can be enjoyed by all.
That's just another touch that makes the story and the characters more real than the Hollywood version.
Writing, directing and performance wring out every heartbreaking and humorous emotion of the Hardy novel.
Having read this book more than once (it is my favorite Thomas Hardy book, and one of my favorite books of all time), and having seen both filmed versions, I have to say that the original version (with Alan Bates, Julie Christie and Peter Finch) cannot hold a candle to the second (with Nathaniel Parker, Paloma Baeza and Nigel Terry).The original version was a great disappointment to me -- Julie Christie was, as another reviewer pointed out, too old for the part of Bathsheba, did not fit Hardy's description of her at all, and has never impressed me as much of an actress -- a major casting faux pas, in my opinion.
Peter Finch, as Boldwood, did not elicit the strong feeling of empathy from me, as Nigel Terry did in his portrayal of the character.
The greatest surprise to me, in regard to the first version, was that I also felt the same about Alan Bates' performance as Gabriel Oak -- he did not convey the emotions and the quality of Oak's character, as described by Hardy in the book, and I found his portrayal to be bland, boring, and, at times, overacted.
Part of the blame would have to be shared by the director of that version -- the actors appeared to be acting, and neither they, nor the director, seemed to have a firm grasp or understanding of the explicit emotions and personalities of the characters, which Hardy had gone to great effort and detail to describe in the book.
After having seen Nathaniel Parker's interpretation of Gabriel Oak, I cannot imagine anyone else playing the part -- it was the first time I had seen Mr. Parker in any performance, and he ripped my heart out with his portrayal of this noble, dignified, aggrieved and tormented soul.
He and Ms. Baeza, Mr. Terry, and Mr. Firth (Sergeant Troy), seemed to have a thorough comprehension of, and sensitivity toward, the characters as they were intended by Thomas Hardy -- they appeared to have walked straight out of the pages of the book!
The accurate period costumes, and beautiful sets and cinematography, serve to round out a production of true quality.
Although this screenplay remains true to the book, some of the detail which enhances understanding and feeling for the characters, the time period, and the plot, was edited due to time constraints, as is common with filmed productions of great pieces of literature..
I finally saw the 1967 version of Hardy's story, and while I thought it had excellent performances, the 1998 version is more satisfying.
I've always liked both Alan Bates and Nathaniel Parker, but I think I'd have to give the latter the nod for his portrayal of the upright, conscientious Gabriel Oak. Nigel Terry is superb as the tragic Mr. Boldwood; his entire demeanor commanded more sympathy from me than did Peter Finch's portrayal -- you simply ache for the poor fellow when he's trying to gain even the slightest bit of encouragement from Paloma Baeza (who is exceptional as Bathsheba).
I'd always loved the 1967 Julie Christie version with Alan Bates as the upright shephard Gabriel Oak.
But having seen this version, then reading the book (amazingly readable) and re-watching the 1967 version, I definitely give my vote to Nathaniel Parker as my favorite Gabriel.
(OK, so he's even cuter than Alan Bates circa 1967, so that part's a no-brainer!)Seriously, comparing the two versions and the book (which is more Gabriel Oak's story), it is obvious how the Alan Bates part in the 1967 version was butchered to create more screentime for Terrance Stamp and Peter Finch as well as Julie Christie.
I also liked the fact that there seemed to be more passion seething just beneath Gabriel Oak's surface veneer than in the 1967 version.
I just happened to tune into this production on my local PBS station a few years ago and my immediate reaction was "Oh no, not another boring and stuffy Masterpiece Theatre production!" Well, fortunately I was totally unfamiliar with the plot of this film (which is based on the classic Hardy novel) and within minutes became completely riveted to my television when the character of Sergeant Troy appeared on the screen.
Like Bathsheba, the female lead, I was completely taken in by Troy as portrayed by the actor Jonathan Firth and then horrified as to the events that followed.
Again, this production caught me totally by surprise and it had some of the best acting scenes I have ever encountered ..
Best scene: Troy and Boldwood fighting over Bathsheba in the courtyard.
This is a wonderful adaption of the great Thomas Hardy novel.
Though the 1960's version (starring Julie Christie, Alan Bates,and Terrance Stamp) is gorgeous, this film is not so dated and the performances are in keeping with the original intent of the novelist.
All the principles are strong but especially impressive is Nigel Terry's performance as doomed Mr. Boldwood whose love for Bathsheba drives him from hope and new-found happiness to despair and frenzy.The locations are beautiful - almost another character in the story.
I saw both versions within 2 weeks of each other for the first time and only 2 months after reading the book for the first time (absolutely loved it!!!).Of the two movie versions I've seen, this is by far and away the more accurate of the two.
Rarely have I found such awful-looking cover art concealing such a good movie.The actress for Bathsheba in this movie is way more age-appropriate (she's supposed to be about 18) for this part than Carey Mulligan (who just turned 30) in the new one.
Paloma Baeza seems less confident as an actress than she is in "The Way We Live Now" (love her in that movie), but since the character Bathsheba is often conflicted about what she should do, it works for the role.Oak and Troy were well-cast, I thought.
And this Troy did a much better job than the one in the 2015 version, in my opinion.I really did not like the actor for Boldwood at all at first (sorry, but he seems a bit creepy and his mouth always looks upside-down to me), but I'm watching this through a second time and he's bothering me much less than he did the first time, as I'm getting more used to him.
Hardy describes him (I thought at the time I read it that it was a very clever description) thus: "Apparently he had some time ago reached that entrance to middle age at which a man's aspect naturally ceases to alter for the term of a dozen years or so....
Thirty-five and fifty were his limits of variation--he might have been either, or anywhere between the two." Nigel Terry was 53 at the time he made this, but easily looks 60 or older.Just as a warning, there are a few brief scenes that are not appropriate for children.
It is not extremely explicit (perhaps I will add a parental advisory note for this), but definitely gets to PG-13 content a few times.Overall this is a very good and mostly faithful rendition of a great book.
I'd venture to say that about 90% of this version is portrayed close (maybe shortened or adjusted for the screen, but generally true to the original characters' actions/intents) to what was in the book.
And with almost 4 hours of viewing time, they are able to cover most of the story quite thoroughly, including spending some time showing the many minor characters as distinct individuals (which is something that the 2015 version has no time to do, to its loss, as much of the book is spent in the conversations of the farm hands).I plan to watch this frequently, and if they do make a Blu-ray release, I plan to upgrade as soon as possible!.
I sometimes think that a film based on a Hardy novel should be shot at Stonehenge; the emotions brought out by his stories seem to be pre-Christian, the plot points seem to come from some dark corner of the human soul that Dickens and George Eliot never troubled to explore.
Gabriel Oak is a wonderful creation and Nathaniel Parker is very effective in the part, I liked him more than Alan Bates, as good as Bates was.Nigel Terry as Boldwood was the outstanding performance; his bull-like determination to have Bathsheba's hand, combined with his insecurities made a great impression.
Paloma Baeza leaves an impression of not having thought out her character much, maybe she was a last-minute addition to the cast.
I am a big fan of movies that follow the novel, and this version does not disappoint.
Excellent and authentic, an extended film of the Thomas Hardy novel.
This superb extended film, or mini-series (which may have been its format when originally broadcast), of the famous novel by Thomas Hardy was made for British Independent Television and deserves to be much better known.
It is greatly superior in authenticity and detail to the 1967 John Schlesinger film, with its prominent stars and large budget, and vast media coverage at the time of its release.
The characters speak in genuine local dialect, much of Hardy's original dialogue is retained in all its piquancy and 19th century eloquence, and the farming scenes are very accurate.
(Now we know all the details of how to save a hay rick in a storm, how to shear a sheep with the old clippers before electricity came in, how to persuade a reluctant new-born lamb to suck, and how to sharpen our shears on a rotating whetstone without cutting our fingers.) The atmosphere conveyed in this excellent production is therefore just what Hardy wished us to experience.
The young independent farmer (an aspiring yeoman) Gabriel Oak is ruined by the loss of his entire herd of sheep and has to go in search of a farm labourer's job to survive.
He is excellently played by actor Nathaniel Parker.
Even more brilliant casting was Nigel Terry as the tragic character Farmer Boldwood, whose emotional loneliness haunts him nearly to madness in his fine manor.
He conveys the silent suffering of the character intended by Hardy far more convincingly than the late Peter Finch did in the 1967 film, which I must say, as much as I admire Peter Finch's wonderful work and career.
Similarly, Parker exceeds the performance given by Alan Bates in 1967 as Gabriel.
But the central performance of all in this film, and its very heart and soul, is given by the actress with the unusual name of Paloma Baeza.
I noticed to my surprise that my cousin Susan Conklin, who is active in American television, was script editor for this film, which was a British-American co-production with PBS and WGBH of Boston.
The film was directed by Nicholas Renton, one of British television's most talented directors.
Anyone who wants to know and experience the real Hardy on screen, and to see what life was really like in Hardy's 'Wessex', need look no further than this authentic, heart-breaking saga so brilliantly produced, acted, and directed, with all its emotional intensity.
In our age of falsities and simulations, we get further from real life every day, and so far from the earth and the land, the beasts and the fields, that we live increasingly in a kind of Truman Show where everything is artificial.
In the 'old days' shown here, characters might become desperate or even deluded, but even the delusions then were real.
We need wonderful films like this to give us back our perspective and to remind us of what humans were, until now..
Excellent adaptation of perhaps Thomas Hardy's most accessible book.
The book is a masterpiece, it's perhaps Hardy's most accessible book and one of his best, his way of words and vivid descriptions as well as the beautifully realised characters demonstrate that.
The 1967 film has the slightly more authentic visuals and the more beautiful music score, but the casting is on the most part superior and more age-appropriate here.
The dialogue shows fidelity to Hardy's writing without it dragging things and is remarkably literate, tragic and with even some wit in the interplay in Bathsheba and Troy.
The story is compelling, well-paced and moving, and there are several memorable moments like the fight over Bathsheba, how the characters are dressed, the sheep-stampede, the shearing supper outdoors that echo those in the 1967 film, as well as some original ones like the grim views among the peasantry, the shear-sharpening scene, Oak and Bathsheba catching fire, the singing of The Banks of Allan Water.
The acting is very good, the best being the heart-wrenching Gabriel Oak of Nathaniel Parker(Nigel Terry comes off equally effectively for the same reasons as well).
Jonathan Firth is a rakish and appropriately crusty Troy, a character that you grow to like and Natasha Little is charming as Fanny.
Paloma Baeza is not quite as good as the rest, she is handsome and has great moments of sassiness and fire but there are other moments where she is on the plain and dramatically dreary side.
On the whole, excellent adaptation and the superior version, though the 1967 film while not perfect is also very good.
Independent Bathsheba Everdene (Paloma Baeza) doesn't want to marry and be a man's property.
Gabriel Oak (Nathaniel Parker) is head over heels for her but she rejects him.
When I saw the 2015 version of Far from the Madding Crowd with Carrie Mulligan and Matthias Schoenarts, I was taken with Tom Hardy's story, the characters, the landscape, the incredible color and spectacle of the surroundings.
Schoenarts made a rugged and loyal Gabriel Oak. Carrie, a smart, sassy, and clever tongued Bathsheba.
Nathaniel Parker's impeccable acting so beautifully crafted Gabriel Oak's character.
Nigel Terry was beautifully cast as Boldwood.
Paloma Baeza was great as Bathsheba, but Carrie Mulligan was better in that you had a clearer understanding of her thought process.
The industrial revolution and the change from country servitude to a Master to more independent city life (as it turned out,servitude to a more formidable master -- feeding a factory machine) is addressed on in the 1998 version,but these changing times are not addressed in the 2015 film.
The dialect and accents used in this version were hopeless, and would have been best avoided.
Nathaniel Parker is the saving grace of this TV adaptation of the Thomas Hardy novel.
He doesn't make me forget Alan Bates in the same role (Gabriel Oak), but he is mesmerizing.
As another reviewer noted, Parker plays the role with more emotion below the surface.Paloma Baeza, unfortunately, is completely, drearily wrong for the part of Bathsheba Everdene.
Perhaps she thought that if she just turned up for work knowing her lines, she wouldn't be expected to actually act, or anything.
She's terrible.The film is beautifully directed and, for the most part, well-acted, but Baeza casts a pall on the entire production.
Even given the way the proposal scene was written, she could have brought some emotion to it, rather than regarding Nathaniel Parker with a facial expression that suggests, "Are we done for the day?
The 1967 version of Far From The Madding Crowd will always be my favorite, but this 1998 Masterpiece Theatre two-parter is a very compelling presentation in its own right.
Beautifully photographed, capturing the rustic glory of the Dorset countryside and a very earthy portrayal of the novel's characters, I am very surprised that it has never been released on region 1 DVD.
Surely there is enough acclaim and fans of this film to issue it in North America, especially now that John Schlesinger's epic of Thomas Hardy's novel was recently released in region 1 and it received a vast restoration of sound and scope compared to the region 2 print.I must give particular praise to Natasha Little's portrayal of the sweet and wronged Fanny Robin, cast aside by Jonathan Firth's rakish Sergant Troy for Paloma Baeza's Bathsheba Everdene.
Baeza does a respectable turn as Bathsheba, and although she is very pretty I don't think she captured the striking beauty that Hardy's heroine is described as possessing.
Still, she played the role well and she established wonderful chemistry with Nathaniel Parker's Gabriel Oak. Parker is excellent, capturing Oak's essence, but for some reason I found him too old for the part (although Alan Bates was surely around the same age when he portrayed the character, but then, Julie Christie was older than Baeza when she portrayed Bathsheba).
Nigel Terry as Boldwood more than matches Peter Finch's portrayal, while I don't find Firth as handsome as Terence Stamp, I feel Firth captured a bit more of Troy's rakishness and showed more dimension in the part.
What I find frustrating about both film adaptations of FFTMC is that we never get to see Bathsheba and Oak kiss.
You know all along that Gabriel is the right man for Bathsheba, so you expect some kind of payoff (them getting married notwithstanding), but I guess it may be better to imagine rather than to be shown.One thing I definitely missed in this Masterpiece Theatre presentation is the wonderfully fitting music score that so defined the 1967 movie.
Either way this is still a memorable version of Hardy's novel and very much deserving of proper DVD distribution. |
tt2017561 | Xi you: Xiang mo pian | The novel has 100 chapters that can be divided into four unequal parts. The first part, which includes chapters 1–7, is a self-contained introduction to the main story. It deals entirely with the earlier exploits of Sun Wukong, a monkey born from a stone nourished by the Five Elements, who learns the art of the Tao, 72 polymorphic transformations, combat, and secrets of immortality, and through guile and force makes a name for himself, Qitian Dasheng (simplified Chinese: 齐天大圣; traditional Chinese: 齊天大聖), or "Great Sage Equal to Heaven". His powers grow to match the forces of all of the Eastern (Taoist) deities, and the prologue culminates in Sun's rebellion against Heaven, during a time when he garnered a post in the celestial bureaucracy. Hubris proves his downfall when the Buddha manages to trap him under a mountain, sealing it with a talisman for five hundred years.
The second part (chapters 8–12) introduces the nominal main character, Xuanzang (Tang Sanzang), through his early biography and the background to his great journey. Dismayed that "the land of the South knows only greed, hedonism, promiscuity, and sins", the Buddha instructs the bodhisattva Avalokiteśvara (Guanyin) to search Tang China for someone to take the Buddhist sutras of "transcendence and persuasion for good will" back to the East. Part of the story here also relates to how Xuanzang becomes a monk (as well as revealing his past life as a disciple of the Buddha named "Golden Cicada" (金蟬子) and comes about being sent on this pilgrimage by Emperor Taizong, who previously escaped death with the help of an official in the Underworld).
The third and longest section of the work is chapters 13–99, an episodic adventure story in which Xuanzang sets out to bring back Buddhist scriptures from Leiyin Temple on Vulture Peak in India, but encounters various evils along the way. The section is set in the sparsely populated lands along the Silk Road between China and India, including Xinjiang, Turkestan, and Afghanistan. The geography described in the book is, however, almost entirely fantasy; once Xuanzang departs Chang'an, the Tang capital, and crosses the frontier (somewhere in Gansu province), he finds himself in a wilderness of deep gorges and tall mountains, inhabited by demons and animal spirits, who regard him as a potential meal (since his flesh was believed to give immortality to whomever ate it), with the occasional hidden monastery or royal city-state amidst the harsh setting.
Episodes consist of 1–4 chapters and usually involve Xuanzang being captured and having his life threatened while his disciples try to find an ingenious (and often violent) way of liberating him. Although some of Xuanzang's predicaments are political and involve ordinary human beings, they more frequently consist of run-ins with various demons, many of whom turn out to be earthly manifestations of heavenly beings (whose sins will be negated by eating the flesh of Xuanzang) or animal-spirits with enough Taoist spiritual merit to assume semi-human forms.
Chapters 13–22 do not follow this structure precisely, as they introduce Xuanzang's disciples, who, inspired or goaded by Guanyin, meet and agree to serve him along the way in order to atone for their sins in their past lives.
The first is Sun Wukong, or Monkey, whose given name loosely means "awakened to emptiness", trapped by the Buddha for defying Heaven. He appears right away in chapter 13. The most intelligent and violent of the disciples, he is constantly reproved for his violence by Xuanzang. Ultimately, he can only be controlled by a magic gold ring that Guanyin has placed around his head, which causes him unbearable headaches when Xuanzang chants the Ring Tightening Mantra.
The second, appearing in chapter 19, is Zhu Bajie, literally "Eight Precepts Pig", sometimes translated as Pigsy or just Pig. He was previously the Marshal of the Heavenly Canopy, a commander of Heaven's naval forces, and was banished to the mortal realm for flirting with the moon goddess Chang'e. A reliable fighter, he is characterised by his insatiable appetites for food and women, and is constantly looking for a way out of his duties, which causes significant conflict with Sun Wukong.
The third, appearing in chapter 22, is the river ogre Sha Wujing, also translated as Friar Sand or Sandy. He was previously the celestial Curtain Lifting General, and was banished to the mortal realm for dropping (and shattering) a crystal goblet of the Queen Mother of the West. He is a quiet but generally dependable and hard-working character, who serves as the straight foil to the comic relief of Sun and Zhu.
The fourth is Yulong, the third son of the Dragon King of the West Sea, who was sentenced to death for setting fire to his father's great pearl. He was saved by Guanyin from execution to stay and wait for his call of duty. He appears first in chapter 15, but has almost no speaking role, as throughout the story he mainly appears as a horse that Xuanzang rides on.
Chapter 22, where Sha Wujing is introduced, also provides a geographical boundary, as the river that the travelers cross brings them into a new "continent". Chapters 23–86 take place in the wilderness, and consist of 24 episodes of varying length, each characterised by a different magical monster or evil magician. There are impassably wide rivers, flaming mountains, a kingdom with an all-female population, a lair of seductive spider spirits, and many other fantastic scenarios. Throughout the journey, the four brave disciples have to fend off attacks on their master and teacher Xuanzang from various monsters and calamities.
It is strongly suggested that most of these calamities are engineered by fate and/or the Buddha, as, while the monsters who attack are vast in power and many in number, no real harm ever comes to the four travelers. Some of the monsters turn out to be escaped celestial beasts belonging to bodhisattvas or Taoist sages and deities. Towards the end of the book there is a scene where the Buddha literally commands the fulfillment of the last disaster, because Xuanzang is one short of the 81 tribulations he needs to face before attaining Buddhahood.
In chapter 87, Xuanzang finally reaches the borderlands of India, and chapters 87–99 present magical adventures in a somewhat more mundane (though still exotic) setting. At length, after a pilgrimage said to have taken fourteen years (the text actually only provides evidence for nine of those years, but presumably there was room to add additional episodes) they arrive at the half-real, half-legendary destination of Vulture Peak, where, in a scene simultaneously mystical and comic, Xuanzang receives the scriptures from the living Buddha.
Chapter 100, the last of all, quickly describes the return journey to the Tang Empire, and the aftermath in which each traveller receives a reward in the form of posts in the bureaucracy of the heavens. Sun Wukong (Monkey) and Xuanzang (monk) achieve Buddhahood, Sha Wujing (Sandy) becomes an arhat, the dragon horse is made a nāga, and Zhu Bajie (Pig), whose good deeds have always been tempered by his greed, is promoted to an altar cleanser (i.e. eater of excess offerings at altars). | violence | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0113967 | New Jersey Drive | Jason Petty (Sharron Corley) is a young teenage boy living with his working-class family in the violent and poverty-ridden housing projects of Newark, New Jersey. He and his troublemaking friends have a hobby of stealing cars and joyriding. Soon some of the teens, including Jason, begin to convert their hobby into a part-time job as they steal cars and sell them to a sleazy chop-shop owner for pennies on the dollar. Eventually they are caught in a police sting and one boy, Ronnie Lambs Ron Q, is shot by the crooked Officer Emil Roscoe (Saul Stein) and other police officers. They begin to run for cover and they end up at Ronnie's house whose relatives take him to the hospital. Jason informs his friends that the police ambushed them but he refuses to come forward and report the crime.
The next day, Jason, along with Midget and Tiny are riding in a stolen car when Officer Roscoe spots them and a police chase ensues. The crew manage to get away and go to the block when they are confronted by Midget's brothers and their friend, Bo-Kane (played by rapper Heavy D) for riding fast on their street. Later on that night, while outside a Chinese restaurant, Tiny Dime attempts to break away from the police in a stolen car, but his car is hit by one of the officers and he is killed instantly from the impact. The rest of the crew goes to Tiny Dime's funeral. Outside the funeral, Tiny Dime's mother slaps Midget for being a bad influence on Tiny Dime.
One night while walking home, Jason is pulled over by the police. While he is being held in the back of a police car, he is approached by Officer Roscoe. Roscoe warns Jason not to tell a soul and he punches Jason in the eye as a warning to stay away from grand juries. Jason's mother tries to steer him away from a life of crime but he continues to hang out with his friends from the neighborhood who are involved in the street life. After becoming fed up with his mother and her boyfriend's home rules, Jason leaves their house and moves into Midget's apartment in the projects. Later on, Jason, Midget and their friend, Richie, decide to steal a police car parked in the neighborhood and joyride. They see a truck full of white men and decide to pretend that they are the police, and pull them over as a prank. The next day, Jason & Midget, along with another group of friends, Jamal & Peanut, are arrested for boosting the police car. While Jason is waiting to get processed, Officer Roscoe decides to put him in a room, where he beats him up & tell him not to talk to any jurors.
One day, Jason and his friends are relaxing on the strip and a car drives past. Jason's sister, Jackie, and a friend of hers are in the back seat of a stolen vehicle. Jason pulls her out of the vehicle and sends her home. Officer Roscoe drives down the street, greets the guys, and calls for backup. Midget says a few words, then throws a 40-ounce bottle at the windshield of Officer Roscoe's vehicle. As the boys run their separate ways, Jason and Midget are approached by two cops, one being a female police officer. She questions them, since they are minors drinking alcohol, and fit the description of the suspects they were looking for. Midget insults the female officer for calling for backup, while Jason pours out the liquor bottle. She rips the bag Midget was carrying, and the boys take off running, with police in pursuit. The police lose Jason, but catch up to Midget. They corner him near the back of an apartment building, and take turns brutally beating him. Some time later, Midget awakens from the beating, grabs his 40-ounce of malt liquor, and Jason catches up with him. Midget gets hold of a gun, and he points it a police squad car from the roof top of a housing project building. Midget immediately fires three shots, and the crew flees the scene. Later that day, after visiting a crooked chop shop owner, Midget robs a man of his Lexus in a grocery store parking lot. Jason, who is in the previous vehicle, was unaware of Midget's actions, and they both speed away in their separate vehicles. Jason later confronts Midget for not telling him about his actions, while Midget is seen feeding his elderly grandmother.
Meanwhile, Roscoe is looking at a video camera, which caught Jason at the scene of the robbery at the grocery store, which now makes him a suspect. Next, Jackie is seen hanging out in the parking lot in the housing projects with a crowd of Jason's peers, who are car thieves. Jason confronts Jackie once again & Richie tries to intervene. Jason tells Richie to stay out of it, but a friend of Richie's instigates the argument to the point where Richie hits Jason in the face. Jason responds by beating Richie up in front of everybody until a group of guys including Midget break up the fight. After that, the police go to Jason's mother's home in search of him, but she informs the police that he is not home. Jason's mother drives around in search of Jason. When she finds him, she tells Jason that the police are on the hunt for him. Jason & Midget return to Midget's home, only to find that the police are waiting in the hallway. Jason runs, while Midget stays put. As Jason is walking down the street, Richie pulls up in a vehicle. As he calls for Jason, Jason ignores him. Richie pulls out a gun, and chases after Jason, firing shots at him while in pursuit. Jason was able to get away unharmed. Later, he is taunted by his friends for almost getting murdered on the street by Richie. Jason scolds his friends for trivializing the situation, which could have been resulted in his death at the hands of Richie. The crew drive around the city until night time.
As they ponder upon a red SUV, Midget and Peanut try to steal the vehicle, while Jason watches. It appears that their carjacking attempt is taking too long, as the car alarm goes off. Suddenly, the car alarm stops, & the police immediately surround them. Jason is arrested, Midget successfully gets away, & Peanut tries to drive away from the police with the red SUV in reverse. The police shoot at the car, killing Peanut, later describing the shooting as self-defence by claiming that the carjacker tried to overrun a policeman. Jason finally realizes that his luck has run out on him as Officer Roscoe arrives & advises Jason that he was caught on video tape committing the crime (alluding to the carjacking at the grocery store with Midget earlier). The neighborhood residents are later seen outraged, protesting the police for shooting a teenage carjacker, as the emergency medics try to revive him. The scene returns to the present, with Jason doing time at a juvenile hall. While washing clothes, he gets into an argument with another inmate who has a vendetta against his friend, Midget. As Jason is sitting watching the news, it is revealed that the officers involved in the shootings of Ronnie Lambs & Peanut have been suspended from active duty, with Officer Roscoe being brought up on criminal charges.
Jason is released from jail, & receives a ride from his female friend. She takes him to his old stomping grounds on Avon St., and he sees Midget with his friends. Apparently, Midget nor any other of his friends came to visit Jason while he was in jail. Midget and Jason have a long talk, & it appears that the neighborhood is changing for the worse. and that Midget suggests that Jason figure out what he wants to do with his life. Later that evening, Jason and his female friend begin to have a talk while sitting in her mother's car. Suddenly, they are carjacked at gun-point by the men who had an argument with Jason when he was incarcerated. Midget and his crew arrive on the scene to try to figure out what happened, but Jason has grown tired of the street life. Midget and Jason get into an argument, and Midget informs Jason that this is how life on the streets is. Midget and his friends get inside of a van & drive off. While Midget is driving, the police pulls up behind them. The next scene shows Midget's van flipped over, & on the news. Later, a police dispatcher performs a voice-over during events in which it is revealed that Midget and a pregnant woman who were joyriding in a stolen van are killed in an accident during a police chase, while the others were injured. Midget's gun was in the van, but it was not the weapon used to steal the car. Jason sees this on the news while eating cereal. The next scene shows Jason walking down the street with a bookbag on his way to school, while a group of kids drive past him joyriding. He looks at a mural dedicated to the memory of Midget & Tiny Dime, & a flashback goes to the beginning of the film, with the friends all hanging out together. The final scene features Jason sitting in a classroom, earning his education, and reflecting on the past. | cult, dark, murder, violence | train | wikipedia | Best True-to-Life Movie, even still...
Being from eastern PA, right on the border of Northern New Jersey, I still get a feeling like this was a documentary more so than a movie.
I have friends from New York and New Jersey and this film represents the kind of lifestyle that "still" exists today in lower income area's outside of the "Big City" lifestyle.
If you have not seen this movie and ever wondered what REALLY goes on in the urban jungle, check this movie out.
No really big name actors, its as if they just pulled these guys off the street and said act, which adds to the realism of the movie, the performances are FANTASTIC none the less!
"New Jersey Drive" keeps it real..
I just wanted to inform anyone who may be interested that the the movie "New Jersey Drive" was my personal favorite off alltime.
I admire the work Nick Gomez and Spike Lee put into this masterpiece of a movie.
This movie made quite an impression on me because of its realness and its appreciation of detail of life in urban New Jersey.
It struck a chord with me, personally, because I grew up with friends like those depicted in the movie.
It further made an impression with me because I used to spend time in Teaneck several years ago, so some of the characters were kept "real".
At times, this movie seemed like a documentary because you didn't know whether or not these were real events taking place.
Although movies like "Boys in the Hood" and "Menace II Society" grab more attention, I personally feel these movies were somewhat "enhanced" to appeal to a broader audience.
"New Jersey Drive" was an uncompromising piece of "in your face" reality.
Lee and Gomez covered every detail in this urban drama from the music, clothing, slang, and location.Unlike some of the movies I mentioned earlier, the actors performed as if they weren't "actors".
Nothing was compromised in order to make good "theater".
The only misfortune to come from this movie was the fact that many people "slept" on it.
I look forward to more works of art from Nick and Spike in the hopefully near future..
Bad boys, bad cops, decent movie.
This movie brings to mind "Boys 'n the Hood," "Menace to Society," "South Central" and others of its ilk and even shares actors with some of them.
The film's "us vs.
The film's "us vs.
the law" mentality is underscored by the all-black neighborhood vs.
the nearly all-white police force.
Here the cops are so bad they seem like caricatures and in one scene they even ambush the boys as they drive by in a car they've just "liberated" from its owner.
It's like a bushwhacking from an old Western, but the contemporary setting makes it look all too real.The story centers on young Jason Petty and his buddies, to whom school is just an inconvenience that takes time away from their "real occupation" of boosting cars.
This happens to be Newark, N.J., a rust-belt city low on jobs but notoriously high on crime.
In fact the problem is so severe that the cops all have "Car Theft" written on their backs, to show that an entire unit must be devoted to this particular crime.The boys use a "slim Jim" to gleefully break into cars and go joy-riding, as if it's no big deal.
They only run into real trouble when the police ambush them.
The vicious, Nazi-like Lt. has a vendetta against the boys, seeing them not as human beings who might be worthy of redemption, but as human targets.
In fact, he's a little reminiscent of that sadistic Nazi officer of the Warsaw ghetto, who shot down Jews for pleasure in the film "Schindler's List." When the boys steal a police car in retribution for the ambush, things predictably go downhill fast.
They are severely beaten by the cops and Jason finally ends up in prison.
Clearly these are "bad boys," who'd steal your car in a minute, but the film wants us to see them as anti-heroes, showing Jason protecting his sister and his friend taking care of his own grandmother.
The film left us wondering whose side to take and who to feel sadder for: the boys whose lives are going down the drain, the honest citizens whose cars are being stolen left and right and who could be caught in the crossfire of a shootout at any moment or the city of Newark itself, the spirit of whose law is being betrayed by brutal, soul-dead cops.In spite of the over-the-top portrayal of the latter, the film offers a realistic-looking rendering of the ghetto, of the protagonists and their families and of the culture of car theft in a city where there appears to be only 2 career paths - law enforcement and crime.
Strangely, the entire subject of drugs is never mentioned.The filmmakers (including producer Spike Lee) are obviously biased against the Newark police, who, we hope, are not as bad they are portrayed here.
Nevertheless, they've given us yet another a strong, affecting story about the inner city and black youth gone awry and Sharron Corley is fine as Jason..
a successful car-jacking if you ask me....
New Jersey Drive is a very underrated movie to put it quite bluntly.
As it's supposed to in urban movies, the street atmosphere was definitely there.
The script was good because it showed a crrosroad as Jason's crew and the cops lives crossed paths, I don't wanna give this away though.
Sharron Corley gives a good performance as the humble but tough Jason, as does Gabriel Casseus as the knucklehead Midget and Don Faison as Tiny Dime, etc., etc.
It was also wonderfully directed by Nick Gomez and also stars Heavy D and Michele Morgan.authentic street movie 10/10.
The most entertaining `Growing up in the hood movie` ever made!.
This film is explosive!Probably the most entertaining `Growing up in the hood movie` ever.Its made very realistic and has a brutal story of survival and police brutality against juvenile offenders.You never get board because there's something going on every time,from start to finish,and the sound track makes it even better.Its like a documentary of juvenile delinquency,mostly car thefts,and life in the toughest black suburbs in New Jersey.Based on reality,true in every way!.
True to life flick.
New Jersey Drive is one of the most true to life flicks about urban life ever made.
Nick Gomez carefully winds his tale into car thieves almost into greek tradgy.
In the lead role as Jason, Shannon Corley shows great leading staus.
Jason is played as a chratcer who wants a better life but is caught up with the street life.
Gaberial Cassius as Midget is almost believeable.
If you haven't seen this flick you should.
I lived in that area (Hoboken and Jersey City)for about ten years.
This film certainly captures the feel of that time and place.
The dialogue is very good, the music is right and scenarios realistic.
As another poster said, it looks almost like a documentary.I like the way it humanizes these kids, who probably would have rather have been born in Westchester, but fall into what kids fall into.
It just so happens that area is pretty rough.They over-demonize the cops quite a bit, but that's to be expected.
I'd say the acting is good all-around, too.It gives the viewer some sense of how this idiocy is caused and gets blown out-of-proportion.
Hopefully, the new mayor of Newark is making progress..
For real.
This is a very realistic movie.
It's the most realistic I've seen on urban youth.
The actors were great.
I will look out for more films by Gomez.
I had never heard of the film until someone mentioned it recently.
I bought it on DVD.
I was impressed.
I haven't seen anything come close to life as I know it in Philadelphia.
This comes real close - in fact, one scene where there is an accident (I won't spoil and give details), reminded me of a nearly identical situation in Philadelphia.
At first I thought Gomez took the scene from that real-life event, but then I realized that he made the film a few years before that situation.
I also agree with the point that this film didn't try to broaden its appeal by putting in Hollywood crap.
Gomez also directed "Laws of Gravity" - I am eager to see it..
Decent, with beautiful cinematography and one fine performance.
This film is pretty good, it actually is like a good wine, it gets better the more you watch it.
The pace is pretty slow for such a high octane topic, but the cinematography is beautiful and surreal.
There is a cool blue tint that "rides" the whole film.
There is also one great performance in Gabriel Casseus' performance of the character "Midget".
Why doesn't this guy work more.
If the film got better support, he probably would have..
A great underrated gem of a movie.
I thought Nick Gomez's look at the gritty streets of New Jersey, where car-jackings are at an all-time high, was both thought-provoking and entertaining.
This is just as good as movies like Boyz n the Hood or Menace II Society or Above the Rim. I thought the actors and the scenarios were suitable, it had a gritty realistic feel to it and was very atmospheric, whether on purpose or by raw coincidence.
I liked this movie a lot, an underrated gem i found on TV and glad i caught it.
Go watch this movie if you get a shot.
If they don't have a DVD, they should release one.
Well done Nick Gomez.
IMDb Rating: 5.9.
My Rating: 9/10.
Tales From the Hood.
Jason and Midget are two young, black teenagers living in Newark,New Jersey, the unofficial car theft capital of the world.
Their favorite pastime is that of everybody in their neighborhood: stealing cars and joyriding.
The trouble starts when they steal a police car and the cops launch a violent offensive that involves beating and even shooting suspects.Mayor Sharpe James refused to allow filming of New Jersey Drive within the city limits; therefore, the filming locations were in the surrounding locations of Newark rather than the city itself.
I am surprised they would turn down the shooting...
but, hey, I guess if you're known for being a car theft city, you don't want to support that claim.Some have called this the best "hood" movie.
I don't know.
I liked it, and thought it seemed fairly accurate to how I imagine life in the streets to be.
But it lacked a solid plot or story arc, and I think it suffers from that.
I do like how it has no real hero -- both the thieves and the police come off as less than perfect..
Great insight on street life in the 90s.
In this 1995 film, writer/director Nick Gomez brings to the screen a wonderful film that captures the essence of inner city life and crime in Newark, New Jersey.
Car theft and joyriding is a thrilling experience for many teens as they courageously face the mean streets while trying to survive and overcome many obstacles.
The story begins by introducing us to Jason Petty, a tough yet decent teen who, like many of his friends, gets his kicks out of stealing cars and having fun.
As he tells the story from his point of view, Jason exposes us to how he and most of his friends deal with the unfortunate, every day occurrences in their neighborhood.
From gun violence to police corruption to juvenile detention and the death of close friends, there is nothing positive for these kids to look forward to.
The acting is incredibly believable if not downright brilliant.
Since the film is set in the New Jersey ghetto, the urban vernacular and the overall dialogue is truly fantastic.
The cast includes Sharron Corley, Gabriel Casseus, Donald Faison of "Scrubs" and a cameo appearance of the late hip hop artist Heavy D.333.
It was "right in your face"!.
On the one hand, I felt that the movie glorified "car-jacking", but on the other hand - it kept it real and gave you a look into "the joy of the ride".
The leading actor was quite convincing (not to mention, handsome as he could be) and his role showed both his desire to do something positive with his life, as well as throw caution to the wind and do his own thing!.
GTA - New Jersey Drive.
WOW I Love this movie.
This is definitely added to my list of Ghetto Movies.Juice - Starring Tupac 'I don't giva F***' Menace II Society - O-Dawg 'I'll smoke Anybody, I just don't giva F****' New Jersey Drive - Hey they steal cars in broad daylight they obviously don't giva f***New Jersey Drive is the best hood movie ever.
It is at the top of the list, menace II society is second, and juice is third, Clockers is really stupid.The soundtrack for New Jersey Drive is Pwnage too Mac Mall & Young Lay - All about my fetti is heard through out the movie.Lords of the underground - Burn rubber, another good song, and so is Ill & Al Scratch - don't shut down on a playerIf your a fan of GTA-SA you'll freaking love this movie, AND The amazing soundtrack.
The soundtrack is basically Rap about stealing cars ^_^ SWEETTTT Movie!.
New jersey drive little insight.
This movie is a good over cap of what happened in Newark.
I'm young so around the time that this may have happened I was a baby.
This movie gives of a realistic Vibe like your watching a documentary of the main characters life.
What people don't know is some of the things in the movie is true other then Newark being the highest place of car theft.
In the end when the news dispatch about the van with midget in being shot n two people being killed was true.
Well the pregnant teen being shot and killed what's crazy is things like showing true action makes this movie one that keeps your eyes glued on the screen and not want to miss any part.
This movie is great and is a must see..
Just remember who your friends are!.
***SPOILER*** Life on the mean streets of Newark New Jersey is brutally depicted in "New Jersey Drive" that at the time, and even now, was among other things what Newark's Mayor Sharpe James wanted to keep out of the film in it being the car theft capital of the world.
In fact Mayor James refused to have any footage of the movie shot within Newark city limits taking away a good part of the movies authenticity!The movie starts with a carjacking gone bad that ends up putting one of the carjackers Ronnie Lambs, Koran C.
Thomas,in the hospital on life support.
Lambs and his fellow carjackers unknowingly carjacked tough take no BS Newark cop Emil Rosco's, Saul Stein, car.
It was Officer Rosco who just happened to be on the scene when Ronnie and his friends were ambushed in a police string.
Shot four times by Rosco Ronnie now in the hospital and no gun found on him has Rosco in deep trouble with the only witness to the shooting fellow carjacker Jason Petty, Shannon Corley, slated to testify against him before the grand jury!This all sets the stage for Rosco hounding Jason all throughout the movie to get him to change his testimony.
As for Jason he gives Rosco and the Newark Police all the rope they need to hang him by continuously going out with his friends carjacking cars thus putting his and their lives as well as freedom in jeopardy.
Jason's mom Rene Petty, Gwen McGee, knows that her son is out stealing cars instead of going to school but try as she does Rene can't convince him that he'll end up either dead or behind bars as a result of his actions.
It's later when his straight as an arrow sister Jackie, Samantha Brown, starts to hang out with the same crowd that Jason does that he throws a fit that almost has him gunned down by her new found "Gangsta" boyfriend Ritchie, Andre Moore.
Ritchie feels that Jason "dists" him by trying to keep Jackie from ending up like him: Out of luck out of work out of school and nothing in life to look forward too!
Stealing cars together with his friend Midget, Gabe Casseus, Jason tries to make a few bucks for his troubles by selling them to this chop-chop junk yard operator, Arthur J.
Nascarella, in what looks like the Greenpoint section of Brooklyn for pennies on the dollar.
Despite all the business they give him the junk yard man almost throws Midget out of his place when he comes unannounced with his latest steal not wanting the cops to connect him, by buying stolen merchandise, to Midgets & Jason's criminal activities!
it's later when the law finally catches up with Jason that ends with one of his many carjacking friends being gunned down that he finally realizes that this life is not for him.
****SPOILERS**** Spending 90 days behind bars in a juvenile dentition center Jason finally saw the light and decided to go back to school and put his life of crime behind him.
The fact that Officer Rosco was indited in the Ronnie Lambs shooting helps also in Jason now not having to worry about Rosco framing or working him over, which he did a number of time in the movie, to keep him from talking.
It was in fact Midget's fiery death is a stolen car chased by police that finally convinced Jason that he was right in his decision to go straight!
It was Jasons refusal to join Midget and his friends in this latest carjacking caper that ended up saving his life! |
tt1758692 | Like Crazy | Anna Gardner (Felicity Jones), a British exchange student attending college in Los Angeles, meets and falls in love with Jacob Helm (Anton Yelchin), an American student who returns her affections. After graduation, Anna decides to spend the summer with Jacob rather than return to the United Kingdom, unaware of the consequences of staying longer than her student visa, which expired upon her graduation, allows. After returning to London for a family engagement, Anna flies back to Los Angeles, where she is detained, denied entry, and sent back to the United Kingdom by immigration officials.
The couple's love for each other grows strained by their separation and long-distance relationship. Despite her efforts at appealing the immigration decision, Anna is told she is banned from entering the United States. Meanwhile, Jacob leaves behind his successful design business and visits Anna in London for a few weeks. There, he learns that Anna's parents, Bernard (Oliver Muirhead) and Jackie (Alex Kingston), have hired an immigration lawyer to try to get the ban lifted. Bernard suggests that marrying may help their efforts. Jacob is uncomfortable with the suggestion, and the couple struggle with their feelings.
After Jacob returns to the United States, he and Anna grow apart, and Jacob begins a relationship with his colleague, Samantha (Jennifer Lawrence). Anna also tries to find a new life for herself, beginning work as a secretary for a magazine, but she is unable to abandon her feelings for Jacob. She eventually phones him from London and says that they will never find in others what they found in each other, and that they should marry. Soon after, Jacob breaks up with Samantha, returns to London and marries Anna in a small registry office ceremony with her parents as witnesses—both affirming that they will "never allow anything to destroy the feelings we share for each other". With a tearful parting, Jacob returns to his business in Los Angeles while the couple wait six months before they appeal the ban on Anna's visa.
Six months later, Jacob flies back to the United Kingdom for the appeal, but it is rejected. With their relationship compromised and no hope of resolving the visa issue, Anna and Jacob begin to fight with each other out of jealousy and frustration. Jacob goes back to the US, and Samantha. Anna eventually gets promoted at work to the position of editor—something she wanted very much. Her love life, however, is not as positive or fulfilling—her new boyfriend Simon (Charlie Bewley) does not evoke the same feelings in her as Jacob, whom she still misses.
Sometime later, Anna is finally offered a new visa. She gives up her job, her current boyfriend and her apartment, and flies to Los Angeles to Jacob, who greets her with flowers at the airport where they have an awkward reunion. Jacob brings Anna to his house where he joins her in the shower, and as the water falls over them, they remember happier memories they had together at the beginning of their relationship, which has now become strained due to their indiscretions during the time spent apart. | boring | train | wikipedia | Just saw it at the Sundance Film Festival here in Park City, Utah.'Like Crazy' is a love story about the ups and the downs, the euphoria, the heartache, and the sacrifices.
Like Crazy is a nostalgic love story of people who know what they want but don't know how to get it.The acting is superb.
Jennifer Lawrence and Charlie Bewley also deliver great performances.The thing that sets Like Crazy apart is the fact that it doesn't try to be anything than an honest love story.
Take friends who want to share the fun of a good film.Like Crazy is a fantastic watch and a fresh take on everything you thought you knew about indie romance..
In a movie about the complications that ensue when an American guy named Jacob and a British girl named Anna meet in college, fall in love and then eventually are separated when the latter is denied entry back into the US after overstaying her visa, it's never as compelling as it very well should have been."Like Crazy", a big hit at the Sundance film festival, is well-made and has some scenes of heartbreaking immediacy that give it considerable promise.
And his understated mis-en-scene and on-the-cheap cinematography is quite impressive, bringing a very cinematic atmosphere to "Like Crazy" despite the film's modest means.For the central pairing, Jones (a distinctly lovely actress with a remarkably subtle face and physical acting style) in particular brings a fascinating duality to her character of Anna: she can feel both warm and reserved, naive but very intelligent and observant.
There's a bit of suspense later on, as both Jacob and Anna get romantically tempted by someone close to them (by Jennifer Lawerence and Charlie Bewley, respectively), but that plot devolpment ultimately feels as superficial and mechanical as the movie's main immigration predicament.
It's not that there isn't a sense of real care and affection between Jacob and Anna, but the movie just doesn't take enough time to let us figure out exactly what exists between the two.
It seems like while Anna may be in crazy stupid love, Jacob seems to see it as a passionate summer fling but nothing to change his life for.
The disintegration of their relationship feels more expected and, frankly, welcome than it is heartbreaking.Perhaps what's hindering the central romance is that the movie is far too hurried and uneven that it doesn't really have time to show a substantive, organic growth of Anna and Jacob's relationship.
Anna (Felicity Jones) and Jacob (Anton Yelchin) are in love with each like crazy.
(I LOVE Arthur Hiller's "Love Story" and can relate to much of it, although most relationships don't end so tragically.)I'm guessing that many of the people that didn't enjoy "Like Crazy" never experienced the beauty of young love, or the heartache it causes when you're forced into a long distance relationship.
Most movies make you care about the things that the on screen couple have to go through, but throughout the movie I could only think of how unbelievable this relationship is, and how stupid and unsympathetic the characters are.The basic premise of the movie is boy and girl meet in college, develop a relationship, become so in love with each other that they can't stand to spend a few months apart, girl overstays visa and is unable to come back, and the effect on their relationship that long distance has on them.The movie didn't really demonstrate why they were together at all.
I thought he'd get bored with the girl after about 100 kisses, but no, he actually wants to follow her to England for more.....I need to tell you that (1) I LIKE romance movies, and (2) I have had the experience of a relationship separated by thousands of miles; but I could NOT relate to this awful and shallow movie.
The soundtrack (except for the disco scene in London) was dismal; and just flat-out annoying.I like both these actors, but they never stood a chance with the wooden direction they must have had, because there was no (0) chemistry here.Every time they kissed or had any 'romantic' verbal intercourse I wanted to cringe: It felt as though I were watching two people awkwardly trying to kiss in the dark bedroom after a round of 'spin the bottle.' I suppose that as an 'artistic' effort, it has some merit; but as a love story ...not so much.Uncle Gruesome.
The director is trying to attain that edgy Mike Leigh, Ken Loach feel, but fails miserably and the result is like watching an edited collection of drama school workshops.Perhaps they should have spent some time coming up with an actual story line?
Although it remains semi-fresh, it doesn't hesitate to pack in at least some of those Hollywood instances here and there.The story follows Jacob (Yelchin) and Anna (Jones), two Los Angeles college students who meet in one of their classes and become a couple soon after.
This makes for a very sappy, awkward, and somewhat boring excursion through the repetition of "first love stories." You almost feel like the unwanted third wheel.In fact, some of the most interesting scenes are when Jacob and Anna focus on other relationships.
I actually really enjoyed the one Jacob established with Jennifer Lawrence's Sam. The only trouble is the film keeps pausing those to try and force both of the main characters together again.There are minor setbacks, but the film is motivated and kept on life support by wonderful lead actors.
The love story told in Like Crazy is almost like and anti romance at times but is also very relatable and convincing.The story is about a long distance relationship and the perils that this type of relationship can have, the two leads Felicity Jones and Anton Yelchin just shine in their roles and they have such a great chemistry together that i was totally convinced that these two people really love each other and i was rooting for them through the entire film.
One thing i like about this film is that it doesn't just show the story of the two people involved in the relationship, it also showed the heartbreak that the other partners face, one particular scene with the freakishly talented Jennifer Lawrence had me holding back the tears.The ending is something I've read a lot of people either aren't happy with or left unmoved by but again i found that the way it ended was great, it was so original and it left the viewer wondering, in saying that though it is incredibly sad.
However, It was not.Felicity Jones' character Anna was not an interesting person.She looks like she just rolls out of bed and slap on eyeliner.She did her hair in a MESSY BUN for her wedding.Anton Yelchin's character Jacob, was a very nice person.
Moreover, there are various opinions about the significance of physical intimacy and "seeing others" during relationship.Like Crazy covers the said topics fully and nicely and thanks to brilliant actors (Anton Yelchin and Felicity Jones, above all) it was pleasant and smooth to watch.
Jones was new to me, but she performed credibly as well.As for the main obstacle for love, it was somewhat awkward to realize that the U.S. has so many bureaucratic restrictions even for citizens of allied NATO countries; on the other hand, there are immigration lotteries and illegal immigrants legalization campaigns...But the movie is worth watching, and recommendable not to the young ones only.
Unfortunately, this motif isn't kept up and there are plenty of overly-artsy moments that are trying to make shortcuts for, and ultimately supersede, the story.The great thing about this style of movie is that it enhances the idea of character, because it forces the story to focus on the smaller, telling moments in a relationship.
Using this technique to focus on the absurdly decisive moments (as it does here) instead of these telling moments in this relationship counter-intuitively feels inauthentic because cheats the audience out of being able to see them for who they are instead of what they do.The two leads have very little chemistry, and although this may have been intentional, it also makes watching this movie a very frustrating experience.
Some of the things they do are outright baffling because we have not been allowed to see their third dimension, and as a result, we may not particularly care what happens to them.At some point, this movie may have been trying to tell us something about the nature of being in a relationship and why people feel connected to one another, instead of just laying out the foundations of a story about one such relationship.
Then I thought, "Well, if she chose to be in it, it must have SOMETHING going for it." (Honestly, I didn't even recognize Jennifer Lawrence, but then part of her charm is that she looks like a certain kind of all-American down-to-earth woman.) I could say I almost walked out because nothing was really happening besides some entirely predictable plot points and equally predictable developments in their relationship.
If you see a lot of indie films, you've seen this sort of thing numerous times before: long, slow loving takes; piano music filling in for emotion; quirky playful moments between the lovers.
Such is the case with Drake Doremus' Like Crazy, the story of a young couple having to engage in a long-distance relationship as a result of the violation of immigration requirements.
It is a sincere film from the director's own experience, but one that ultimately comes up empty.Winner of the Grand Jury Prize for Drama at the Sundance Film Festival, Anna (Felicity Jones), a British exchange student at a Los Angeles college meets Jacob (Anton Yelchin), a Furniture Design major who is a Teaching Assistant in Anna's writing class.
We see the physical passion on the screen but it never feels authentic, more like movie-love, determined to call attention to itself with a series of time-lapse snapshots and other cinematic gimmicks.The main thrust of the story is the separation of Anna and Jacob brought about by the U.S. Immigration authorities.
Distracted by their work and their enforced separation, they never seem to recapture the energy of their first experience and are drawn into other relationships, Jacob with Sam (Jennifer Lawrence) and Anna with Simon (Charlie Bewley), but neither relationship is fully satisfying and there is little truth-telling.Despite a thin script, it is hard to deny the quality of the performances by Jones and Yelchin, and those of Anne's parents (Alex Kingston and Oliver Muirhead) who give the film a much needed lightness of tone.
The film opens with Jacob (Anton Yelchin) meeting Anna (Felicity Jones) in class of their L.A. area college.
After graduation, immigration issues for Anna result in the forced separation of the two love birds and proceed to show the couple fight to stay together over the next several years.Like Crazy is a new love story for the ages.
Just when you expect the story to follow the path we are used to seeing in the mass graveyard that is the Rom-Com, it swings away proving that life and especially love are unpredictable.Kudos to director Drake Doremus, and actors Yelchin, Jones and a small, yet stinging performance by Academy Award nominee Jennifer Lawrence.
The movie follows the hardships of their relationship when Anna experiences visa problems that could keep her home in the UK.I was intrigued by the mixed reviews this movie was receiving from IMDb "prolific authors" and after watching Like Crazy for myself, I understand better.Drake Doremus opts for a stripped down, naturalistic style for this love story that works quite well.
You never feel lost through it all but some viewers will probably regret the absence of longer, better structured and scenes that really hit you.This has been compared to 500 days of summer (probably for its bittersweet take on love) and Blue Valentine (probably for its documentary-style of movie-making) but I was personally reminded of Before Sunrise and Before Sunset, as a film resting squarely on two actors and their chemistry.
It's hard not to like: the characters are sweet and believable; the actors seem to be relishing the improv nature of the film; the story feels true (which it is, apparently, kinda); the photography, direction and editing are all executed brilliantly; and, most importantly, it's engaging, fun and emotionally affecting.
You really buy into what they are doing, even if at first it seems a bit convenient.It's not all good of course, but what works apart from the drama (and an inciting incident, which I'm not entirely sure, if that would happen like that and would last that long, time-wise) is the ambiguity the movie transports.
But without feeling committed to these two from the beginning, the rest of the movie is just, well, kind of pointless.The film was shot showing snippets of characters' interactions with each other - Anna & Jacob with each other, each with their respective later loves - which was an interesting style and genuinely effective later on, but I think we needed to be hit over the head with Anna & Jacob at the beginning, instead of just a few cutesy scenes.
Sure enough, I was left reeling after my screening, choking back the desire to weep for Jacob (Anton Yelchin) and Anna (Felicity Jones), a couple so deeply and madly in love who are held back from being together because of immigration laws.
It is one of the most emotional experiences I have had at the movies in ages, and one that is not bound to leave me any time soon.Like Crazy is a bit unconventional when compared to other romantic dramas.
Instead of seeing the whole story of Jacob and Anna's romance from the beginning, co-writer/director Drake Doremus only gives us moments, glimpses and mere blips along the way.
These characters are very lived in, and feel incredibly natural and real from the moment Anna walks into Jacob's life, until the end credits roll.
In Los Angeles, the British Anna (Felicity Jones) and her college mate Jacob (Anton Yelchin) fall in love with each other.
Months later, the lawyer tells that Anna can return to the USA, and she leaves Simon and Jacob leaves Sam. Will their relationship be the same after the long period distant to each other?Yesterday I bought "Like Crazy" on DVD because of the name of Jennifer Lawrence, who plays a supporting character and is very beautiful and sexy.
If they're supposed to want, need, love and miss each other like crazy they have a really weird way of showing it.
However, there is a nagging conventionality and a relative imbalance to the love story that makes the film fall short of its emotional objective with this viewer.Yelchin and Jones play Jacob and Anna, senior-year college students in LA who fall in love shortly before the latter is to return to her native London.
Yelchin is saddled with the more elliptical role where we are left to guess how far he is willing to commit.Compelling in just a few scenes as Jacob's comely assistant Sam, Jennifer Lawrence ("Winter's Bone") is the inevitable temptation in his path, while Charlie Bewley makes less of an impression as Anna's neighbor Simon.
Framed by John Guleserian's hand-held digital camera-work, the film benefits from the incisive way Doremus staged several of the key scenes, especially the ones that highlight the intermittent disconnects between the lovers, and the young filmmaker shrewdly provides an ambiguous ending allowing viewers to fill in the blanks with the future of Jacob's and Anna's relationship.
Spoiler: the Last 10 minutes of the movie is what really pushed me over the edge, felicity Jones suddenly breaks up with this Simon guy gets approval to come the states(somewhere she quits her job at a magazine where she just got a raise, in this economy?) at the same time Anton yelchin fires his assistant/girlfriend Jennifer Lawrence, when felicity arrives they go home and immediately are both not happy and then it just ends.
The film had the potential to be good if there was more substance to the story, more time put into development of the initial relationship, casting lead actors who had chemistry and giving the characters an opportunity to grow in maturity.
Unfortunately, this mother of all hipster-montages is over all too quickly, and while the audience is supposed to fall in love along with Jacob and Anna, there is really no time to do so before they're thrust into the throes of the world's most boring f*ck-up of a 'relationship'.The film could perhaps have been salvaged were it not for how flat the main characters were.
This film tells the story of Anna (Felicity Jones) an English student in California studying journalism or something who claps eyes on Jacob (Anton Yelchin) in class and they start dating.
I have had this movie for some time but not had a chance to watch it, and I am so glad I finally got round to viewing this.It is truly a raw, real look at love, heartache and the gut wrenching feeling of not being able to be with the one you love when they consume your thoughts 100% of the time.The parts of Jacob and Anna were acted superbly by Anton Yelchin and Felicity Jones.
I have been thinking about this film ever since and can't believe how effected I was by it.People have taken the ending quite differently it seems, but to me it seemed like they fought so hard for 5 years to be together but by the time it was finally possible, they had grown apart and were strangers in each others lives.
The story is about a British college student(Felicity Jones) while attending school in American, meets an American(Anton Yelchin), become like crazy for each other in love, hence the title.
It's the only scene with believable emotion and I actually felt for her character.The end of the movie is not great either. |
tt0097883 | Millennium | A U.S. passenger airliner in 1989 is about to be struck from above by another airliner on a landing approach. The pilot handles the airplane as well as he can while the flight engineer goes back to check on the passenger cabin. He comes back in the cockpit screaming, "They're dead! All of them! They're burned up!"
Bill Smith is a National Transportation Safety Board investigator hired to determine whether the collision and subsequent crash of both aircraft was due to some mechanical fault or human error on the part of either pilot. He and his team of investigators are confused by the flight engineer's words on the cockpit voice recorder, as there is no evidence of a fire on board before the plane hit the ground. At the same time, a theoretical physicist named Dr. Arnold Mayer has a professional curiosity about the crash, which borders on science fiction. While giving a lecture, he talks about time travel and the possibility of visitors from the future.
Time travelers are visiting the present day and stealing passengers from doomed aircraft. In the future, because of pollution, the human population is no longer able to reproduce, so teams are sent in to the past to abduct groups of people who are about to die and keep them in stasis until they will be sent into the far future to repopulate the Earth. While many people in the future are in poor health, some are healthy enough to successfully pass for 20th Century humans, and are given the best of food and care so that they can successfully infiltrate, using reproductions of contemporary clothing.
Every incursion into the past causes an accompanying "timequake" whose magnitude is proportional to the effects of the incursion. Each "timequake" causes physical damage in the time from which the incursion has been made. This is why they are abducting people who will not be able to affect the future any further and replacing them with copies of those who would have died. Thus, the flight engineer's strange comment came because all the passengers had been replaced with pre-burned duplicates in preparation for the impending crash.
While on a mission to 1963, a time travel operative on board a plane is shot before it crashes, losing a stun weapon as a result. This weapon winds up in the possession of Dr. Mayer, setting him on the path to working out what is happening. Twenty-five years later, Smith finds a similar artifact among the wreckage of the crash portrayed at the beginning of the film.
Worried that the 20th century discoveries made by Smith and Mayer might change history, Louise Baltimore travels back to 1989 to distract Bill Smith and discourage him from pursuing his investigation further. Louise gains Bill's trust and seduces him into a one-night stand, which she hopes will complete the distraction. It is later revealed that Louise becomes pregnant as a result of this encounter. As a consequence of further errors on the part of the time travel team and paradoxical events, Bill becomes even more suspicious. He soon pays a visit to Dr. Mayer. Louise materializes from the future and reveals her mission to both of them in the hope that they will voluntarily keep quiet. In a mishap with the stun weapon, Mayer inadvertently kills himself.
Mayer was instrumental in the development of the Gate technology that made time travel possible, so his death results in an unresolvable paradox – a force infinity timequake – which will destroy the entire civilization of the "present" future. The only course of action is to send all of the people who have been collected into the distant future before the Gate is permanently destroyed. Louise goes with Bill to the future.
Bill and Louise step through the Gate and disappear: they are transported to another time and place, saving their lives, and allowing them to fulfil a destiny to repopulate the Earth. As a cataclysmic explosion destroys the Gate and the blast wave engulfs him, Sherman the Robot quotes Winston Churchill: "This is not the end. This is not the beginning of the end. It is the end of the beginning." | alternate history | train | wikipedia | Millennium is one the few movies about time travel that stays true to the original source material.
They're an effective device for showing the parallel but very different points of view of the key characters.In sum, Millennium is a reasonably good but not great movie.
Good premise and a few comedic touches enhance this time travel tale starring Cheryl Ladd (who, in my opinion is an very underrated actress) and Kris Kristofferson.
I have to admit that although the (not so) special effects could have been better and the last line at the end should have been left out, it's still a memorable film that will entertain most time travel fans.
As I was watching this movie, I actually expected most people wouldn't get it because time-travel pictures are usually too confusing for people with linear minds.
If you go see (or rent) a sci-fi movie based on an obscure short story directed by the man who had Bo Derek battling a whale in "Orca" twelve years earlier, you have to expect some campiness.
In execution, the people behind this movie must have known that they did not have the budget for a special effects-laden thrill ride, so they decided to take the stylistic approach of making it with one eyebrow raised, a bittersweet melodrama that happens to have a few plane crashes and laser beams.
If you like sci-fi because it gives writers the chance to provide plots that make one think outside the square and provide concepts that make you stop and ponder even weeks or years later, then this movie is definitely for you!
Indeed, I guarantee you will enjoy it and perhaps even come to love it as I have despite its obvious shortcomings.If you like nice tidy productions with crisp acting and wonderful cinematography and wish to see something not very taxing on the mind, stay away from this movie!
the wonderful wonderful plot that really makes this movie many times over.By my rating of this film you can clearly see which camp I sit in.
Although it has its share of flaws (special effects are weak and the acting is mixed), but the plot is excellent and the concepts and implications introduced regarding time travel creative and thought provoking.
But from this point on (and this is no spoiler as it happens in the first three minutes) all those who love stories about time travel, and the paradoxes and potentials therein are in for a great ride.
Some fairly healthy specimens relatively like Cheryl Ladd are treated like pampered pets because they have to do some time traveling.This trip takes her to 1989 when Millennium came to the theaters.
What Travanti does is totally mess with the future of planet Earth as Ladd knows it.Although some have trashed Millennium I've found it to be a thought provoking movie about time traveling and about our lax attitude toward the environment which gives Ladd the future she lives in.
It is campy, no doubt, and there are a couple of scenes that try to take themselves seriously and fall flat, but overall I thought it was a clever, original film with lots of sci-fi fan humor and a bunch of unexpected but meaningful plot twists.If you like campy, idealistic sci-fi you might want to give it a shot..
Millennium is a movie that does not fully convince as a sci-fi probably because of the rather tired romance plot added to the script.
His enquiries are further enhanced by premonitions of an attractive young woman who may hold the key to why the crash happened...Kris Kristofferson and Cheryl Ladd prove themselves as credible film stars, but their talents are hampered by the poor overall impression given out by Millennium.
Add to that rather tame special effects and a sudden uninspiring ending, Millennium is certainly no masterpiece and will be easily forgotten.An interesting premise proves a let down for an avid film fan like myself but is lifted up by Ladd, who proves she can portray a character far beyond Angel Kris Munroe.
Soon Bill learns that Louise is a time traveler from one thousand year from the future, when the population is sterile, and replaces the passengers from airplanes that will crash by corpses with the same characteristics.
Kris Krisstoferson and Cheryl Ladd (I always had a crush on Ladd,) are perfect as Smith and Baltimore, and the time travel aspect was interwoven throughout the story, jumping from present to future to past and much more.
(Humm, Just a thought out loud, these same people seem to have no problem with movies like Pulp Fiction doing this.) My only complaints are with the duplicate scenes, while they are necessary to the story line they are too long, they should have been kept much shorter lasting just long enough to fill in the blanks from the first time around.
Here's a guilty pleasure for science-fiction buffs: Kris Kristofferson plays a plane crash investigator who becomes involved with a mysterious woman (the smoldering Cheryl Ladd, looking quite the fox); turns out she's a time-traveling visitor from the future who rescues doomed passengers aboard crippled airliners, replacing them with lookalike corpses.
Travanti is terrific in support as a wily physicist and time travel specialist with a Cheshire cat-like grin; Kristofferson is quite commendable, and Ladd is frequently amazing.
His inquiries attract his attention (and affections) to a mysterious girl, who eventually reveals the truth that people from the future are traveling back in time to steal passengers that are about to die on airplane crashes.
While this is a very interesting premise, all the interesting science fiction and mystery elements are unfortunately made nearly worthless by the horrible pacing, extremely poor dialogue, annoying redundancy (we see many of the more boring scenes twice from different perspectives!), and worst of all, the silly romance plot.
When will Hollywood learn that never every movie needs a romantic subplot and a unrealistic happy ending...FINAL RATING: 5/10 - The only reason I even give it a 5 is because of the interesting premise and nice production design.
This movie should be a total piece of ****, but what comes through all the bad acting, cheesy effects, bizarre plot turns, and embarrassing characters, is a lot of heart and an actual dark and dank apocalyptic film which is just as optimistic, NAY MORE OPTIMISTIC, than anything the STAR TREK universe has presented to us viewers to date.
As below - yes its cheesy, yes the main characters could have done better to stick with their type cast roles (none appear to have suffered as a result though ) , yes its got Tron type effects, and yes its really not to be compared to the blockbusters of the day , BUTFor a decent script movie thats been dispatched to the small screen, it really does have a lot of redeeming features.
The interesting aspect of time travel paradoxes and an apocalyptic future in the movie is worth wading through the boring love scenes between the main characters.
If you are intelligent and able to relax as opposed to trying to assert your ego onto how a film should be made (it's not your creation, it is someone else's!), then you will enjoy this movie, despite it's 1989 feel--which I prefer to look at as a time-travelling view in itself.
However, MILLENNIUM (1989) needs to be credited with attempting an even more ambitious storyline that incorporates the time paradox (what happens when someone goes into the past and attempts or accidentally changes it) which also evolved from a short story into a screenplay and novel by John Varley, a reputable science fiction writer in his own right and who has won the both the Hugo and Nebula Awards for science fiction.
MILLENNIUM echoes back to the lingering 70s and 80s television genre with its stylish prime time soap operatic nature like Dynasty that seems to date MILLENNIUM and ironically freezes the movie in a period of cinematic history as does in some ways THE TIME MACHINE.Nevertheless as a serious science fiction movie, it successfully focuses on the time paradox and plays with its convoluted nature to relatively good effect, much superior to infantile nature of the much more dated and cheesy JOURNEY TO THE CENTER OF TIME (1967) or THE DAY TIME ENDED (1980), though unlike BACK TO THE FUTURE and more like THE TIME MACHINE, it ultimately ends up with the haunting suggestive climatic scene which in some ways however is much more unfocused yet supposedly uplifting by the musical score, suggestive of how, one of the classics of science fiction genre, THX-1138 (1979) ended a decade earlier.More successful time travel movies that avoided the frozen cinematic period of its production than MILLENNIUM include the romantic comedy science fiction movie (that only indirectly suggests the time paradox in its storyline - the use of H.G. Well's original glasses that were broken and replaced) entitled TIME AFTER TIME (1979), PLANET OF THE APES (1968) that wows the audience by its climax involving its movie reveal that doesn't so much result in a paradox however, BENEATH THE PLANET OF THE APES (1970) (which also avoided a time paradox and laid out a suggested time travel option only at the end of the movie for a sequel to come), LOST IN SPACE (1998) that uses the time paradox for its big impact at the end of the movie, and even one of the best contemporary time travel movies 12 MONKEYS (1995) that did incorporate the time paradox but only briefly as LOST IN SPACE but to great effect for its climatic scene in much the same way that A BEAUTIFUL MIND (2001) or even A SIXTH SENSE (1999) accomplishes its revealed movie twist both considered classics in their own right.There are also the more fanciful explorations of time fluidity consequences such as the romantic fantasy GROUNDHOG DAY (1993) and even the most current science fiction, action thriller time looping effort of SOURCE CODE (2011) which is an emotionally tinged and appealing movie that perhaps rivals or finally excels MILLENNIUM in its cinematic impact.
MILLENNIUM, while its place in film history is frozen by its production values set in the 80s, has retained its place in time travel movies as a credit to its genre (but ironically itself stuck in time)..
And that's a shame, because it has many good moments that deserve a little more love.It's about an air-crash investigator (Kris Kristofferson) who discovers that there's more than meets the eye going on when he finds what could well be an 'alien' device among the ruins of a downed plane.
However, just as I was really getting into it, the story slowed to practically as stand-still and (thanks to its time travel narrative) - literally - went over old ground and spent a fair portion of the film telling us something that we already had seen, only in a longer, more pointless version.Granted, it picks up again towards the end and, talking of the final act, the ending does leave a little bit up to your own interpretation, so if you like your stories totally cleared-up then you could be a bit disappointed.This was a shame, as if this middle segment could have been reworked, then the whole film would have benefited (and possibly found its way to a wider, more appreciative/mainstream audience).
I am a huge fan of time travel films, which is why I watched this but ultimately this film is below average in terms of acting, plot, story and action/effects (taking into account the age of the film).
If you've read the book, the film will please you.If you haven't, then like so many others, the film will confuse you.The screenplay is fairly accurate and follows the book quite closely.The acting is average for KC but does not distract from the overall feeling of a story (which you should already know) being told quite well.Fans of Cheryl will appreciate the opportunity to see her in a more dynamic role than the usual Charlies Angles style pap that you may be used to.Overall, a pleasing adaptation of JV's story.--greg.
The time travel idea is still interesting which makes the movie watchable..
Adding some real sexy spark to the investigation is Cheryl Ladd, (someone you couldn't more perfectly cast) a woman a thousand years (hence the title) from the future, who holds the key, sent back in time, parading as your not everyday hostess to check on how the investigation's going, while suffering a bit of a mishap, prefore, when dealing with a male hijacker.
There are people out there, who will no doubt, think Millennium's the pits, where I liked it for it's story and performances, notably Ladd's, Brent Carver's as one ugly human, whose face looks to have been burnt up, who is Ladd's boss on the other side, where we also have an R2 D2 robot (Joy) who of course later on, went onto to play some interesting and vile characters, in some blood and guts horrors of the millennium.
Drags on for about twenty minutes, and then the most incredible crew of drag queens, led by a terrible looking, punky Cheryl Ladd, invade the film with a coterie of the worst (somewhat) live actors, mechanical men and make up jobs the world has ever seen.
Another plus: the end of the movie, and of the pain.There's just too many cons to cover fully - poor acting, vague direction, TOO low of a budget and special effects, terrible writing, unsatisfactory plot resolution, horrible redundancy...
Kris Krisstoferson gives a really good performance and Cheryl Ladd is OK for the most of her screen time and that's it.
An interesting premise (time travelers go back in time to abduct passengers before they die in plane crashes and use them to populate the polluted future) is almost negated by cheesy performances from a C-list cast (Krist Kristofferson, Cheryl Ladd, Robert Joy, Daniel J.
1st watched 1/24/2011 -- 3 out of 10 (Dir- Michael Anderson): Dumb, romanticized time story about a group of dying future people who interrupt plane crashes to do some people switching to keep their race going.
The movie stars the ever-expressive Kris Kristofferson, who is a crash inspector and the former Charlie's Angel -- Cheryl Ladd, as the time traveler who's trying to fix things.
Also, if it wanted to be seen as camp, there should have been something that seemed intentionally humorous or at least intentionally awful (like a good 'B' movie).
It is no secret that I like time-travel movies.
I'm sure they picked some airport in Canada and figured nobody would know the difference.The time travel / body snatchers element of "story" was mildly interesting, and would have made a good 1 hour New Twilight Zone episode.Michael Anderson did a much better job of directing Logan's Run, which appears to be his only commercial success in the last quarter of the 20th century.In short, if you are looking for something to show your movie-geek friends on BAD-MOVIE night, this one will make you the winner for the month (unless somebody else has an out of print "copy of KISS Meets The Phantom Of The Park").This is one of the few flicks I actually recommend for its overwhelming horribleness!.
This movie is put the final nails in the coffins for Cheryl Ladd and Kris Kristofferson.
Not to be confused with the later classic series with Lance Henriksen, this science fiction story has a NTSB investigator(played by Kris Kristofferson) looking into a seemingly routine crash, but discovers certain anomalies, and then encounters a mysterious and beautiful woman,(Cheryl Ladd) who takes something from the wreckage.
In those days, I was a young lad, I thought there was nothing better than a good time travel movie.
I don't think the concept of using airplane victims to preserve our future has ever been put on film, but it gets delivered pointedly in this back shelf treasure.The film really works and with Cheryl Ladd giving the performance of her career, you get time travel with sex appeal and sincerity.
Just the whole idea of time travel and people being abducted it sucks you into this movie.
And Bill gets the beautiful girl(who smokes three packs of cigarettes an HOUR.) This unusual time traveler is played by Cheryl Ladd (who was the last of the original "Charlie's Angels") There are a few clever sub-plots.This is a GREAT movie.
Perhaps that's why fans like me keep watching it over and over again hoping maybe this time the film makers will get it right!
The oddest of which is why a bombshell like Cheryl Ladd would buy him dinner and take him to bed the same night.A Nobel Laureate is also investigating this and other mysterious plane crashes.The explanation is simple, time travelers from 1,000 years in the future are abducting healthy people from the past fated to die in plane crashes.
Recall the great build up for sci-fi films like 'Flight of the Navigator' and 'Deja Vu.' Here, it's just not the intriguing.In conclusion, 'Millennium' IS worth your time just for the phenomenal premise alone!
This has to be absolutely the best movie ever made about disappearing airplanes, AND starring both Kris Kristofferson and Cheryl Ladd.
I would also advise sci-fi fans to rent the movie, but for completely different reasons: it's sunny, occasionally funny, camp and the subject of time travel as always is fascinating.
It is also always interesting to see how the people of the past used to view the future.See the film, then read the story (not the other way round) and you will probably enjoy both..
Almost Better Than It Is. After reading several pages of reviews of this movie I'm having one of those "Did I watch the same film as everyone else?" moments.The story here is not at all complicated.
The only good thing I found was looking at Cheryl Ladd !!. |
tt0042552 | High Lonesome | A young drifter is found stealing food at Horse Davis' ranch by Boatwhistle, the cook. Another rancher, Pat Farrell, who is engaged to Horse's daughter Abby, believes the boy to also be a horse thief and possibly worse.
Given the nickname Cooncat by the cook, the boy explains that he was wrongfully accused of murdering a man named Shell and has fled from the law. Shell owed him money, he says, and two strangers known as Smiling Man and Roper gave him a gun to confront Shell. He wound up unconscious and next to Shell's bullet-riddled body.
Horse doubts the boy's story, though youngest daughter Meagan believes it. At a barn-warming party for Pat, word comes that his parents have been found murdered. A livid Pat is ready to hang Cooncat for the crime. Horse talks him out of it, creating a rift between the two old friends.
Smiling Man and Roper turn up in the bunkhouse. They laugh at Cooncat's predicament and call him their lucky charm. Boatwhistle is killed by Smiling Man, and Cooncat flees the ranch before the rest of the family gets home. Horse decides Pat was right about the boy, and plans to ride out to hunt him down in the morning. Cooncat comes back and talks to Meagan through her window before returning to the trading post to look for the body of Jim Shell. Megan leaves a note for her father and goes with him. The Roper and Smiling Man show up, and Megan and Cooncat hide in some ruins 'til morning, when Horse Davis, Frank, Dixie, and Pat Farrell show up. Horse starts to go into the trading post to ambush who he thinks is Cooncat, but is really the Roper and Smiling Man. Cooncat comes out of hiding to warn him and is shot by the two inside. Horse goes in and confronts them, killing the Roper, but is knocked down by the Smiling Man. Pat shoots Smiling Man just as he is about to kill Horse, and as Meagan cradles the wounded Cooncat, Pat and Horse agree to take him under their wing. | murder, flashback | train | wikipedia | Oddball Western.
Oddball Western drama.
There's no commanding central character to hang your hat on.
Barrymore Jr. headlines, but his "Cooncat" stands more for misunderstood youth than as a force for good.
Actually, several characters alternate in the spotlight, crippled old Davis (Ruysdael) being the most commanding, with his spirited daughter Abby (Miller) not far behind.
Then too, there's a very un-Western hint of the spooky in the "ghost" figures lurking in the background.
That "horse dragging" sequence is unusual and more brutal than expected.
If Barrymore had padding to ease the abrasion, I couldn't spot it.
It's a pretty cluttered screenplay with a number of characters and episodes drifting in and out that makes it difficult at times to keep up with.
Nonetheless, it's a good original story with a number of nice touches, including the barn dance; plus, the wide open vistas of southwest Texas (where the epic Giant {1955} was filmed).
I also like the way that underneath the sub- plots, the film is really about the hapless kid finding a home.
Note that the character Cooncat foreshadows a popular theme of the coming decade—misunderstood youth, especially as popularized by James Dean several years later.I expect the un-tried Barrymore was given top billing for box office purposes.
He tries hard, and after all his character is based on anger and frustration since nobody believes him and is about to hang him.
The only scene I can spot where he clearly over-acts is when describing the two horsemen to Boatwhistle (Wills).
Otherwise, I see him as giving a logically emotional performance.
Anyway, I liked the film as an entertainingly offbeat Western..
Silly acting.
Some of it is laughable.
Filmed by Eagle-Lion right after THE SUNDOWNERS (1950) near some of the same Amarillo locations and with returning cast members Chill Wills, Jack Elam and the 'star', gawky teenager John Drew Barrymore.
No Robert Preston to give some weight to the film, this time.Story boils down to a boy, "Cooncat" (Barrymore) running away from an abusive home and witnessing a murder committed by Elam and Dave Kashner.
Only the local ranch owner Horse Davis (Basil Ruysdael) and his family don't believe him.
They think Cooncat's seeing ghosts because Cooncat's describing some men that were killed during a range war 15 years previously.
Of course there are no ghosts.
Cooncat actually did see the murder.
I won't give away the ending but lets just say it too is as anti-climatic as the THE SUNDOWNERS was.This also suffers from some of the same disjointed editing that that earlier film had suffered from, as well as Barrymore doing his silly facial grimaces while he overacts his part.
And the way John Archer treats his bride-to-be Kristine Miller, needs to be seen to be believed.
He spanks her on the bottom for shooting down a pan off the wall in order to prove a point.
Then they kiss and make up like nothing happened.
UN-REAL.
Obviously some of the details in the script weren't worked out for the audience ahead of time.Also filmed in Technicolor with nice scenic West Texas locations, it's worth a look but it's not a keeper, in my opinion.4 out of 10.
Are you lonesome tonight?.
There were so many westerns made, that it has to have a unique angle or something memorable, to sick its head above the parapet.
Did I enjoy this movie?
Without a doubt.
The characters were strong and likable and I really found myself rooting for the young lad.
Location?
Excellent.
The great expanse of the country was well portrayed and the shacks, houses and barns were all spot on.
Acting?
Good overall.
All utterly believable and gave a strong sense of family unit.
Storyline?
Well this is maybe where the movie didn't quite do itself justice.
The story was okay, but has, with variations, been told hundreds of times and it didn't bring much new to the table.
But at 80 minutes, it wasn't too long and I found myself glad to have watched and enjoyed it..
This Coon should stay tree'd.
Purportedly High Lonesome was shot in color for the transoceanic company Eagle Lion Pictures.
But all I saw was a pretty bad black and white print rented on Amazon.
John Drew Barrymore who with his sister Diana carried the most famous thespian name in America stars in this film playing a youthful loner type whom we just know as 'Cooncat'.
In a part that Steve McQueen would have probably phoned in with a good performance, Barrymore plays a troubled youth who is a runaway from an abusive home in Texas.
Unfortunately in his travels he walks into an area where a whole lot of unsolved murders are taking place and he gets good and tagged for them.Not believing him, but taking him in anyway the better to keep an eye on him is rancher Basil Ruysdael with two pretty daughters, Lois Butler and Kristine Miller.
Only Miller believes in Barrymore.
In the end all is revealed as that Belgian sleuth was wont to say.Poor Barrymore like Diana he did some unmemorable films for the most part, the pressure of the name a bit much to handle.
High Lonesome is one of those films.
Maybe the color might have helped, but I have to judge on the print available..
"There's somethin' hangin' on this kid's shirt tail like grim death...".
John Barrymore Jr. brings a Sean Penn-like quality to the portrayal of his character Cooncat in "High Lonesome", although that probably has more to do with his similar looks than in acting ability.
This was Barrymore's second appearance in a leading role following "The Sundowners" which came out the same year.
In my review of that picture, I opined that it's doubtful daughter Drew ever saw him in that film; my suspicion is that it's probably true here as well.When the picture was all over, I found myself scratching my head.
What started out as something of an off-beat mystery Western, this wound up being a story that didn't make much sense.
No reason was ever offered as to why the characters of the Smiling Man (Jack Elam) and Roper (Dave Kashner) ever hung around following the murder of Jim Shell in the abandoned trading post.
Stealing Cooncat's money was one thing, but why all the other intrigue of lurking in the shadows; the disappearing duo gimmick got a little tired after a while.
And what about all the men killed on both sides of the 'Jessup' fence when the Davis crew went out to tear it down?
Are we just supposed to forget about all of that like it never happened?
And by the way, who killed Pat Farrell's (John Archer) parents?
They were dead a whole week before their bodies were discovered, and the idea was that 'maybe' Cooncat was responsible.
Well, he wasn't.
Oh, never mind.
See what I mean - story elements were brought in and then discarded as if no one was bothering to pay attention.One thing I did like though - this was the only time I've ever seen Jack Elam's lazy eye referenced in a story.
As he describes the men who instigated him to go after Jim Shell, Barrymoore's character states - "He had a cast in his eye so you couldn't tell which eye was pointin' where".
I just wish they had taken a great line like that and gone somewhere meaningful with it.One last thing in the 'it doesn't make sense' department.
Remember the finale?
- Smiling Man and Roper have rancher Davis pinned down with gunfire after shooting Cooncat.
So what does Davis do?
He manages to swing around and just walk into the bad guy cabin through the back door!
I don't know, and you won't either..
I like this western.
This movie displays Drew Barrymore daddy's talent.He was working to be a star of Hollywood motion pictures.Now I don't know who was his mother.Dolores Costello ?
The novel writer he was married too.The actress who took advantage of his name and used him?
His career as a big star never developed.I don't know why.He plays young man who ran way from his father who had abused him.He took his 7 dollars that the had earned that his abusive father kept holding back.This come from the same company that did the Technicolor ,Trip to the moon, Eagle Lion.They did no use the very cheap Cinecolor that most smaller companies would use just to save pennies,but , expensive bulky Technicolor.Well Cooncat finds himself in some one ranch eating food.He is caught by the ranch Hands.He tries to tell them what happened.But when he tells the story and then he tries to show them the evidence .Strange that it's all the opposite.No one will believe him.Basil Ruysdale plays Davis ,now and older physically handicapped Ranch owner.
Lois Butler plays his Older daughter Meagan and Kristine Miller plays Abbey,the youngest.John Archer portrays the next door neighbor rancher Pat.Meagan and Pat are engaged.Pat live in a ranch which was originally owned by the the Davis enemies.In which they had feud ,which resulted in The Davis winning but all their cattle getting killed.Character actor Jack Elam plays Smiling man and Davis Kashner plays Roper.Two of the men that took advantage of Cooncat.Frank Cordell ,i think portrays Frank the alleged store clerk,who tricks Coon into saving his money for him.Stealing it.Frank starts to denies that he has any money of his.Coon tries to get it from him but some one hits him and when he wakes you fines the store clerk dead.So he takes off Rancher Davis decide to keep him for a while to see if his story is true cause they think he mentally ill.Cause the building is abandon.Eventually Abbey believes him when she witness both crooks ,In which the rancher cook ,played by Chill Wills, claim that he saw the same crooks died during the feud.Well during the engagement party .Cooncat and Abey try to look for the crooks ,cause he sees them again.All of a sudden Pats parent are mysteriously murder and Coon is binge blamed and being accuse of being a member of that family.Well Abbey and Coon find the part of the old place where it was sealed off for some evidence.Things are straightened out and everyone believes him.Coon has a girl friend now.this was a very unusual western. |
tt0441782 | Restraint | Two fugitives from justice, Dale (Teresa Palmer) and Ron (Travis Fimmel), take hostage Andrew (Stephen Moyer), an agoraphobic art dealer who might have a dark past of his own. All three soon find themselves participants in a game of survival.
Before the narrative begins, Ron has killed Dale's boss, the owner of a strip club. On the run, the couple kill a gas station attendant who sees the body in the trunk of their car. Stumbling across Andrew's magnificent country estate, the couple plan to hide out there until the search for them abates. Ron, impulsive and out of control, abuses and threatens to kill Andrew, but Dale intervenes. Andrew proposes to give them AU 40,000 dollars and valuable jewelry to aid their getaway. Someone, though, must go to the bank to retrieve the goods. Andrew suggests Dale do it, posing as his fiancée, Gabrielle. Dale, as Gabrielle, drives to town and twice enters the bank without creating suspicion.
While Dale is gone, Andrew tells Ron that Gabrielle had left him after having an affair with his father and being paid by him to leave; he subsequently hired a hit man to kill his father. To persuade Ron to leave him alive, he offers leverage in the form of a photo that proves he had his father killed. While allegedly retrieving the photo, Andrew manages to lock Ron in the cellar, but Ron escapes and regains the upper hand.
Dale returns and the couple prepare to leave. Ron again makes a move to kill Andrew; Dale, who has been partly seduced by Andrew and his way of life, grabs their shotgun and shoots at Ron, without realizing that he has left the gun unloaded. Ron knocks Dale out and leaves her in a locked car filling with exhaust, sadistically goading Andrew into braving his agoraphobia in order to save her. Andrew manages to save her and wound Ron; reviving, Dale deals Ron a death blow.
With Ron dead, Andrew moves to call the police. Dale stops him by re-assuming her pose as Gabrielle, and, prompted by Andrew, by telling him in Gabrielle's voice that she loves him. They make love—again, with Dale coached to speak in Gabrielle's voice. Afterwards, in an ambiguous ending, Andrew plays Wagner downstairs alone and seems to celebrate, while Dale gazes forlornly out the house's top-floor window. | murder | train | wikipedia | The acting was top-notch, although I agree with the other posters that Travis Fimmel who plays bad boy Ron was definitely channeling Brad Pitt, especially in the opening scene.
Stephen Moyer, who now appears on the HBO series True Blood, was very convincing as an agoraphobic with a past.Teresa Palmer was an excellent choice for her character; she somehow oozed overt sexuality and innocence at the same time.
That being said, I'm really glad I took the time to watch this film.Great acting, and a genuinely unique plot made this film most enjoyable ..
Whilst this is certainly no big budget blockbuster, and I didn't recognise any of the actors, I can guarantee Teresa Palmer is destined for great things and she was well supported.
you'll see) Great film, great acting, great story and a tremendous ending.
This is a good film typified by excellent acting, three interesting characters, a dark ambiance and a twist in the tale.While there are the usual moans about the typical movie style plot extension - where no-one is ever killed outright, they have to make a meal out of it- it is superior to most modern films in that it relies on the story and acting rather than explosions, explicit violence or other shock tactics.I had ever seen any of the three stars before but all three are names to watch.Well worth watching!.
What he does with airy nothing and a little light would grace any big-budget movie and does wonders to set the mood for this elegant character drama: the way the helicopter's searchlight filters through the trees at night, the trail of gravel left by a speeding vintage Mercedes, the morning fog lifting in slow motion, and endless curls of cigarette smoke gracefully set the pace for most scenes.
But "Restraint" is not only an elegant, but also a sexy movie, mostly thanks to newcomer Teresa Palmer.
With the cops on the trail and the media highlighting their flight to freedom they take cover in what they think is an abandoned home, only the home is actually owned and occupied by Andrew, a timid British man with agoraphobia who can't stand the great outdoors.
As the external search continues Ron and Dale come up with a way to make some quick cash from Andrew due to Dale's apparent similarity to his fiancé, as they decide they will flee the country they desperately need cash and hatch a plan to get their mitts on his substantial cash reserve in the local bank over the coming days.But that still means waiting and lying low, and being in close proximity for so long and more importantly reliant on each other to some degree creates a somewhat uneasy alliance.
It is clear to all that Andrew treats Dale far better than the rough and abrasive Ron despite the fact she is one of his captors.It is also clear that Ron is nuts.As time goes on the tension (of all kinds) builds between the three.
As Andrew grows a little more confident – or desperate – he starts needling Ron and suggesting to Dale that she doesn't need to be a part of all this, Ron is himself needy for all forms of attention and devotion and often bullies Andrew to big note himself to Dale and to subjugate Andrew back to his low spot on the totem pole.Of course this all can't end well, but when the inevitable does happen it seems well earned and worth the trip.
This is nothing like the cheesy exploitative "I know what you did last Summer" DVD cover would suggest, it is a high quality taut thriller, featuring solid performances and a pretty good plot.And yes the chick is still unbelievably hot.Final Rating – 7.5 / 10.
The film starts as it means to go on, straight into the story with very little character background and very little messing around, the pacing is carefully measured and it moves along perfectly The lead male(reminds me of Brad Pitt) is excellent in the role, as are all the characters actually, and considering its mainly the same 3 people on screen the whole time in a small space it is done very wellThe plot centres around a young couple who are on the run, they take the owner of an estate hostage and then a psychological battle beginsNever saw any of these actors before but would look forward to seeing them again!really enjoyed the flick the only issue i had was i thought the very end was a little weak, overall a very good watch and i highly recommend it as a film that you probably wont hear much about but it is excellent all the same.
It has some great acting and a fantastic simple story that keeps you glued to the screen.If you go into this movie wanting just some good acting and great characters then you wont be let down!
She really could work the camera and make you see things without uttering a word.Travis Fimmel on the other hand was very good but I just found that he was trying to be a Brad Pit wannabe (Is it a bad thing?) but apart from that he was 8/10!
It felt more like a horror movie ending (In a good way).This is a movie I would recommend for lonely night in when you want something interesting to watch..
Considering the number of characters in the entire movie it was certainly well made and keeps you engrossed till the end.
Of course during the entire movie I was thinking I didn't realize Kristen Stewart was that hot until I realized later that it wasn't her, it was Teresa Palmer and she's smokin' if you get my drift.
If not for Moyer and Fimmel, see this movie for Palmer, she certainly deserves more than a look!
It didn't feel like a low budget film at all; the actors were top-notch, and the sets, props, costumes, and effects felt just right--even luxurious, where that was appropriate.
(My definition of a low budget film is Chill.) Granted, the movie used a limited number of locations, but it used them very well.
To me, this felt like a Hitchcock film: the characters play cat-and-mouse with one another while we viewers turn into heartless voyeurs and wait to see who is left standing at the end.
And each of the characters had his or her own special appeal.One of my favorite moments is a little ghost story Ron tells.
This film was obviously made on a budget but nonetheless packs a lot of punch thanks to great direction and three leads who are excellent in their respective roles.
Although writer Dave Warner doesn't reinvent anything, he's written great characters caught in a dark, twisted and steamy plot.
He's very much in control and I didn't expect that from looking at his small body of work credited on IMDb.I was skeptical of the praise thrown at the movie and the three main actors, considering most reviews were written by Australians and human nature being what it is, people tend to hype local stuff.
Most Aussie movies that I have seen, have un-watch-able acting (for me at least), and I usually find the dialogue rubbish - Too much useless talking...
So If I had known this was an Aussie movie I would have avoided it.I am glad I watched it - Pretty good.
There just wasn't allot of superfluous cast and extras, and extra makeup and special effect - this movie relied heavily on script and the main actors - which I think is much harder than relying on glitz and glamour.The movie does have an Aussie flavour to it maybe that adds to the charm.
I wonder if the "Aussie slang" is a hindrance though, as perhaps the international audience maybe thinking "what does that word mean"I read a comment stating the lead male plays a little like BRAD PIT - I agree there, but it's kinda cool.Truthfully I was surprised.
_ this movie is a suspense thrillerI felt edgy watching it - thinking what's going to happen next.
Also the movie stirred up a feeling of anger against one of the characters (Not actor - the acting was good).
The smalltime criminal Ron (Travis Fimmel) has killed the boss of his girlfriend and striper Dale (Teresa Palmer) and they are escaping from the police.
After killing a gas station attendant, Ron drives to the old manor of the agoraphobic Andrew (Stephen Moyer) in the middle of nowhere to swap the runaway car.
"Restraint" is a claustrophobic and dark low-budget movie and my remark is that it is too long.
The cinematography is very beautiful and Stephen Moyer, the vampire Bill Compton from "True Blood", and Travis Fimmel have fine performances, but the hot Teresa Palmer steals the movie with her amoral character.
Another Austrailian movie with great acting and strong story.
This movie holds true to the current pattern of Strong acting, keen direction and quality stories.This particular movie has been done before with the hot girl and 2 men fighting over a position of power over her.
I was impressed on how the movie built momentum towards a interesting conclusion.The violence and sex were extremely well acted and served a purpose in establishing the nature of the 3 central characters.
I think the director followed the formula to a tee and it paid off.I would highly recommend this film to fans of suspense and drama who don't mind a bit of the rough stuff..
There are a lot of "geeze I did NOT expect that to happen" moments right from the beginning and every character is finely cast so you are completely invested in the story.
Fab movie if you want a quiet evening watching a good thriller drama..
Whileit was interesting, it was not tense or terrifying.Drama was a little on the slow side and mystery was not present.So what made this a good movie?
I don't exactly know.I just know that it kept my attention and after watching 25 movies in 3 days that doing such a feat is hard.I guess it was steady pacing.Well that, a naked woman and a semi unique twist at the end...but I figured it out way before, still I enjoyed it.A few plot flaws,but I'm too tired to type them out now.It's a Saturday afternoon movie and it's not a waste of tie..
In case you aren't aware, it has now become standard practice for individuals with a vested interest in low budget movies to talk them up on sites like this in the hope that the public will pay money to watch them at the cinema or on DVD.Ask yourself this: why would these people need to generate favorable publicity for a movie when a good movie will generate its own favorable publicity through word of mouth?
In case you aren't aware, it has now become standard practice for individuals with a vested interest in low budget movies to talk them up on sites like this in the hope that the public will pay money to watch them at the cinema or on DVD.Ask yourself this: why would these people need to generate favorable publicity for a movie when a good movie will generate its own favorable publicity through word of mouth?
I see great things happening in the future for these actors, you wait and see!!!!Check out the alternate ending and the interviews on the DVD VERY COOL!!!!I look forward to seeing more from these actors!.
It just goes to show what innovative filmmakers can do with a few well-chosen locations, an old country house, three good actors and a clever script."Restraint" works with simple ingredients, a guy and girl on the run from the law end up in an isolated house in the country.
But all is not as it seems and as the story unfolds, we find ourselves watching a film that Hitchcock or Polanski may not have disowned.Teresa Palmer and Travis Fimmel play the two fugitives, Dale and Ron. Impulsive Ron is the type of guy who always brings trouble to himself and those around him.
His girlfriend Dale has experienced the rougher side of life, but when they take prisoner the wealthy, but disturbed Andrew, played by Stephen Moyer, she responds to a chance at a classier, more sophisticated way of life.
In order to get their hands on a large sum of money, Ron allows Andrew to coach Dale to play a role.
It's another brilliant touch in a story that constantly shifts things around.Each of the three stars brings something to the party, but by the end, Teresa Palmer burns up the screen.
Aussie thrillers rarely hold back on the nudity and sex scenes and "Restraint" is no exception; Teresa Palmer's understated approach gives impact to a number of hot scenes with both men.
The ending is interesting but leaves some questions open.Restrained is an effective movie.
Overall a good effort that needed more story, more settings, more characters..
The characters are very layered and oftentimes emotionally raw and the actors are definitely up to the task.Travis Fimmel is great as Ron being both violent and manipulative but also playful and even sympathetic.
Stephen Moyer is also great as Andrew being a fearful victim that as time goes by becomes more bold with his captors.
Both definitely brought the characters to life.Teresa Palmer as Dale had the most challenging role.
Dale (Teresa Palmer) and Ron (Travis Fimmel), a runaway couple being sought after for murder hide out with the reclusive agoraphobic Andrew (Stephen Moyer), who lives alone in a villa living off a fund set up by his parents.
Meanwhile he initiates a psychological battle, which slowly causes ruptures in Dale's and Ron's relationship...A high tension thriller complemented by some crisp acting and strong characters.
Throwing together three amoral people gave the necessary backbone to create a tense atmosphere, while the beautiful Teresa Palmer keeps male audiences interested by showing off a lot of skin.
The script is also rather rudimentary, which need not be detrimental, but given the capability to keep interest on high levels for ninety it would be beneficial to either cut runtime or add some side occurrences to beef up the story.In the end it is a rather good movie, but falters by not being able to keep you involved for the long run.
Its plot seems simple, with a young couple on the run from the police invading a man's home and holding him hostage.
Teresa Palmer is beautiful and brings a note of vulnerability to the movie.
Stephen Moyer's character is the most dynamic, as he makes Andrew's agoraphobia believable.
Nate Jones provides most of the movie's excitement, but at times his character is a bit over the top.Restraint is still a solid thriller, even though it's a few years old, now.
I watched this movie solely for Teresa Palmer's presence.
The aura, the ambiance, the climate - it was fantastically dark, intriguing and kept me in the chair glued to the screen close to believing the bad movies days are ended.
But special credits go to Travis Fimmel and Teresa Palmer - those two newcomers have great and bright future and I cannot wait to see their next characters.I do recommend that movie to everyone who can remember the beauty of the camera in Bram Stoker's Dracula or miss those days when even 'action-thriller' needed to have that spark in it without reaching for chainsaw and flooding the theater with ketchup..
This is an excellent thriller movie to watch.
The boyfriend who plays Ron in the movie is an excellent actor as well as the girl who plays Dale.
Not great performances by the cast.It was a clever move by Ron to give Dale the gun unloaded and then put the bag over Andrew's head, forcing her to have to make a decision.
restraint 2008 is a terrible film all those positive reviews are fake the story,acting is no different then any C grade film releasing direct on internet.this was shot around 2005 and got delayed after viewing this i said to myself why did i bother watching this trash film it should have never been released the only reason i saw this was Teresa Palmer boobs yes that is the only good thing this film offers she is naked for a few moments and looks stunning on bed & shower scene besides her this film is junk.i have my opinion of this film i am not a critic i have to warn others that please do not waste your money & cash on this trash.the plot is about a criminal man and a woman on the run from law who take a rich man hostage in his own manor.there is a lot of Cringe worthy acting display can be seen here the male lead bad guy sucked he was totally overacting,the story is usual we have all seen before predictable with same old twists its all about money & stealing in these types of films IMDb is full of movies like these Hollywood in 80s & 90s did it before still a lot of films do it even in mainstream cinema those soft core porn films of Shannon Tweed are examples still whole world copies them its done get moving it is same plot repeated its been decades this must be stopped.these filmmakers try to shove down nonsense like this down our throats promoting the idea that murder & cheating is right.Restraint 2008 is a garbage film it has nothing to see not a single good moment here & do not fall for the sexy poster please its boring waste of time and money my rating is 2/10:Skip It. If Hitchcock were alive today....
The ending--a bit unexpected, but if you watch the movie through, there is really no other way to tie this movie together. |
tt0404204 | The Little Mermaid | Ariel, a sixteen-year-old mermaid princess, is dissatisfied with underwater life in the kingdom of Atlantica and is curious about the human world. With her best friend Flounder, Ariel collects human artifacts in her grotto and often goes to the surface of the ocean to visit Scuttle, a seagull who offers very inaccurate knowledge of human culture. She ignores the warnings of her father King Triton, the ruler of Atlantica, and Sebastian, a crab who serves as Triton's adviser and court composer, that contact between merpeople and humans is forbidden.
One night, Ariel, Flounder, and an unwilling Sebastian travel to the ocean surface to watch a celebration for the birthday of Prince Eric on a ship. Ariel instantly becomes enamored with Eric. The birthday celebration is cut short by a violent storm which destroys the ship and tosses Eric overboard. She rescues him and brings him to shore. Ariel sings to Eric, but immediately leaves just as he regains consciousness to avoid being discovered. Fascinated by the memory of her voice, Eric vows to find who saved and sang to him, and Ariel vows to find a way to join him and his world. When Triton discovers Ariel's love for Eric, Triton confronts her in the grotto and destroys most of the artifacts with his trident. After Triton leaves, two eels named Flotsam and Jetsam convince Ariel to visit Ursula the sea witch.
Ursula tricks Ariel into making a deal to transform her into a human for three days in exchange for Ariel's voice, which Ursula puts in a nautilus shell. Within these three days, Ariel must receive the "kiss of true love" from Eric. If Ariel gets Eric to kiss her, she will remain a human permanently, otherwise, she will transform back into a mermaid and belong to Ursula. Ariel accepts and is then given human legs and brought to the surface by Flounder and Sebastian. Eric finds Ariel on the beach and takes her to his castle, unaware that she is the one who had rescued him earlier. Ariel spends time with Eric, and at the end of the second day, they almost kiss but are thwarted by Flotsam and Jetsam. Angered at their narrow escape, Ursula sets a trap for Eric and Ariel: she disguises herself as a beautiful young woman named Vanessa and hypnotizes Eric with her singing voice.
Discovering that Vanessa is actually Ursula in disguise, Scuttle informs Ariel of Ursula's plan to marry Eric while Sebastian informs Triton about Ursula's actions. Assisted by her friends, Ariel stops Eric's wedding to Ursula, destroying the nautilus shell around Ursula's neck and restoring Ariel's voice. Realizing that Ariel is the girl who saved his life, Eric rushes to kiss her, but the sun sets and Ariel transforms back into a mermaid before Ursula kidnaps her. Triton furiously confronts Ursula and demands Ariel's release, but the deal is inviolable. Ursula tricks Triton into taking Ariel's place as Ursula's prisoner, giving up his trident. Ariel is released as Triton is transformed into a polyp. Ursula steps forward as the new queen, but before she can use the trident, Eric intervenes with a harpoon. Ursula attempts to kill Eric, but inadvertently kills Flotsam and Jetsam in the process. Enraged, Ursula uses the trident to expand into monstrous proportions.
Ariel and Eric reunite on the surface before Ursula gains full control of the entire ocean, creating a storm and bringing sunken ships to the surface. Attempting to kill Ariel, Ursula herself is killed by Eric with one of the wrecked ships. With Ursula destroyed, Triton and the other polyps are restored to their original forms. Realizing that Ariel truly loves Eric, Triton willingly changes her from a mermaid into a human and approves her marriage to Eric. Ariel and Eric marry on a ship and depart. | fantasy | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0084786 | They Call Me Bruce? | The movie opens with a young boy running to meet his grandfather (played by Yune), who lies dying on his bed. The young boy sadly explains that he could not find the medicine required to cure his grandfather's ailment and wonders aloud who will take care of him after his grandfather dies. His dying grandfather attempts to reassure the young boy, and explains that he should go to America. He further explains that when he was younger and working as a merchant marine, he met "the most beautiful girl" in America, and tells the young boy that if he goes there, she will take very good care of him. As the young boy is asking how to find her, his grandfather dies and the movie fades to black.
When it fades back in, quite some time has passed and the young boy, who is now an adult, has arrived in America and has begun working as a chef, catering to some gangsters in California. The gangsters, who call the man "Bruce" for his resemblance to the famed martial artist, Bruce Lee, are having trouble keeping their "boss of bosses" happy, and are trying to come up with the perfect solution to distributing cocaine to all of their clients throughout the United States. Some previous attempts at moving the drug have resulted in busts, and the boss of bosses is not happy.
Through a series of misunderstandings, Bruce makes it into the local newspaper as a hero, having thwarted an attempted robbery at the local market. Bruce's boss, Lil Pete, sees the newspaper and quickly devises a plan putting Bruce in control of moving the cocaine across the country, using Freddy, a stooge associated with the drug lords, as Bruce's limousine chauffeur. He convinces Bruce (who already wants to go to New York City to find the lady his grandfather spoke of) that he should drive to New York, not fly, as flying would rob him of seeing the beautiful countryside. Bruce agrees and the rest of the movie follows an unknowing Bruce delivering what he thinks to be flour to associates of the gangsters across the country, and the interactions he has with the people on this trip. | cult, flashback | train | wikipedia | Surprisingly good B-movie!.
I had read the short review of this movie in "The Video Movie Guide" over and over, thinking it would be bad; but by luck, it was on T.V. one summer afternoon, so I watched it.
Well, they were wrong (again).This movie was good.
It at least did its job in making me laugh like crazy at times, which is tough for anything coming down the pike these days.Johnny Yune, a now forgotten comedian, plays Bruce, so-called because people mistake him for Bruce Lee (he looks nothing like him).
Bruce gets himself involved with the Mafia, who use him and Ralph Mauro as unknowing guinea pigs to deliver "Chinese Flour", which is really cocaine, to various bosses from L.A. to N.Y. When things go sour, the late Margaux Hemmingway tries to off the heroes.The film is very cheap-looking and dark, but there are some absolutely funny lines delivered by Yune.When he's in Las Vegas and he's asked about gamblingBruce: Ah Gambling!
Only thing was, he used to be a billionaire.When he's at a black church and asked to testify.Bruce: We were so poor that when a thief broke into our house, we'd rob him!Early in the film, his adventures at a dojo are pure slapstick, as well as a scene where Yune and Mauro are in a Texas jail, and they use the Chinese Flour to cause a jailbreak, then when the cocaine is on the clothes of the prisoners, they start sniffing at the clothes to snort the coke!
Yes it's cheaply made, yes it's stupid, and yes it's cheesy, But, this is one of the funniest movies that I've ever seen.
Johnny Yune is great in this one (I wish he would have made more movies).
His one liners are so cheesy that you can't help but laugh, and his facial expressions when he is swinging those nunchucks makes me hit the rewind button every time......
Anyone who does not find this movie funny does not have a sense of humor!!!.
But then again, that was MANY years ago when I saw the movie.
I miss funny movies from the 1980's, when it was easier to laugh at ourselves.I think the dude who posted the bologna and deli comments missed the point.
The movie wasn't meant to poke fun at Asians or Asian Americans.
And some people ( like myself ) just love the movie for nostalgia reasons.
It was simple humor and funny.
No one in the movie needed to curse like a sailor or shoot and kill people to entertain.
God Bless Johnny Yune wherever he may be...
The jokes are stupid and Johnny Yune's acting is atrocious, but this is one of the funniest comedies ever made.Best line- "I'm a sex object, when I ask women for sex, they object"Trust me on this one..
Reading some of the reviews here reminds of some critic reviews of various children's movies, wherein they complain about childish plots, low humor or movies that didn't hold their attention, forgetting that they are, in fact, reviewing a children's movie.This movie falls into similar areas, although it's clearly not a children's movie.
It is meant to be a spoof, a parody, and it pokes fun at all kinds of people, be they Asian, Caucasian, African-American, Italian, or what have you.
And in that regard, it's perfect.No, Yune looks nothing like Bruce Lee. No, he's not even Chinese.
It's as much a send-up of Western stereotypes of Asians as anything (ever watch the "Average Asian" skits on MadTV with another Korean, Bobby Lee?).Overall, I have loved this movie every time I've seen it (although the sequel isn't quite the classic), and I would rate it as a fall - out - of - my - seat - and - wet - myself type of comedy.
To answer the implied question about Australians in an earlier comment, I saw the film for what it was: a spoof comedy.
I simply took the gags at face value and enjoyed them.I would not draw any conclusions about "real" Asians from this movie; any more than you would say draw conclusions about any other nationalities from comedy movies.
it's still a good fun film, despite its b-movie status.
Some of these people are being way too critical over the quality of the script and social stereotypes.
It's a movie that should be enjoyed by the public...it's not an oscar contender.
The movie plays on these stereotypes and they know that's how the general public viewed them at the time.
Like Margaret Cho said, "There was war." And also...where do people get the idea that the character Bruce is Korean?
The actor is Korean, yes, but they said nothing of Bruce being Korean..
I saw this movie for the first time about a week ago and it is the funniest movie I have ever seen!
If you like comedies I HIGHLY recommend this movie for your viewing pleasure.Lets ask Mikey to do it, he'll try anything.
All I can say is that this movie and its sequel "They still call me Bruce" are an integral part of any B grade movie night.Johnny Yune and the rest of the cast pull off classic gags at all too regular intervals.I guarantee that you will be laughing for months..
Excellent movie is only surpassed by its sequel.
This is a classic movie filled with non stop jokes.
A fun Ride With Bruce.
if anyone like myself had HBO in the summer of 84 then you saw this film many many times.
i have to confess i have have seen this well over 75 times in my life and i still can watch it and laugh at each wonderful joke.
It takes me back to a time when watching a film was innocent and the internet wasn't there to poison my opinion and i could watch anything without expectations.
This film is in my top 5 because of the time and place it was released.
Johnny Yune should have stuck around and made a few more films i think he could have really made something of himself.
I decided to watch this again, after reading some of the other comments, and perhaps find a funnier movie than the one I remembered seeing, but it still wasn't there.
"They Call Me Bruce?" does have some funny jokes in it, but also too many flat ones.
The whole production looks clumsy and amateurish, but the film's biggest mistake is its overreliance on fight scenes and on the needless plot.
Still, it's not the kind of movie you can genuinely hate, and Johnny Yune is not the most dislikable actor you could find....
I liked Johnny Yune, but it was the early 80s, and even though the likes of Bruce Lee had helped break some of the racial barriers, Yune and other Asian entertainers still wouldn't quite rocket to stardom, no matter how fun the film.This is a pretty decent film, though there is some nudity and swearing, so it's not really a family film as such.
So, unlike the associate producer's comment in "The Canonball Run" DVD commentary track, Yune did NOT make it big, though I always appreciated his humor.I'm not sure what else to add here.
The film looks a bit old and has a slightly dated feel.
And like Jackie Chan's film the martial art's sequences are typical Americanized slow and relatively un- dynamic compared to the their Asian counterparts.The other thing is that it is a bit low budget.
It doesn't have the gloss of Jackie Chan's film, largely because Yune is more of a standup comedian in spite of whatever martial arts' training he may have.
Even so, for a martial arts' comedy film it's okay.Maybe see it once and give it a shot..
Yune driven watch.
Here's a unsuccessful comedy, you feel really tries, but still manages to be really entertaining, mainly thanks to Yune, a natural comic performer,and it's story and characters.
Although really, does he look like Bruce Lee, "I think not".
The film's music score is the best thing about this lively, colorful film, that hosts some beautiful woman, none more than that sexy CIA agent, Bruce falls for, sort of.
This isn't a badly made film, but as I said, it really tries hard, where Yune is the film's star saving grace.
One of the best comedies I have ever seen - it's very memorable and unique.
It's just what you think it might be: A comedy film for those that like that stupid comedies and martial arts.
It's a dork's delight.I do not believe that the film in any way tarnishes or makes fun of Bruce Lee - instead it is more a Bruce Lee fan film.
So many of us wish we could be the real Bruce Lee but are so much closer to being Johnny Yune's Bruce!
Note: You do not have to like Bruce Lee to enjoy this film - you only need to love crazy comedies.I would say this a very good comedy movie to watch on an afternoon that you have some free time and in need of a good laugh.8.5/10.
Get set for all the zany fun in this hilarious comedy about an Asian immigrant that everyone calls "Bruce," because of his resemblance to the legendary Bruce Lee. Bruce unknowingly works as cook for the mob and is duped into making deliveries of "Chinese Flour" - which is really cocaine - all across the U.S. It's a non-stop, rollicking romp when Bruce is persuaded by a wild and crazy assortment of characters - Texas sheriffs, Vegas hookers, rival mobsters, Kung Fu Krishnas, street punks, Urban cowboys and a host of other wacky, weird people interested in "flour.".
Silly Martial Arts Spoof.
Johnny Yune stars in this rather unhumorous yet abundantly silly comedy spoof of Martial Arts films.
Still it is certainly better than anything Adam Sandler ever did.There are two scenes I liked...early on in the bar when the "I'm an Oriental" line gets carried a bit too far and later when Bruce imagines himself as the real Bruce--Bruce Lee. Also the women Margaux Hemingway (what's she doing in this?!) and Pam Huntington deserve points for at least trying.
One of the most inept films I've ever seen; as compelling as a car crash.
This is one of the most inept films in terms of craft I've ever seen.
It is so poorly filmed that it makes an Ed Wood, Jr. movie or one of Oscar Micheaux's later films that are plagued by continuity problems seem masterpieces of craft in comparison.
"They Call Me Bruce?" makes Wood's GLEN OR GLENDA?
The acting was atrocious, yet the film was strangely compelling -- as compelling as watching a car crash.
The scene in the Hair Styling salon, where Johnny Yune is wearing a blonde wig and a mumu and is posing as a mannikin (a mafia torpedo, looking for Yune's character in the shop, keeps stabbing the mannikin next to which Yune stands, never once noticing that Yune keeps moving to reposition himself down the line of mannikins to avoid getting stabbed himself; the torpedo's partner, holding a pistol to the shopkeeper's head, never notices the moving "mannikin" either, distracted as they are by the shouting of the clever shopkeeper) is just unbelievable.
The scene that preceded this one, where a group of African Americans hold Yune and his partner at knife point and Yune speaks to them by using a HOW TO TALK JIVE dictionary, is also simply unbelievable.
Yune's wooing of the African American "gang-members" with jive, who comport themselves with much eye-rolling, "jive-talking" and "soulful" body movements (imitated by Yune's character) that make the late Stepin Fetchit's shtick seem to ne as dignified as Paul Robeson in comparison, is one of the landmark moments of the cinema in the sense that it likely would wind up in some TV documentary about racism if this movie wasn't so damn obscure!
This is one of the worst comedies I have ever seen.
I saw it recently amongst friends (we were having a contest as to who could rent the worst movie) and it felt really dated, even though it wasn't made THAT long ago.
This movie is much worse then it's rating and should be avoided at all costs.
The good thing about this movie is that it isn't carried at most video stores!
Be a leader in your community and help destroy all copies of this movie!Zoopansick.
i found this movie to be very fast paced,with a lot of action and a few mildly funny bits thrown in here and there.i wouldn't call it a comedy,(though many might disagree)but more of an action film/crime drama.it's very entertaining,and worth watching.it references The Godfather on many occasion.even the music is similar in some scenes.in fact,it almost spoofs it.Kungfu the series is also referenced.Johnny Yune who plays Bruce is a very likable actor as is his character.i wouldn't say this is a classic film by any means,but it should keep you entertained for just under ninety minutes.for me,They Call Me Bruce?
I originally was not expecting much from this movie, but I really got a lot more than I originally had planned for.
Johnny Yune is honestly one of the most underrated comedians I have ever seen.
Most people may not find it funny, but his style of humor is very funny in this one.
Something about the way his character says stuff, just makes for huge laughs.
There is no reason to take this movie seriously, because it is just a straight up comedy with a very action parody style plot.
Basically seeing this made me want to see a lot more from Johnny Yune, but this was honestly his biggest break in films.
is a silly American comedy about a noodle chef who bears an uncanny resemblance to deceased kung fu star Bruce Lee, which leads to everybody mistaking him for the action icon.
Thus you might call it the ultimate in Bruceploitation movies, even though Johnny Yune looks absolutely nothing like Lee. Where he differs from the rest of the Bruceploitation actors is that he's actually a gifted comedian, and this is an out and out comedy.The absurd storyline of the film sees Yune working for the Mob before being shipped off to America for a tour around the big cities.
He thinks he's delivering special Chinese flour for noodles, but in fact it's cocaine.
There are a few fight scenes which are fun but since every character in the film is a huge walking stereotype I really think this film's overrated, even though Yune is very good..
Where to begin?When I was fourteen I got this movie as a gift from a relative that I had met twice in my entire life.
It is, in every sense of the word, a B-Movie but a decent one.
It's entertaining, that much I can give it, but it won't be winning any awards.The film centers around a Chinese man, aptly called "Bruce" who gets mixed up with the mob and so forth and so forth.
It's enjoyable and funny at times with some martial arts action mixed in.
It's a good film to turn on to fill the silence.I can see some appeal in this film if you're an avid fan of classic martial arts film, particularly Bruce Lee films.
If you ever come across this film I'd recommend giving it a view if you're a fan of these kind of movies..
"Bruce" (Johnny Yune) is a hapless cook who just happens to work for the main mafia boss on the west coast.
So the boss of the west coast named "Lil Pete" (Bill Capizzi) decides to use an unsuspecting Bruce to deliver his cocaine throughout the United States by fooling him into thinking that it is flour from China.
Naturally, Bruce doesn't know any better.
Meanwhile, another mobster on the west coast named "Big Al" (Martin Azarow) is seeking to discredit Lil Pete and has his girlfriend, "Karmen" (Margaux Hemingway) follow Bruce to inhibit his deliveries.
Anyway, rather than detail the entire plot I will just say that for a low-budget comedy this wasn't too bad.
Johnny Yune was absolutely hilarious.
Johnny Yune was absolutely hilarious.
All in all then I rate this film as about average..
Watched at face value, this movie was decent.
As this was a low budget, low production, small time movie, the expectations should not be too high.As for the past comments on stereotypes and lack of plot, this movie was designed to be a spoof of the Bruce Lee/martial arts movies at the time.
Yune's character is unable to live up to the stereotypes which have been given to him through Hollywood (eg.
Bruce Lee's machismo) and struggles with his identity.
As an Asian American, Yune cannot live up to the macho Asian image yet is rejected (possibly as a threat) by the so called "real" white Americans.Unlike Hollywood movies, Yune's character is a regular Asian American male, neither hyper-masculine, feminized, asexual (by his many vulgar jokes), or a confused foreigner (Long Duk Dong).
Though not overtly pursed, there seems to be some attraction by Pam Huntington's character towards Yune.Yune's character follows no stereotype, and is instead just a regular Asian American male.
In the process, he is able to attract the attention of a white female as well as receive an on-screen kiss – something Bruce Lee, Jet Li (as was cut out of Romeo Must Die), and the apparently three dimensional Jackie Chan have all been unable to achieve in mainstream American media.
If this movie ever had the chance to become Hollywood, all the above would have been undoubtedly cut.For the movie's failure to live up to preconceived images and stereotypes of males of Asian descent, alone, I give it an 8/10.As for previous comments on how one should not draw conclusions from a comedy movie, one should not draw conclusions from any movie at all. |
tt0066603 | Zatôichi to Yôjinbô | In the middle of a rainstorm, Zatoichi witnesses (more likely, overhears) a man being killed by a group and then dragged off into the brush. Tired of wandering, he decides to visit his hometown not noticing until later that the townspeople are living in fear of a local yakuza gang. At a teahouse, he meets Umeno, a former love interest. In the meantime, the boss's eldest son returns from university expecting a large sum of money to be paid to him, but the boss refuses. The youngest son, who is also wanting the money, hires Yojimbo (Toshiro Mifune) to assassinate him as he is the boss's top enforcer. Yojimbo, however, is more than happy to bide his time drinking and making him wait.
Eventually, another ronin armed with a double barreled pistol wanders into town, wanting the bounty on Zatoichi's head. While Zatoichi makes short work of him, eventually the boy grows tired of his father's apparent unwillingness to hand over the gold and begins to build an army to combat him. Caught up in the middle of the conflict, Zatoichi battles both sides until every one falls dead. Taking his opportunity, Yojimbo catches the weary Zatoichi and fights a quick duel, which he wins by slicing him across the back. | cult | train | wikipedia | 1st of two films that unite Katsu and Mifune - worth the watch.
Of course Mifune and Katsu together were guaranteed to draw a lot of attention when the film was released in 1970.Zatoichi is tired of killing and remembers a beautiful, peaceful village up in the mountains.
The village is not the same and several bad characters plot to make themselves rich at the expense of the locals (and the Japanese Treasury in this case).The repertoire between Zatoichi and the Yojimbo (Sasa) is entertaining and funny.
At first these are hateful terms, but over the course of the film, they come to respect one another, and continue to use the same names for each other.This is the longest film in the Zatoichi series (116 minutes) and it needn't be.
The first hour works well, but the next 30 minutes or so sees the story meandering along with the introduction of another government spy (turned bad) that adds nothing to the main story.The sword work in this film is only good, not great.
This film brings together two of the greatest characters created in Japanese cinema.
Zatoichi (Shintaro Katsu) is the blind swordsman who goes back to a village that he remembers as peaceful and tranquil.
As a result, the village is torn between the two men as the son seeks his father's gold (which may or may not exist).As the blind masseur becomes involved in the midst of this feud, the son's hired bodyguard (Toshiro Mifune) is introduced.
Mifune ever-so-slightly reprises his role from the Akira Kurosawa films, Yojimbo and Sanjuro.
As the Yojimbo discovers just who Zatoichi is and the price on his head, the two banter back and forth with threats and insults and even a few sword fights as the plot thickens.The film keeps you guessing until the very end as to whether or not these two samurai masters will end up friends or foes.
All the while, Shintaro Katsu and Toshiro Mifune give master performances in their roles as usual.
What Toshiro Mifune brings to this long running series of films is a stark contrast to Shintaro Katsu's simple and quiet Zatoichi.
I cannot recommend it enough to fans of Japanese period films, Zatoichi fans, or Toshiro Mifune fans.
This is also a great entry into the Zatoichi films.
This marks the 20th film of the Shintaro Katsu Zatoichi films.
As one of the other reviews mentioned, you should really start with the original "Yojimbo" to fully appreciate the Mifune character here.
However, this was my first Zatoichi story, and I enjoyed it immensely.The two characters have a great repertoire, an uneasy adversarial partnership, further complicated by the appearance of a third mystery agent, and the various dealings of Mifune and his boss.This particular storyline allows Mifune especially some time to explore the farther corners of his Yojimbo/Sanjuro character.
The ending even makes sense, in a strange way, providing a possible closure on the character's fate.Ichi and Sanjuro are funny together, and their chemistry is really entertaining.
The subtitling was superb as well, using different colors to denote who was talking.I highly reccomend this movie for fans of chambara, and especially for fans of Mifune and Shintaro!
this may not be the best zatoichi title, hindered by a complicated plot and an unusually long runtime (116 mins), but it's easily an 8/10 compared to other zatoichi films (1989's 'zatoichi' being the worst and a 1 out of 10).
if you're a zatoichi fan you are not allowed to miss this one or you're out of the club.shintaro katsu and toshiro mifune are in excellent form and their presence alone makes it worth seeing.
of course yojimbo is a better film, but this is every bit as funny and entertaining..
This is probably the best of zatoichi's films not just because of mifune but the story and craftsmanship of the film as well.
The two stars work well together, although the yojimbo character is more p***ed off then the previous two films.
I could be wrong but I think we find out who mifune's yojimbo is really working for which would explain why he acts like a scoundrel but in the end serves justice.
Zatoichi Meets Yojimbo was good as a throwaway movie-of-the-night to watch with friends (friends who were into Zatoichi and old samurai movies), but in the sense of it being something worthy of its stature, it didn't quite deliver.
A big chunk of the problem, as many of reviewers as well as author Stuart Galbraith, was Toshrio Mifune wasn't really playing the character really as he was in the Kurosawa films.
In the original Yojimbo and Sanjuro, Mifune crafted a true anti-hero bad-mutha samurai, who was grungy with his scratches, but also very cunning in how he could play both sides or act a little uncouth in his manipulations.
Truth be told, it's meant more for Zatoichi fans- he was a HUGE title character, as played by its star Shintaro Katsu.
But the problem there as well is that there have been better Zatoichi movies (I haven't even seen many, but the few I've seen, and as repetitive as they can get, aren't shoehorned plot-wise like so).
And this isn't totally to put the movie down, as a cash-in flick it does attempt at making some entertaining segments (and I do like how the two of them decide at first to combine forces, so to speak).
Zatoichi Meets Mifune.
In making my way through the Zatoichi films, I was both trepidatious and excited to arrive at 'Zatoichi Meets Yojimbo'.
On the other hand, how can you go wrong with a film that unites Katsu and Mifune?
And besides, after nineteen instalments there has yet to be one I thought was less than great; the series hasn't shown any sign of slowing down yet.Alas, though, I think this is the first Zatoichi film I thought was merely 'good'.The movie sees Zatoichi returning to his home town, a town that looks very similar to the one in Yojimbo, and here he meets the titular bodyguard.
For a while at the beginning I was trying to figure out if this was in fact supposed to be the town from Yojimbo, if the old man in this movie was supposed to be the same old man from that film, and just what the hell Mifune's yojimbo was doing still there considering the ending of that film.
Mifune's character also seemed quite different from his character in that film, despite some surface similarities; here he plays kind of a drunken bastard.
I soon realized, the best way to approach this film is, it's a different town, and Mifune plays a different character: it's just another Zatoichi adventure, with no connection to Kurosawa's film save a few nods here and there.Really, this is what I was hoping for.
At nearly two hours this is, I believe, the longest Zatoichi film, but it just lacks the storytelling economy that makes the other entries so enjoyable; this one seems over-complicated and uncompelling by comparison.Further, there were other little things that bothered me about this movie.
This film continues the trend of the last few entries towards a darker side of the character, but Zatoichi's aspiration to becoming a 'villain', and simultaneous contempt towards 'spies' just seemed kind of random.
And as much as I love Mifune, his performance here really didn't impress me.There are good points to the film though.
Funnily enough a few years ago I wrote this (...BUT): First things first, for those that are concerned (and I'm sure you will be as I was), Toshiro Mifune is NOT playing the Yojimbo character from the Kurosawa movies.
The only other film I know of where Mifune genuinely plays the Yojimbo character is "Ambush at Blood Pass" which was the film the both actors completed after this one.In all respects, this is a bad film sadly.
In all honesty, I know little about the Zatoichi character, but imagine that the original film must be far superior to this.
I couldn't really recommend this film to anyone unless you're a hardcore fan of Japanese Cinema or of the two actors.
"Zatoichi versus Yojimbo", like many Japanese films of the time seems confused over what audience its aiming at.
As said, I don't know much about Zatoichi, but I would imagine the original and early films are better than this one and worth the effort.
It must be stressed that it is NOT "Yojimbo" from the Kurosawa films but taking the point that this film is purely "entertainment" then it really is a good film, I watched it with harsh critical eyes when I wrote this and I was wrong!
The Zatoichi films vary a great deal in quality, and the character has grown on me a great deal since seeing the recent Takishi film.
So I guess I should now say, if you want a high-art samurai flick, then you'll still be disappointed as with my previous comments; but if you want to see a good, well structured, entertaining film with a very good insight into human nature than I would certainly say give it a whirl..
Zatoichi Meets Yojimbo is the twentieth film in the Japanese franchise about the blind masseur, skilled swordsman and lowly yakuza.
Yojimbo's character is inspired by Akira Korusawa's critically acclaimed Yojimbo and even played by famous actor Toshiro Mifune.
Zatoichi's and Yojimbo's interests, paths and swords cross multiple times until a dramatic showdown during a storm.Zatoichi Meets Yojimbo looks great on paper but turns out being the weakest film in the franchise so far.
The addition of odd comic relief in certain scenes also drags this movie down and makes characters like the younger boss look ridiculous.
Yojimbo is a one-dimensional character in this film who is busy swearing, sleeping and drinking.
Even the usually sympathetic Zatoichi isn't quite convincing as he aimlessly walks around, occasionally cooperates with dumb thugs and often swears and drinks in his ambiguous relationship with Yojimbo.There are only very few redeeming qualities in this movie.
The story line is more developed than usual but also confusing at times.To be honest, Zatoichi Meets Yojimbo is the movie in the franchise that I've enjoyed the least so far.
I would neither recommend this film to fans of the brilliant Zatoichi franchise nor to those who loved Korusawa's Yojimbo.
Zatoichi Meets Yojimbo (1970).
There's not many movies left in the original run, and this one in particular is interesting because, as the title indicates, it's a crossover between Zatoichi (Shintaro Katsu) and Yojimbo (Toshiro Mifune).Now, I don't really know if this is even the same Yojimbo (bodyguard) character as in the two Kurosawa films, but if he is, then he's under a different name here.
Anyway, not only is Toshiro Mifune present, but the film happens to be directed by Kihachi Okamoto (who made The Sword of Doom) and there's also a role by Ayako Wakao, the notable actress from many a Yasuzo Masumura New Wave film.Unfortunately, this movie isn't anything to write home about.
There's a town that got taken over by bad guys, there's an old flame of Zatoichi's (just how many towns across Japan does he have an ex-lover in?), there's Zatoichi briefly ruminating on his violent ways, there's a mysterious thug wearing a black kimono, there's a Chō- Han gambling game again, some comical moments, and finally a duel.The one thing that sets this apart from the rest (besides Mifune) is the 2-hour long runtime.
Certainly excessive for a Zatoichi film, especially when the plot is so convoluted such as in this one.
The music is pretty good in this one, too.Highlight of the film: the duel between Zatoichi and Yojimbo, naturally..
See Yojimbo and/or a Zatoichi film first..
It's important to see Yojimbo or a Zatoichi film before viewing this stinker.
Zatoichi films are the mold for the current Xena and Hercules series.
It may possibly be the worst film featuring Zatoichi.
The surprising thing is that Katsu and Mifune reprise their roles from the original.
I originally got this movie before I saw any other Zatoichi movie, whereas with the Yojimbo movies I know very well.
By this point I am very glad I did watch the Zatoichi movie I did but it seems like this Yojimbo character is a completely different character to the character you will see in the Kurosawa movies, that and Zatoichi is the hero of the movie.The plot is that Zatoichi decides to spontaneously go to a village he hasn't been to for three years, This kind of puzzles me - How does he know where he is for point of reference?
Zatoichi helps the gang lead by the father and a nameless gangster who's Yojimbo to the son and sensei (who's also a secret agent) tries to kill Zatoichi for 200ryo.The biggest problem is the seemingly false advertising you get.
After I watched the Zatoichi movie I thought "So this movie is going to be a crossover of what is at the time 2 of the most beloved samurai movies of all time?
Even if it was the same character though, why couldn't he just ask Ichi to go out of town where nobody will see or hear them and say what his intention's are.So people who enjoyed Yojimbo, if they want to see the character again may seem disappointed (although to be fair, as typical of Toshiro Mifune, his acting is excellent).
So if you watch a Zatoichi movie and like that then the question is "Will I get my fill on that?"...
Yes. It almost seems to me that the writers wanted to go about and make a Zatoichi movie but thought because there's a bodyguard who also fights for good and they got Mifune they thought "screw it, we got Toshiro Mifune - one of the greatest Japanese actors of all time, lets slap 'Yojimbo' on the title to give the producers more money".Aside from that I'll go onto the points that didn't disappoint me.
It kind of goes without saying but the acting from all involved is great, the father-son struggle is good even if they down-play it a little and the love relationship between Mifune and Umeno is also something I liked.
The action is really fun to watch and the cinematography is so much better than the other movies now that it's in colour among other things like the final scene when the wind is blowing during the sword-fight between gangs.So, at the end, this is just another Zatoichi movie.
I am really sorry if you guys sat down and watched this expecting another movie with the character in Yojimbo.
Zatoichi films a genre unto themselves.
A drunken Mifune plunges his sword into Zatoichi only to find that he has actually returned it to it's sheath.
Somewhat friendly enemies, constantly harassing each other and both on the fringe of lawlessness these two oblique characters defeat the bad guys, Mifune gets the girl and Zatoichi staggers off into the sunset.
Mifune and Katsu in a Fun Bloody Chambara Flick..
A classic of Japanese cinema, Zatoichi Meets Yojimbo, is an all around good time, with great performances, bloody samurai action, and a plot reminiscent of Kurosawa's original Yojimbo.Zatoichi, tiring of life on the road, returns to a village of which he has fond memories.
Eboshiya's son Masagoro has enlisted the aide of a money grubbing Yojimbo named Sasa (Mifune) to find out the town's secret of the hidden gold.
A secret only Eboshiya knows, a secret everyone is dying (literally) to find out.Zatoichi Meets Yojimbo features two legendary Japanese actors in two of their greatest (recurring) roles.
Zatoichi played by Shintaro Katsu and Yojimbo played by Toshiro Mifune.
Mifune plays his standard swaggering, drunken, sheisty Yojimbo, while Katsu utilizes his traditional sputtering, honorable, blind swordsman.
One of the strenght's of the film is that both characters stay true to the previous works of the same characters, and the interaction between Mifune and Katsu is the stuff of cinematic legend.
Although, Mifune's Yojimbo is a little more jaded than in the original Kurosawa flicks, but considering the life of the fictional character...
this difference is understandable.As I've mentioned the plot resembles that of the original Yojimbo; two gangs, one town, and scandalous samurai playing the clans against each other.
Only in Zatoichi Meets Yojimbo, it's two samurai, who not only are working the gangs but each other as well.
ZMY also adds the element of a third assassin named Kuzuryu (played devilishly by Shin Kishida) a man who helps to stir the proverbial pot.Of Course, Zatoichi is loaded with awesome chambara action, the kind that was exclusive to the mid 1960's, an era in Japanese cinema when samurai films were still making the transition from the black and white samurai epics of Kurosawa's days, to the exploitational samurai films of the 70's (such as Lone Wolf and Cub).
Ayako Wakao is great as Umeno, a beautiful prostitute who falls in love with Yojimbo, but her role is underdeveloped, thus the romantic aspect of the film kinda falls flat on its face.
Other than that, the ending is abrupt and jarring but these are minor issues for this type of film.Bottom Line- This film should be seen just for Mifune's and Katsu's brilliant acting.
The blind swordsman Zatoichi (Shintaro Katsu), whom real man is Ichi.
He acts as the son's Yojimbo (bodyguard).
What misleading by the title is that Toshiro character isn't the one from the original Kurosawa movie, yet the film tries to make homage to those films.
Ichi meets the son's yojimbo.
The film misused the time by adding too much local plot points with Eboshiya Yasuke's two sons.
From all the Zatoichi films, it's not too bad, just not that great.
All of this is a setup for Mifune and Katsu to go at each other hammer and tongs, each playing serious mind-games with the other, culminating in one serious bad-ass sword fight. |
tt0041967 | Tokyo Joe | After World War II, ex-serviceman Joe Barrett (Humphrey Bogart) returns to Tokyo to see if there is anything left of his pre-war bar and gambling joint ("Tokyo Joe's") after all the bombing. Amazingly, it is more or less intact and being run by his old friend Ito (Teru Shimada). Joe is shocked to learn from Ito that his wife Trina (Florence Marly), who he thought had died in the war, is still alive. She has divorced Joe and is now married to Mark Landis (Alexander Knox), a lawyer working in the U.S. Occupation HQ. She has a seven-year-old child, Joe's daughter Anya (Lora Lee Michel), born when Trina was in an internment camp after Joe's departure from Japan just before Pearl Harbor.
Joe starts up an air freight business, fronting for Baron Kimura (Sessue Hayakawa), former head of the Japanese secret police. Joe believes Kimura will use the airline to smuggle penicillin and other drugs into the country, but discovers he actually intends to smuggle in fugitive war criminals - former senior officers of the Imperial Japanese Army and the leader of the Black Dragon Society - to start a secret anti-American movement. When he balks, Kimura kidnaps Anya to force him to comply. Joe rescues Anya and foils the baron's plot, but is fatally wounded in the ensuing struggle. | melodrama | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0283426 | The Jungle Book 2 | Mowgli is living in the Man Village with the girl who lured him in, Shanti, his adopted brother Ranjan, and their parents. However, Mowgli longs to return to the fun of the jungle, and after nearly leading the other children of the village into the jungle, is punished by his adopted father for trying to lead them into danger. Meanwhile, in the jungle, Shere Khan has returned to Baloo and Bagheera's part of the jungle seeking revenge on Mowgli. Baloo sneaks into the Man Village and gets Mowgli to come with him to live in the jungle; however, unbeknownst to them, Shere Khan has also infiltrated the village, only to be chased off by the village people. In the ensuing chaos of the tiger's attack, Shanti and Ranjan go into the jungle to rescue Mowgli, believing that Baloo is a vicious animal who has kidnapped the boy.
Bagheera learns of Mowgli's escape from the village when the humans search the jungle for him, and immediately suspects Baloo. Mowgli instructs Baloo to scare off Shanti should she appear, and rants about the mundane life he had in the Man Village. Baloo and Mowgli journey to King Louie's old temple (King Louie is mentioned to have abandoned it), however when the animals of the jungle criticize Shanti and other aspects of Mowgli's life in the Man Village, the boy leaves, irritated. He runs into Shanti and Ranjan, but Baloo scares Shanti as Mowgli wanted him to. When the truth comes out that Mowgli ordered Baloo to scare her, Shanti and Ranjan run away, abandoning Mowgli.
Baloo realizes that Mowgli misses his old life, but when Mowgli tries to make amends with his human friends, they are confronted by Shere Khan. The tiger chases Mowgli and Shanti to a temple built above a lake of lava, Baloo leaves Ranjan with Bagheera while he goes to save Mowgli and Shanti. After confusing Shere Khan by banging several different gongs, Shanti's presence is revealed to Shere Khan. Baloo attacks Shere Khan just as Mowgli is about to give himself up to save Shanti, but the tiger chases the two children to a statue across a pit of lava. Shere Khan is trapped within the statue's mouth, and it plummets onto a large stone that resides in the lava below. With his nemesis defeated, Mowgli returns to the Man Village with Shanti and Ranjan, but they return to visit Baloo and Bagheera in the jungle on a regular basis. | good versus evil, revenge, psychedelic, romantic | train | wikipedia | Though it had a few scary parts (Shere Khan close ups), overall it was pleasant and didn't contain the violence that has characterized a number of other childrens videos that we've rented.The above experience not withstanding, as I watched the film I kept thinking that this movie should not have gone to the theaters, but should have been sent straight to video.
I have gone back and checked what the deal was and found it very interesting that both the Winnie the Pooh crews (new and old) were very much involved in the Jungle Books.Kaa the snake was my main interest, being done by the same voice over guy who now does Winnie the Pooh (Jim Cummings).
the elephant marching army and the Beatles Buzzards were so great and are back again.Jungle Book was a great classic, certainly my favorite of all Disney animations...
but Jungle Book 2 is certainly worth seeing for the next bunch of little guys who need that Disney fix.I have to agree with another critic in here...
A few weeks ago, they re-released The Jungle Book on Disney DVD and I watched it after not seeing it for years and I just forgot how much I loved it.
But they're in big trouble, Shanti and her little brother(children from Maugli's village) follow Maugli and they are all being followed by Sher Kahn who wants revenge on Maugli for making a fool out of him.The Jungle Book 2 is a cute Disney sequel, but for those who love the original, it doesn't hold a candle up to the first Jungle Book.
Even though this film was made over thirty years later, it is a sequel to the 1967 Disney flick, "The Jungle Book", the last animated feature produced by Walt Disney himself, which was released the year after he died.
It's been nearly three months since then, and it's taken me this long the get around to watching and reviewing this 2003 sequel, "The Jungle Book 2", made after so many other animated features produced by the Disney company after the man's death in 1966.
Another problem for Mowgli on this adventure is that he finds himself unsure of whether he wants to live in the jungle with Baloo or in the village with Shanti and his adoptive family.A major problem with this sequel, one it didn't take long at all for me to notice, is definitely the humour.
When we see the jungle animals in this film, it's still not funny, even with the return of such characters as Baloo, Kaa, and the vultures.
Throughout the film, I did not find myself very interested in the plot (it may copy that of the original a little too much), and I think I had trouble following the "W-I-L-D" song because it was so uninteresting to me.
There may be some mild suspense towards the end, and some parts later on may even be fairly poignant (or at least close to it), but these things are certainly not enough to make "The Jungle Book 2" worth watching.The first sequel to an animated Disney feature was "The Rescuers Down Under" from 1990.
"The Jungle Book 2" was released the year after "Return to Never Land", which I haven't seen, but I know that it's a sequel to the 1953 Disney feature, "Peter Pan".
Unlike most other Disney sequels, these two actually had a theatrical run, and I don't know about the "Peter Pan" sequel (though it wouldn't surprise me if I saw that it's the same as most of them), but this "Jungle Book" sequel is just like another direct-to-video one and probably should have been just that.
1967's "The Jungle Book" is good animated family entertainment for many of those who want that, but this 2003 sequel might be just for kids..
Recipe for Jungle Book 2:Take one classic animated movie, loved by millions the world over.Carefully remove the plot.Add a couple of inconsequential new characters.Simmer gently without much loving care for very little time in a studio.et voila!You have the most pointless sequel I have seen in a long time.
Shanti and the intensely irritating Ranjan are practically clones of Lilo and Stitch, but without the charm of either.The final insult was, after sitting through the movie and listening to far too many reprisals of "Bare Necessities" and NOT having King Louie in it at all, the end credits played out to "I Wannna be Like You".
It has a weak storyline, below average songs and terrible animation.I remember when I heard that there was going to be a sequel to the Jungle Book (one of my favourite Disney films), I was extremely excited: my excitement went to waste.
The pace was very limp, although the film is quite short.(some sequels like King of Thieves, Enchanted Christmas and Simbas's Pride were surprisingly good despite their short durations) The voice talents try their best, but with a very bad script, and they sounded too similar to the original voices.
Although the Disney's sequels have earned a bad reputation (which it's understandable, but that's another discussion for now).SPOILER) It's ironic that they took almost 36 years to make a sequel, but the movie takes place not many days after Mowgli came to the man village (SPOILERS OVER).The story works actually better in this movie, the script is more tight and that's makes this movie watchable and enjoying.
The Jungle Book 2 is one of Disney's most artificial movies in the last few decades and one of the most shameless cash-ins on a story, already more than thirty years old.
He runs in to good ol' Baloo the Bear (voiced by John Goodman), and they're off to have a number of adventures involving excitement in peril, or, whatever you can really do sixty-six minutes.If you don't knock it for rehashing the old formula, you can at least say the film is dull and noneventful more than it should be.
Osment does a nice job as Mowgli, and while Goodman is welcomed as Baloo, it isn't close to the original Phil Harris voice, which was deep, insightful, and addicting.
Not to mention, the colors are vibrant and welcoming, giving the false impression they are used in the efforts to create a fun and memorable experience.The problem with films like The Jungle Book 2 is that they aren't healthy for children, and are relentlessly boring for adults.
The Jungle Book 2 is nothing more than an unnecessary rehash that should've and would've been bound for an immediate DVD release had not Disney seen dollar signs in front of the film's poster.Voiced by: Haley Joel Osment, John Goodman, Mae Whitman, Connor Funk, Bob Joles, and Tony Jay. Directed by: Steve Trenbirth..
Since we left Mowgli (voiced by Haley Joel Osment), he was finally at home in the "Man-village" while Baloo (voiced by John Goodman) and Bagheera (voiced by Bob Joles) are safely back in the jungle, away from the menacing Shere Khan (voiced by Tony Jay).
I saw this movie with my 1 and a half year old daughter and i must say she loved it, but fell asleep around half but i stayed watching it...The Jungle Book 2 is another great disney adventurer....Good Job!.
The surprisingly good "Return to Neverland" suckered me into thinking that this Jungle Book sequel might be worth seeing.
The new songs are extremely bad, there isn't a shred of originality in the whole movie, the only good parts are the ones that were copied from the first one (like Balu and Mowgli singing the Bear Necessities).
And no sign of King Louie.I'm not a huge fan of Disney, but some of their movies really are great, like Jungle Book 1, Emperor's New Groove, Lion King.
Goodman was just awful...he was far better in "Monsters, Inc." My 7 year old daughter liked it, which is I think why Disney put the movie in theaters instead of straight to video.
this sequel pales in comparison to the classic and much loved original.the story(such as it is)is pretty lame,and doesn't really have a point,and most of the songs are lacklustre.still,the movie was mildly amusing and had a few funny moments.since it was released about thirty six years after the original,some of the original characters from the the first movie did not have the same voice talents,which is a shame.anyway,in my opinion,they should have just stuck with the original classic,instead of releasing a lacklustre sequel.though,to be fair,this sequel is not as bad as many of the direct to video sequels that Disney has and will continue to churn out.so i guess that's something.then again,this one should not have been released theatrically either.for me,The Jungle Book 2 is a 5/10.
I gave a lot of credit to Jungle Book 2 because making a sequel to that classic movie is anything but easy.The plot is surprisingly good and makes sense.
Meanwhile Shere Khan is lurking in the jungle, looking for revenge.I really don't think that a sequel to the masterpiece Jungle Book could of been better than this movie.
The Jungle Book 2 is a typical Disney sequel, the graphics are not so well done as in the first one and the plot is full of cliches and totally predictable.This movie is obviously directed for kids , but the fans might like it too.
The first Jungle Book was a masterpiece - awesome in everything that makes a first rate movie classic.
A terrible rehash of the original Jungle Book, where everything is worse, and they lead characters ever so often do song and dance numbers, even less motivated than in the original film.John Goodman as Baloo is maybe passable (but different from the original version, of course), Haley Joel Osment is OK as Mowgli, Phil Collins is great and the other actors do a decent day's work, but the story stinks, and a lot of the scenes and ploys are reused from the original movie.
The Jungle Book 2 lacks most of what the original movie contains.
I liked the original "Jungle Book" but it definitely isn't one of my favorite Disney movies.
It still ends the exact same way the original movie did, so there's no point in it.Thank you Disney, for discontinuing these bad sequels.
I watched this before The Jungle Book, so it's either that it was because I was young or I didn't see The Jungle Book but at that age, The movie was boring.This sequel depicts Mowgli's adventures in the man-village along with his friends, later, he returns to the jungle.
I would almost put it on a par with Beauty and the Beast or Aladdin.Mowgli and Baloo the Bear are so likable as are all the characters in this wonderful film.Our 7 year old son loved the music and was actually up dancing around the Living Room during the closing credits to the jazzy beat of JUNGLE RHYTHM.Fun for the whole family..
I can't add anything to there comments, except to say that a much better sequel was right under the Disney Corporation's nose and they didn't see it or had forgotten about it after all these years.Back around 1970, while the original film was still very popular, Disney issued an audio sequel on LP record called MORE JUNGLE BOOK, with some of the original cast voices including Phil Harris and Louis Prima!
At the end of the original Jungle Book it was supposed to be that the man cub had left the jungle because he had found a new life in the village, The End. This sequel brings the man cub back into the jungle, and this kind of ruins the ending of the first film.
Even John Goodman and Haley Joe Osmand don't save this film, the original voices were better and more fitted for the parts.
Final Verdict: Not the worst Disney sequel ever, but the film copies the original so much that it gets tiresome.
Jungle Book the original is my favorite Disney movie(10/10)and was a movie that did not need a sequel.
Hearing "Yeah man!" repeated over and over again made me want to smash the TV (This wasn't worth going to a movie for, obviously) to bits, and hearing Osment and Goodman reprise Bare Necessities in bad singing voices made me want to cut my ears off!Unless you want your little ones screaming "Yeah Man!" to their friends (and likely getting a beatdown as a result), AVOID THIS MOVIE AT ALL COSTS!.
I would like to have seen a few adventures of the Mowgli's animal friends including the wolves.However, my 3 year old son loves the movie and since he sees them both back to back he knows the songs too.I was disappointed that Disney did not figure out how to play the best song from the original, but I will not second guess the people who brought me the first Jungle Book.As a stand alone movie I give it a B, as a sequel to an A+ movie I give it a C.I look forward to your next endeavors..
It seems that now days Disney has been releasing many sequels to the classics, most of them are straight to video releases, but because the original Jungle Book was so successful, I think they gave The Jungle Book 2 a chance on the big screen.
Haley Osment and John Goodman clearly have a gift in music, but as Mowgil and Baloo, they sing off tune in this song.This sad sequel is just another rip-off of a great film based on a well-known novel.
I thought the animation was excellent and the songs are alright too.I love the movie opening, when Mowgli was telling his new family and new best friend, Shanti, about his former life in the jungle through a puppet show.
Genre: Cartoon, sequel of "The Jungle Book", Family.Main characters: Mowgli, Shanti, Ranjan and Baloo.
In the jungle, there are two things that would like Mowgli to come back in two ways
My thoughts: Even though this is babyish, it isn't all that similar to the book and the wolves aren't in it I prefer this to the original film!
I've just seen the private screening of "The Jungle Book 2" and i laughed, and at the same time enjoyed it i think the children from 1-8 years old are gonna love it and hope that they make it #1 and the voices of the character sound like the original characters and Haley Joel Osment (Sixth Sense) does a great job as Mowgli and John Goodman (Roseanne) does a hilarious job as Baloo and you will love your old favorite characters as Shere Khan, Bagheera, Baloo, Mowgli,etc and also new characters if you don't like it well i think your children are gonna have an exciting time in the movies....
Once again, new Disney reel out a sequel to a timeless classic that is not only flimsy, inconsistent rubbish, but comes dangerously close to trashing the first one beyond redemption as well.It is understandable that the actors who voiced the original, rich characters from Kipling's timeless tale could not be recalled, seeing as the film is a good many decades old, but the change in Baloo's voice spoilt the character, making him change from a easy going, fun loving bear to one who seems to have questionable substances flowing through his dopey veins.
36 years since the original film (the last to be overseen by Walt Disney), a live action remake, and many spin-offs (e.g. George of the Jungle), surely they would have realised to leave it there, but no, there came this completely unnecessary sequel.
In the jungle itself meanwhile, Baloo the Bear (John Goodman, I do like him, but he is not as good as the original Phil Harris - the first singer to voice a Disney cartoon) is wishing he'd come back.
Mowgli is voiced by Haley Joel Osment basically goes through the same plot line as the original only this time everyone already knows who he is.
I credit John Goodman and others in their attempts to capture the characters we are familiar with in Disney's cash-in sequel to Jungle Book.
But that is the only good thing about this waste of time on film.While the actors (especially John Goodman as Baloo) make a noble effort to match the quality of the voices of the original, they just don't have the same skills.
The Original Disney classics shows important messages like The Jungle Book (1967) did then many years later they made sequels to the classics we love and most of them are just movie for kids and The Jungle Book 2 is one of them.
I remember this movie came out in theaters I was actually happy for this I saw it for the first time in video when I was a man cub and I wasn't very impressed, it wasn't very original, It was a bit cheesy and boring.The voice acting is just okay well you know that nobody can't do the same voice of the everyone, funny they had the voice actor legends Jim Cummings for the voice of Kaa the snake (you know what I'm talking about), I actually love the voice for Shere Khan, Tony Jay who already voiced him in Talespin he had a special voice.The Jungle Book was a single animated master-piece and didn't need to get a sequel that was just nothing, not like the live-action that came out in 2016 directed by Jon Favreau because the ending is different, in this version Mowgli stays in the jungle after he proved that he belongs in the jungle, then a sequel is on plan and Its something interesting to follow, in the original Disney Mowgli got to the man village and making a sequel for that is just pointless..
Overall: This movie is a fun little heartwarming tale which will suffice you for it's shockingly short run time but feels pointless in the long run.Good: The great characters from the original resurface with their signature personalities each equipped with great voice acting.
It pretty closely takes up where the original left off.The story is simple, even though Mowgli seems happy with his new adopted family, and has a young girlfriend in Shanti, he misses the jungle and his wild friends, especially the big gentle bear Baloo.
John Goodman is superb as the voice of Baloo, and Haley Joel Osment, maybe 13 or 14 during recording, is good as Mowgli, as well as young Mae Whitman as Shanti. |
tt0451262 | Within | The film is set in the Kyzyl Kum Desert, Kazakhstan. The opening scenes of the movie sets up the various alliances and tensions between a group of cavers. Five of them - Bailey (Sybil Temtchine), Gannon (Mustafa Shakir), Domingo (Andres Saenz-Hudson), Miranda (Ogy Durham), and Ori (Andrew Caple-Shaw) - are part of a team who have caved together for a number of years, making their living from exploring and photographing new caves and reporting back to the world what they find there. Also involved in this trip are two Kazakh natives, Vlad (Kamen Gabirel) and Slava (Neno Pervan), who the band have hired as guides, and Ambrose (Danny A. Jacobs), who is researching for a book on caving.
It can also be said that there is a ghost with the group - that of Rachel (Cassandra Duarden), a member of the team who died on an expedition in Peru two years prior, and whose story is told in flashback as the movie goes on. The men are killed one by one by a mysterious creature, and just as the two women find the escape route, they are captured. They awaken in the beast's lair naked and wrapped in animal skin blankets where they find photos, belongings and an airplane wing in the surrounding area. After searching further, the two find water, then food, and, while eating, discover that the meat is one of their dead friends. The beast enters, and we discover he was the only survivor of a plane crash, a Russian boy called Peter. He proceeds to brutally kill one and rape the other. | suspenseful, violence | train | wikipedia | The Cavern: 2 out of 10: Blair Witch meets The Cave and gives me a headache.I have something to ask all film schools, could you please teach future directors how to hold a camera steady.
I know it is a cave movie but there is absolutely nothing frightening about watching pitch blackness for minutes at a time.For that matter showing the film upside down doesn't indicate confusion on screen it indicates confusion in the editing booth.A last note to the director I'm sure there was a good reason to have a horribly fake CGI campfire.
You might have wanted to start with spelunking.The Cavern is a pretty bad film, poorly shot with a confusing, improbable and anticlimactic ending..
The movie goes something like this: Run around, run around, someone killed, lots of freaking out and then one of the group yells to "Pull it together" or "Just calm down!" Repeat this as many times as their are characters left.
I kept thinking what a waste of film every time it happened - yes, it does happen more than once if you can believe it.I notice other mentioned "Blair Witch: and it did remind me of that in the way the camera was bouncy.
If you enjoy bad acting, people running through small portions of caves, bouncing cameras posed at bad angles, and people screaming while the screen is in complete darkness, you'll love this movie.
Horror films are a curious thing, sometimes they manage to stumble across a formula that works very well, sometimes they try valiantly to tell a worthy story despite time and budget problems, sometimes they're so bad they're actually kinda fun...and sometimes they're "The Cavern".A good horror/suspense film should contain vagaries that keep you guessing, they should allow you to be interested in the characters and their motivations so that you actually have some sort of reaction when they die.
However, The Cavern chooses instead to introduce elements that work at first, only to be negated by it's own lackluster storytelling.All the characters are completely forgettable and any actual back story that might make any of them even remotely interesting is blurted out within a 30 second monologue, making it impossible to do anything more than laugh as characters are picked off almost at random and on more than one occasion in the least possibly frightening way.(To spoil a scene a bit, one victim is taken during a complete blackout which might have been a little frightening if the sound effect used to indicate his killing wasn't reminiscent of stirring a pot of too thick Macaroni and Cheese) Add to this formula the camera that work makes me think the director saw one too many Nine Inch Nails videos and an ending which in an attempt to be shocking serves almost no purpose but to annoy and confuse the viewer and you have an almost completely unwatchable horror film that fails on every level.I'll be honest with you, if you want a claustrophobic caving horror movie go watch "The Descent", and I feel weird saying that because I didn't particularly enjoy that movie either..
There seems to have been some money behind this film, but it would be impossible to imagine a film this badly planned and executed if I hadn't actually started watching it.To begin with, once we are in the cavern with the characters (the usual young adult stereotypes we've been meeting in horror films since the early '80s), the film is shot almost entirely in close-up.
Ultimately the film has a nauseating, confusing strobe-light effect, with no sense to it until we get to the end.And I won't tell you what 'the end' means - but you will recognize it if you've ever seen the old early '60s Arch Hall laugh fest"Eegah!" with Richard Kiel.But what crazy person would ever want to make a variation on a theme like "Eegah!"'s, long remembered as one of the worst films ever made?!
Here we go: every year or so some people think it is fun to start shooting a low budget film about the scary monsters of the underground, that hopefully will prove to be some sort of a hit.
The end could have been fleshed out better; but all in all, it was a fun ride while it lasted.I would recommend this rental for anyone who wants to understand what it is like to go caving without the benefit of stage lighting.
Oh my god...first let's just act like no one who watches this has ever been underground...then it was just a matter of no budget...the movie, and I shudder to call it that, is crap!
The gore effects have to be in homage to the early works of Peter Jackson, even the foley sound effects are reminiscent of Bad Taste/Dead Alive.It seems there have a been a handful of cave movies in the horror genre in the past year.
If the script was less ridiculous and the actors somewhat more competent, the film could have been quite disturbing as the director definitely has a gift for creating a sense of suspense and claustrophobia.The main reason to watch "The Cavern" is the ending, which is far more sinister and interesting that the main body of the film.
Although the movie used CGI campfires at the start (very odd...surely a real one is cheaper and looks more...well...realistic!) I carried on watching to see what might turn into a better film.
Those moments become tiresome, don't scare due to underwhelming sound and feel like a cheap way to fill up screen time in an already short movie.
The leader's guilt over a previous death added nothing and was never made really clear (as if it mattered).Some good pacing and I did remark during the film that it looked a little Blair Witchy - which is not bad.I watch almost every horror movie that comes out and will continue to do so.
If you want to see a film that you haven't quite seen before, regardless of the other cave movies out there, I would definitely recommend this one.
The acting does not convince at all, the lighting may be close to reality but doesn't work for a movie like this, pretty much every dialogue is useless and then we also have these edless orgies of shaky cam madness.
I really doubted whether to eject the DVD right then or not.I didn't.And i regret.The script stinks, the actors are absolute rookies, even the CGI FX are lousy (e.g. one of the worst CGI bonfires in the whole story of film-making where you can even see an elliptic cropping line chopping the flames square).Accept my advice : get as far as you can from this movie..
Due to this technique and overuse of flashing lights, should put a disclaimer on this movie like they do for video games - "if you are flashing light sensitive.." The rest of the lowdown:Cons - jerky camera, too darkway, way to much screamingtoo long even at 81min, not good!pretty silly storyvery clear at beginning at movie a creature of some type, but due to lighting (or lack of), one cannot even make a remote assumption of what actually is!Pros: - noble attempt at something different by directoracting not horribleI would skip, to irritating, and difficult to watch.
I'd guess that people who hated it are in one of two camps (maybe both): A) people who hated Blair Witch because they got nauseous/confused with all of the shaky camera effects, or B) people who haven't seen many low-budget, direct-to-video horror films, because really if you've seen enough of these movies, you know that The Cavern is WAY, WAY ahead of the game.
The other quarter of the film is just dreadful cheaply filtered exterior scenes, and nausea inducing flashlight shining right into the camera as the protagonists of the film blindly flail and run screaming around in the darkness of the "oooo, sooooo scary cave!".It's difficult to say what exactly the director was trying to hide with the dreadful camera work: was it the sub-par acting?
If Blair Witch caused you any discomfort then this film is a definite no-no.As to the "twist" ending, it's about as shocking as an episode of The Flintstones.I LOVE bad movies.
WithIN aka "The Cavern" starts off slow and has some dialogue and scenes in the beginning which should have been cut from the movie,as they weren't necessary.however, once it gets going, it's actually not a bad movie.i liked the camera work,especially the tight shots in the cavern.also in certain scenes it was hard to tell it where the characters were or if they were moving up or down.
i'm fairly sure it had a very modest budget,yet that didn't detract from the quality of the film.i didn't recognize any of the actors,but they all did a good job and were believable.this was good, since big name actors would have taken the focus away from the story, and taken the viewer out of the movie.the cavern wasn't a particularly scary movie, but it was creepy and suspenseful.I don't recall seeing anything quite like it.there are some scenes which may be a bit to gory for some people and there is one fairly intense violent scene.
the ending was different than i expected, but not in a bad way.the filmmakers managed to fit a lot into the short running time,but i still believe it could have been a bit longer.otherwise,a pretty good, not quite great movie that will keep you entertained.i bought it and have no regrets.definitely worth renting,at least..
To make things worse, the shaky-cam filming style had them linking this film to the immensely hyped "The Blair Witch Project" (that one zero-budget horror-effort that left its mark on contemporary film-making, six years earlier in 1999), so that got them screaming "rip-off!" a second time.
When you - especially with a shoe-string budget like this - can manage to make at least the killings and make-up effects look good, you're already doing an important part of the movie right.
On top of the darkness, with the entire film covered in fluorescent lighting that gives off the look of dizzying claustrophobia by simply making for an overall disjointed affair not getting anything remotely into this one to tell what's happening as the flashing strobe lights alongside the close-quarter camera-shots further hold this one to a nigh- impossible-to-view series of action scenes that can't tell what's going on.
I think the cavern was sometimes somewhat not lighted good, but then again it's most likely what the director knew from a real cave.The cave however works with different things, such as it being a typical Hollywood blockbuster film, but the cavern has this sorta realistic feel to it, more of an open ending to it, it kinda gives the feeling that if such was to happen, then a person wouldn't be able to escape this madman's clutches.So, in that perspective, I think the cavern impressed me.
Still, the movie was quite nice, however the camera shaking at times felt somewhat disturbing, but I think it all contributed to the feeling of being in a real cave, where light doesn't come easy inside, and where one could find himself cut from the rest of the world..
I am very disappointed with this movie and I'll tell ya why.Right until the last ten minutes or so, we are treated to a painfully obvious setup of "team go into dangerous situation and face monster," replete with the lame little "personal past dealing" among some of the generic characters.To the writer's credit, while Hollywood dishes out tons of crap like this and makes every character an idiot wisecrack, this film actually attempted to be serious.Secondly, the acting wasn't particularly good, Mustafa Shakir being the weakest of all, though the women did do a good job of acting terrified -- that is, until it became annoying.But that is not why I am disappointed!
The only exception is one over the top close up on a dismembered body (I think the director had a Fulci moment, there), other than that the gore was used perfectly.And then we come to the disappointment.WHY did the director decide to throw a twist in this film's last ten minutes which took it from the status of run-of-the-mill "group of people getting picked off" fare to something truly and deeply disturbing -- then END it?
You only care about the few characters that make it to the end, the rest are just people (Except one REALLY annoying Russian one) It's hard to tell what ripped off what, because there are MANY similarities with this and The Descent and The Cave, but that doesn't matter because most slashers/zombie movies/ghost flicks rip off each other and end up good anyway, right?
Making a good movie on a low budget is remarkable (like Blair Witch, which I thoroughly enjoyed).
Look at the top rated films of all time for the complete list.) I also noticed that many people gave this a positive vote for being so realistic as far as what it's like inside a cave.
I don't remember the exact quotes, but basically he says: "We were in a cave, the cave flooded, a girl died as our friend watched her drown." You may think I am over exaggerating and being really critical, but that isn't far off from a direct quote, line for line, from the movie scene.Over the next 50 minutes or so, the film takes place in the cave and though the lighting is what I would imagine to be like in a cave, I could have really done without the really fuzzy/hazy look to the film, and the camera shaking is just one that I didn't go for.
(I have really good vision, and after watching the main parts of the film, I felt like I was legally blind.) I was emotionally detached from this movie, therefore the parts that probably should have been scary weren't.
Maybe had I been able to overlook the very slow and poorly acted start to this film, I would have at least been scared, but I don't remember anyone in the dark room even twitching at any of the "action" scenes.The last scene was probably one I will never forget, and that isn't a good thing.
After about 30 seconds of watching the camera jiggle and shake as he rapes her, roll the credits, movie's over.Honestly, if I had to do it all over and I wasted money on renting this movie, I could have saved myself an hour and watch the first scene and last scene of this film and still left with the same thoughts about it that I have now.Those of you comparing this to Blair Witch are way off...
It may be a horror cliche, but splitting up is one of the worst things you can do in a situation like that!So far the movie has been really bad.
Films like Se7en, John Carpenter's The Thing, Funny Games, and even The Descent may not have happy endings, but they all serve an artistic purpose and give the audience something to think about.
In these times of remakes and sequels and film companies trying to cash in on any winning combination of cinematic components, The Cavern has only one relatively different twist on the previous eight cave movies over the last few years, and that twist seems to be taken from an X-File.
When I checked out the review for this film after I'd watched it, I was surprised that there were people giving it good ratings.This is a film of bad camera-work.
I can't believe this piece of garbage actually won awards, which just goes to show the quality of marijuana and other illegal drugs is much better in Australia and other countries than in the U.S.The scenes where the group is running from the "creature" are badly directed, especially the retarded "upside-down-camera", intended to show disorientation, but only coming off as a cheap effect which a first-year film student would be suitably berated for by their teacher.Sadly, this "director" will probably go on to make other movies, more than likely of the same low quality as this "film", since I'm sure he hasn't learned from his mistakes, which on this picture were excessive.If I had my way, the entire cast and crew would be sent up the river for life without parole.
I guess blank film is one way to keep costs down...I suspect the "director" had recently read a book on all the "must-do's" to make a scary movie, and decided to throw them all in - about 20 times each.There are three good things about this film: 1/ It's short at 90 minutes (though still an hour and a half too long!) 2/ All the characters die (after all, it's impossible to care about any of them).
One cannot see anything at all for the whole movie length, a bit of light then a lot of darkness for the rest of the time.Did the writer, the producers, the actors, anybody from the team think they had a story to tell?
In the end it amounts to bunch of people running and screaming most of the film through corridors of cave you can't see, while occasional light from the lamp flickers in a way to cause you epilepsy and hand held camera tries it's best to strengthen the feeling of nausea.It's one thing to try to be minimalistic and experimental developing the scariness factor but here we have no substance nor surprises waiting around the corner, you just know every time when someone is about to die.
After watching "The Cave" and seeing the previews for "The Descent", "The Cavern" seemed like a decent movie at first glance.
Like I said this movie just has an ending for my money it just did not work at all. |
tt0042224 | Bandit Queen | The film opens in the summer of 1968 at a small village in Uttar Pradesh. Phoolan is married to a twenty-something fellow called Puttilal (Aditya Shrivastava). Though child marriages are customary during that time, Phoolan's mother Moola (Savitri Raekwar) objects to the timing of the match. Phoolan's aging father Devideen (Ram Charan Nirmalker) conforming to his culture, regrettably disagrees, and Phoolan is sent off with Puttilal.
Phoolan is exposed to some sexual and exploitative abuses, including the caste system. (Phoolan's family as well as Puttilal's family belong to the lower ranked Mallah sub caste; the higher ranked Thakur caste takes the lead in social and political situations.) Puttilal is physically and sexually abusive, and Phoolan eventually runs away and returns home. As Phoolan grows older, she faces incidents of (non-consensual) fondling and groping from the Thakur men (whose parents make up the panchayat or village government). At the next town meeting, the panchayat wield their patriarchal authority to banish Phoolan from the village, since she will not consent to the sexual advances of the higher caste males, who treat her like sub-human chattel.
Accordingly, Phoolan lives with her cousin Kailash (Saurabh Shukla). En route to another village, she encounters a troop of dakus (bandits) of the Babu Gujjar gang, led by Vikram Mallah Mastana (Nirmal Pandey). Phoolan stays with Kailash for a while, but is eventually compelled to leave. Angry and hopeless, Phoolan goes to the local police to try to have her ban lifted, but she is beaten, molested, and arrested by the police, who rape her while in custody. The Thakurs put up bail and have her released. But, unknown to her, the bail is a bribe (paid, through the police, to Babu Gujjar's gang), and Babu Gujjar arrives to collect his prize.
In May 1979, Phoolan is abducted by Babu Gujjar (Anirudh Agarwal). Gujjar is a physically imposing man and a ruthless, predatory mercenary. Although Gujjar's lieutenant Vikram is sympathetic towards Phoolan, Gujjar indiscriminately brutalizes and humiliates her, until one day Vikram catches him raping her (yet again) and shoots him in the head. Vikram takes over the gang, and his empathy for Phoolan eventually grows into a mutually respectful mature adult relationship. Around this time, Phoolan revisits her former husband Puttilal, and with Vikram's help, abducts him and exacts her justice for his rape and abuse, beating him up. She shares her closure with Vikram.
All goes well until Thakur Shri Ram (Govind Namdeo) is released from prison. Thakur Shri Ram is the real gang leader (boss of the erstwhile Gujjar). Shri Ram returns to his gang and while Vikram receives him with respect, Shri Ram bristles at Vikram's egalitarian leadership style and covets Phoolan. In August 1980, Shri Ram arranges to have Vikram assassinated, and abducts Phoolan, bringing her to the village of Behmai. Phoolan is repeatedly raped and beaten by Shri Ram and by the rest of the gang members, as punishment for her "disrespect" for his previous advances, and for her audacity at being an equal. The stunning and disturbing final humiliation and punishment is that she is stripped, paraded around Behmai, beaten and sent to fetch water from the well (in full view of the village).
A severely traumatised Phoolan returns to her cousin Kailash. She recovers gradually, and seeks out Man Singh (Manoj Bajpai), an old friend of Vikram Mallah. Man Singh brings her to another large gang, led by Baba Mustakim (Rajesh Vivek). She relates her history to Baba and asks him for some men and weapons to form a gang. Baba Mustakim agrees, and Man Singh and Phoolan become the leaders for the new gang.
Phoolan leads her new gang with courage, generosity, humility and shrewdness. Her stockpile and her legend grows. She becomes known as Phoolan Devi, the bandit queen. In February 1981, Baba Mustakim informs her of a large wedding in Behmai, with Thakur Shri Ram in attendance. As Phoolan departs, Baba Mustakim warns her to remain low key. Phoolan attacks the wedding party and her gang exacts revenge from the entire Thakur clan of Behmai. They round up the men and beat them up. Many of the men are finally shot. This act of vengeance brings her to the attention of the national law enforcement authorities (in New Delhi). The top police officials now begin a massive manhunt for Phoolan, and Thakur Shri Ram relishes the opportunity to come to their aid.
The manhunt claims many lives in Phoolan's gang. They are ultimately forced to hide out in the rugged ravines of Chambal without any food or water. Phoolan evaluates her options and decides to surrender. Her terms are to have her remaining mates protected and provided for (the women and children in particular). The film ends with Phoolan's surrender in February 1983. The end credits indicate that all the charges against her were withdrawn (including the charges of murder at Behmai), and that she was released in 1994. | revenge, murder | train | wikipedia | null |
tt2098627 | Attack of the 50 Foot Cheerleader | Cassie Stratford is a plain science nerd, whose mother was captain of the cheersquad at Iron Coast University and president of Zeta Mu Sorority, so she's pressured to join both cheerleading and the sorority. However, Brittany Andrews, Zeta President and Cheer Captain (who has a Napoleon complex), rejects her.
Cassie works in the Biology Building of the University, where she and her friend Kyle are working on a drug that turns things beautiful. In the night, Cassie steals the drug and injects herself with it. While she does become beautiful and makes the cheersquad when one of the cheerleaders is injured, she then discovers the drug has a side effect when she starts to grow taller and taller until she is a 50-foot tall giant.
When Brittany discovers this, she tries to seduce Kyle into telling her the secret, which leads to her being accidentally injected with more of the drug than Cassie and growing bigger too. Brittany goes through the town on her way to the stadium, being careful not to hurt anyone on the way. She begins to cheer, but is confronted by Cassie. This all leads to a large cat fight during the big homecoming game. Cassie wins by injecting the antidote into Brittany, making her shrink into a dwarf. Cassie then injects herself with a smaller portion and returns to her normal size. She and Kyle then kiss. | entertaining | train | wikipedia | Giant amounts of fun....
Ahh - here's another flick - that (much like "Girls Gone Dead") some people can't seem to enjoy for whatever reason.
Is today's generation too serious?
Not every movie needs to deliver a deep philosophical undertone and dark punch-line.Growing up on things like Joe Bob Briggs and all things 80's (and pushing 40 myself) - how could I resist a movie that features Ted Raimi; John Landis; Treat Williams; Sean Young; Roger Corman himself and even a (hilarious) cameo from John Landis?This flick is a nice satire on "Attack of the 50ft Woman" - and includes some memorably campy moments - and gobs of female nudity.On the downside - some of the effects work is pretty bad - and NOT in a good way - which; surprisingly made the viewing experience a bit worse (as opposed to the usual cheese which heightens the B movie experience).Either way - it's good to see popcorn movies like this are still being made - and I hope there continues to be an audience for good old fashioned fun.
I can't take anymore "reality-based" PG-13 horror flicks and torture porn diatribes.Surprised this one slipped under the radar - but I was lucky enough to catch in on Netflix.Recommended..
Mindless, Goofy Fun. Aspiring college cheerleader Cassie Stratford (Jena Sims) consumes an experimental drug that grants her beauty and enough athletic ability to make the cheer squad.
The drug has an unforeseen side effect -- Cassie starts to grow and grow and grow.Let me be up front on my choice to give this film a 6.
That rating is purely based on the "fun factor" and not on any critical merit.
The acting is nothing special (though I have sen worse) and the effects are rather poor.
This should not count against them, though, because they obviously knew it was going to be cheesy.The cameos they were able to secure are impressive.
Ted Raimi has a decent sized role as a scientist, and both John Landis and Roger Corman appear as professors.
The scene with Landis and Corman alone makes the film worth watching for any horror fan..
There's Good Cheese....
And then there's Attack of the 50 Ft. Cheerleader.
I am a fan of the movies that are so bad, they become good for how bad they really are.
Those movies are truly an art.
Many times the actors try to give a believable performance, the effects department try hard, so there is an heir of seriousness about it.Trying to intentionally recreate that however is difficult.
The concept of "Attack of the 50 Ft. Cheerleader" was well in line with its B-movie counterparts, but the acting felt way too forced.
Plus it felt more like an excuse to show a lot of breasts.
There are ways to pay homage to those great cult sci-fi classics, but this just didn't do it for me..
Tries to Be Campy But Fails.
Attack of the 50 Ft. Cheerleader (2012) * 1/2 (out of 4) Lame take-off on ATTACK OF THE 50 FT.
WOMAN has scientist and average looking Cassie Stratford (Jena Sims) taking an experimental drug that turns her into a beauty.
At first the drug is great because she looks good, makes the cheerleading squad and is popular but soon she sees the side effect in that she can't stop growing.
You know, I've always wondered why some bad movies turn into cult classics that are fun to watch while others are just downright bad.
It seems movies from the golden age of "so bad they're good" films just happened by chance.
Moving like the original ATTACK OF THE 50 FT.
WOMAN or ATTACK OF THE GIANT LEECHES just got lucky when they became entertaining.
I really do think that if you set out to make a camp film then you always fail and here's the perfect example.
It really seems like everyone thought they could just make fun of the set-up and everything would fall into place but that doesn't happen.
This is a pretty lame film from producer Roger Corman who thankfully makes a cameo with John Landis, which turns out to be the most memorable moment in the film.
As you'd expect, there's all sorts of cute girls getting naked but there's very little outside of this.
The entire story is pretty stupid, there's no laughs to be had and there's really just nothing going on here that makes you care about anything.
It's overly stupid in a bad way and this is where the film tries to be camp but it just doesn't work.
I thought Sims was good in her role but one wishes she had something better to work with.
Fans of Sean Young might want to check out her few scenes but she doesn't get too much to do.
ATTACK OF THE 50 FT.
CHEERLEADER is far from a fun movie, which is a real shame..
Sad but Untrue.
As one who remembers the Attack of the 50 Foot Woman, I was hoping that the special effects would have improved after 55 years.
Well, the improvement was not worth the viewing.
I suppose the 1993 made for TV version will still be the 'next best thing'.
Ms. Jenna Sims was respectable as Cassie, the cheerleader, although her general beauty was as poorly concealed in the beginning as her beast implants were in the end.
Ms. Olivia Alexander had the role of character with the most attitude, head cheerleader Brittany, though Treat Williams went sufficiently over-the-top as the pharma-mercinary.
Sean Young played 'mom' by Skyping-in her performance, literally.
Everyone else was either adequately camp or, sometimes, momentarily cute.
The best scenes were also the shortest.The one thing that I do not understand if the use of remanufactured breasts.
If you are going to show bosoms, the show ones that look real.
Ms. Sims, an otherwise lovely lady, displayed breasts that would shame most plastic surgeons.
Most of the others topless actresses were similarly endowed.
The most nuanced and effective character was Mary Woronov as the house mother, who was part Masterpiece Theater and part House of Horrors.As for the plot, yes there was a plot, the story held up.
University research onto cell regeneration turns into an overblown disaster.
Of course, people growing and shrinking like balloons was completely implausible, but that was par for the movie.
The pharma angle, which included clown-like pharma-enforcers was the only truly camp acting that held up, mostly thanks to Treat.
The chemistry between the Ryan Merriman character, Kyle, and Cassie was as contrived as the pink serum that made her grow.
The big finale might have worked if the special effects had really held their own.One last mention of Sean Young, if you are old enough to remember Ms. Young in Blade Runner (when it premiered), then this movie will make you quite sad.
Still a looker, the actress who played Jenna's mom was a total waste in this production.
If you looked closely, you could still see tiny hints of the actress who was so compelling in Jane Austen in Manhattan and No Way Out. However, you had to look though a microscope, which is a hard way to watch a movie.
Such is life..
Check back in 20 years.
So Roger Corman and John Landis decided to do an intentionally cheap and campy twist on The Attack of the 50 FT Woman.
The problem with camp is that it typically isn't appreciated until at least 10 years after being released, with 20 years being even better.
As such, right now, this movie just comes off as CHEAP, unfunny, uninspired, and mostly uninteresting.
To be frank, there is one reason to watch this movie and that is the spectacular body of Jena Sims, the lead, who is either topless or in a skimpy cheerleader outfit for most the show.
In fact, besides Jena, you see a number of topless babes in this movie.
However, the nudity is all in a non-sexual context.
I give it a 5 on Jena's impressive assets alone..
Attack of the 50ft Cheerleader--fun and not bad.
I've already seen Attack of the 50ft Cheerleader 3 times and loved it each time.
You have gorgeous women, a funny script, gorgeous women, decent acting (not Oscar worthy, but what did you expect?), gorgeous women and more.
(Did I mention gorgeous women?)**SPOILER** One of my favorite parts is when she is growing and she is in class.
Her shirt just keeps expanding!I love tall women.
(Married to one.) It was fun seeing her physically taller than the others.
Even the original Attack of the 50 foot woman didn't really have that--they didn't have the knowledge to do it back then.**SPOILER** Also loved when she was walking up the stairs, revealing herself as gorgeous for the first time.Overall a decent movie.
Quirky script, but how can you beat gorgeous women? |
tt0066492 | Trog | Set in contemporary England, the film follows Doctor Brockton (Joan Crawford) who learns that in the caves of the countryside, a troglodyte is alive and might be able to be helped and even domesticated. In the interest of science and the potential groundbreaking discovery of the missing link, she gets the creature to the surface. And while the rest of the townsfolk and police scatter in terror, Dr. Brockton stands steady with her tranquilizer gun and stuns the creature into submission. She brings it back to her lab for study, but runs into trouble as a few people oppose the presence of a monster in the town, especially a local businessman, Sam Murdock (Michael Gough), who is both afraid of negative commercial consequences and is suspicious of a woman heading a research facility. In the meantime, this creature, given the name of "Trog", is taught by Dr. Brockton to play and share; and the capacity for language is induced by a number of surgeries and a mysterious hypnotic device that causes Trog to see or relive the ice age.
Still disturbed by Dr. Brockton's experiments, and enraged at a municipal court's decision to protect Trog, Sam Murdock releases Trog in the middle of the night in the hopes that Trog will be captured and killed. Murdock's plan works in part. After being released, Trog wanders into town and kills the first three people he meets (a grocer, a butcher, and a citizen in a car), but not before he clubs Murdock to death. Trog then snatches a little girl from a slide on a playground and retreats to his cave. By now Dr. Brockton and the army have gathered at the cave opening. After pleading fruitlessly with the police and army to let her reason with Trog and safely retrieve the little girl, Dr. Brockton takes matters into her own hands and charges down into the cave. She successfully finds the little girl cowering in a corner. Trog initially behaves aggressively at the sight of the Dr. in his cave, but after a stern reprimand and a plea, Trog surrenders the girl. Moments later, after a victorious ascent from the cave, all of Dr. Brockton's work in the service of science and truth are shattered as Trog is killed, pierced by a stalagmite in his cave after being felled by a barrage of army bullets. The movie ends as a reporter asks the doctor to comment on the death of the missing link. Dr. Brockton—a woman of great learning and science—finds no words for her disappointment, and she simply shoves the reporter's microphone away and walks into the horizon stricken with grief. | flashback | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0100747 | Tatie Danielle | Danielle Billard, aged 82, is a childless widow of an army colonel. She lives in a small-town home in Auxerre with her faithful housekeeper, Odile. Quiet life? Things are not as they appear. Danielle is mean, cruel and malicious. When Odile "accidentally" dies, Danielle divides her estate between her grand-niece and grand-nephew, Jeanne and Jean-Pierre. She then goes to live in Paris with Jean-Pierre and his family. Although the family believes her to be an agreeable elderly lady, they soon discover her true colours!
The family goes on an extended vacation leaving their aunt in the care of a young woman, Sandrine. Little does Danielle know, she has finally met her match! Through many turbulent episodes these two women develop an ostensibly mutual love-hate "respect". | comedy | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0107148 | House of Cards | Reno Davis (George Peppard) is an American writer who has recently retired from boxing. Now unemployed and broke in France, he finds the wealthy widow of a French general. Anne de Villemont (Inger Stevens) is attracted to Reno's stoicism and they become lovers. She also hires him to tutor her eight-year-old son Paul (Barnaby Shaw).
Reno is led to believe Anne's husband was killed in the Algerian conflict and is troubled by Anne's intense fear that Paul will be kidnapped. He then discovers the family has ties to a fascist organization that plans to take over all of Europe. He takes on the shady psychiatrist Morillon (Keith Michell) and mysterious family friend Leschenhaut (Orson Welles), both of whom scare Anne whenever they are around.
Reno is framed for his best friend's murder as he and Anne become the targets of the ambitious and maniacal schemers who wish to rule the entire European continent. Reno and Anne are hunted and chased around France while protecting Paul from being abducted. The chase ends at the Coliseum in Rome, where Reno and the villains engage in a showdown. | fantasy, psychological | train | wikipedia | I agree that Tommy Lee Jones has been better in other movies but the story is excellent and the portrayal of the story is very well done.
And this movie deals with taking us to a different world of a child going into a different world.
This movie is very interesting to watch and the characters are well-acted by Kathleen Turner and Tommy Lee Jones.
It's a good movie, but people should know: this is not about autism.I have an autistic daughter.
Even in regressive autism, which is not that common, you don't just become autistic through emotional trauma, as this movie suggests.
Her seeming imperviousness to danger is autistic-like and the screams when things change is something that can happen, but please don't come away from this movie thinking this is what autism is.Many autistic children are not silent and do interact or try to.
Take note of the scenes at the school with real autistic children to get a somewhat better picture.This movie is more about emotional trauma than autism.
But what's worse is then leading the viewer to believe simple psychological intervention will "fix" autism.The one good thing is that the movie shows autistics to be bright and very creative.
If you are the kind of person who requires movies even tangentally reflect how it is in the real world then don't watch it.
Everyone I know thinks this movie is weird, until I make them rewatch the beginning and pay close attention.
Then they love it.Whoever trashed this movie regarding the autism obviously did not watch it.
She was trying to handle her father's death with things she learned from her Mayan archaeologist friend.I think if you have any brain in your head and have an attention span large enough to actually watch the whole movie, it is thoroughly enjoyable..
To address those who have said, sometimes rather heatedly, that it is obvious that the girl is NOT autistic and anyone who thinks otherwise is foolish (or at least has a short attention span) please consider this:If it were obvious from the beginning of the movie that the girl is suffering from an odd denial response brought on by a shaman's comments, and not an identifiable disorder, then the bulk of the movie would be meaningless.
What would be the point of all the medical scenes with the use of apparently handicapped (including autistic) children if the viewer already "knows" the girl's problem?The girl displays very striking features of childhood autism, so on what basis is it reasonable that the mother should resist treatment?
You can say: "you see, it wasn't really autism," but as a simple dramatic point they don't give anyone but the guileless moviegoer any reason to think otherwise.People with handicapped children often wish that anyone giving them bad news is wrong, and that there is a simple "magic" cure for their child's disorder, and so the movie unintentionally gives very bad advice.I feel it is shameful for the movie makers to have used a disability and disabled people as props for a feelgood story that denies reality as much as the little girl does..
There is no doubt that somewhere out there there is someone who loved this film, who adores it and watches it all the time, fed up by the bad reviews.
I rented it because of Tommy Lee Jones and Kathleen Turner, and the movie taught me a valuable lesson: listen to the critics and DON'T rent a movie that looks bad because of two stars in it.
Tommy Lee Jones was totally wasted- having nothing to work with- except his frustration at a know it all mom.
The whole thing was a spielbergesque schmaltzfest of embarrassing proportions, and what flabbergasts me is that so many people seem to embrace it on so many levels, as if it actually had something meaningful to say.It is insulting that they should be able to take a condition such as autism (which the child doesn't have but the movie wants you to think she does) and trivialize it and make it the centrepiece of a maudlin, unrealistic dumbed down piece of soap drama.The eponymous house of gravity-defying cards itself could not, by any stretch, have been built by a 6-year-old, or anyone else.
The part of the film that stays with me is when Tommy Lee Jones's character states that a lot of autistic children are misdiagnosed as crack babies or something else....even demonic possession.
The great things about this film make me forget the obvious concessions to box office: the uselessness of Tommy Lee's over dramatic character, or the cheesy ending.The beauty of this is all in the multiple structures presented to us, both physically and metaphorically, and how they are layered in such a way that moving one affects all the others, like a house of cards.
There we are given key concepts to interpret the whole thing: The ascending dynamic of this (highly spiritual) shape, the tragedy of the father's death, which triggers the whole plot, and the moon – introduced in a clumsy way, as the cosmic witness to the tragedy and as some old folk Indian tale.Later we fold the idea of the abstract structure that is the "key" to our girl's mind into the idea of a physical shape, that of a spiral, conceptually close to the conception of a Maya pyramid.
The girl actually builds the thing, using common cards and some Tarot cards, providing us another key to another abstract structured cosmic world: metaphorical links between cards and several realities; a whole cosmology of its own.In between you get hints at other parallel, strong structures: 1 – before becoming an autist the girl spoke three languages; 2 – trees
she climbs them, repeating the ascending movement, and she disguises herself as one
she becomes it!; 3 – the construction site and the crane, an obvious reference, as it is the fact that the mother is an engineer, a designer of structures (the 3d stuff does sound middle- aged to our BIM days
)The spiral is replicated in a greater scale by the mother, she actually builds her own gate to her daughter (building up for the obvious climax).
The plot, which involves a mother's journey to try to reach her young daughter after she has developed autistic-like characteristics, is hard nut to crack.
Even stage vet Kathleen Turner and the excellent Tommy Lee Jones can't save this film from the highly symbolic mess it is.
Do mothers know more than doctors?I found this movie enjoyable.
i was kind of little of the time and not to hard to impress but it was a great movie.That is all I had to say but it seems i need 10 lines and I don't think I can think enough to produce another 6 lines so...I voted mainly for the soundtrack...
i was kind of little of the time and not to hard to impress but it was a great movie.That is all I had to say but it seems i need 10 lines and I don't think I can think enough to produce another 6 lines so....
there are some awesome scenes and to share it would ruin watching the movie.basically the childs parents are arhciologists and her father dies at a dig site.
shes a child so she believes it.the mother not knowing what to do with her self decides to take the girl back to America..
(bad move on my thought the girl just lost her father and now suffers culture shock!) but thats what makes a movie right?
any who i really love this movie and think you should try it out!.
I can understand upset parents who have to live with their own private horror and know it will last whole life through (without miracles after waking up), but in the end it is clearly shown this was not a case of autism.
(I don't remember anyone objecting "Tommy", by the way, maybe because it's much more symbolic than the realistic "House of cards".) And traumas for children are often also trauma for adults (parents) who sometimes don't let the physician know the whole truth.
If their glorify different kinds of magicians and a real doctor can never be heard, let alone become a hero, you can expect parents with lack of belief and very much ready to try another approach, no matter how useless, unsuccessful and even harmful (at least because it means losing precious time).
So however unrealistic and hard to watch for real autistic children's parents, this film is honest, even realistic (parents who believe their doctors must understand that there really exist parents who don't!) - and (last but not least) this film is good as a film.
If one believes in the ability of children to read more about the intangible side of people than adults can then the writers selecting a such a scene to share with viewers about Mohicans also shows the child's ability to connect with another person who shared her lack of fear for heights, besides just this mans color of skin (similar to what she had experienced at the archaeological site where this child's father was killed in a falling accident).
Those who've read and appreciated C.J. Laing, may really have an extra appreciation for this movies as well as those who believe in being way more careful about the human-freedom-rights of so-called mental patients by first exercising a little more intuition and empathy before applying their force and trickery to mandate, NOW, their coming-back to a world they had chosen to leave!
Whether or not to trust or believe in the ability of medical professionals to help our precious children and whether or not a parent is a better judge of a young child's condition than the professional.
In these days of movie blockbusters and sensationalized story-telling, it is very rare that a movie can be as timeless and thought provoking as this one while attempting to get the viewer to think about modern issues in non-traditional ways.
This movie shows the length a mother will go to bring her child back from the so called dead-(after she loses her father she turns inward and becomes obsessed with seeing him again) she wants her daughter back so much she furiously works day and night to build this beautiful monument to the sky.
Having seen 'House of Cards' a number of times now, I never fail to find this film a involving and intriguing on every viewing.
The film revolves around the Ruth Matthews, whose husband dies in a fall and who risks also losing her six-year-old daughter Sally when she retreats into her own world falling the death of her father.
As child psychologist Jake determines that the best way to treat Sally is to use therapies similar to how he counsels his autistic patients, Ruth resorts to more eccentric methods of reaching out to her daughter.A number of people seem to dislike 'House of Cards' because they feel it portrays easy cures to autism.
However, like other fans of the film, I never believed Sally was autistic but instead was deeply grief-stricken and mentally withdrew from the traumatic world around her, taking on autistic-like traits, so she could try to devise ways to contact her dead father.
This theory meant that, for me, this film was not about autism but rather a family coping with loss and grief in different ways and that was what made it both touching and engaging.The adult actors-- Kathleen Turner who played Ruth and Tommy Lee Jones who played Jake-- were both brilliant and you genuinely felt that they both loved this child and were determined to do to whatever it took to help her, albeit in different ways.
For such a young child, Asha Menina was perfect in portraying Sally's emotional distance as she retreated into her own little world.
And Shiloh Strong delivered a strong performance as Sally's teenage brother, who was fiercely devoted to his mother and sister and determined to be the man of the family.This film truly succeeded in reminding us that young children can view death very differently from adults and in showing us that there tradition psychological treatments are not always right for everybody.
Exactly 44 minutes into the film Ruth tells the doctor her daughter is NOT autistic.
They are BOTH right - but in the end it's the mother (who is herself "special") who has the better instincts - and it's that wondrous architectural "House of Cards" that ultimately brings her daughter back.Key scenes?
From her fearless internal world she was able to do what most of us cannot.All of the actors were terrific, but I think Tommy Lee Jones' portrayal of the troubled doctor was superlative, as most of his portrayals are.If you decide to give this film a shot - PLEASE - pay real attention to the details.
We hear Sally's memories as narration, the Mayan man that she spent so much time with telling her how to become very quiet, how to deal with her grief, and that her father now lives on the moon.
The family leaves for the States shortly after the father's death, so this little girl who has only really known the people at the site is taken from an extended support system to a rural American setting.
As she begins to exhibit extraordinary powers like climbing and throwing or catching a ball with freakish ability, the brother notices but doesn't really tell their mom.Sally's "symptoms" create concern in the local authorities when she climbs up building equipment trying to reach the moon, where she's been told her father is now.
In the end, the mother, played by Kathleen Turner, follows her instinct and builds a tower based on the design of Sally's house of cards.
No one in the movie understands how it happens or why, so if you aren't familiar with Native American spirituality, it won't make sense - though it is still poetic and beautiful, if you let go of trying to make it fit your expectations.
SPOILER ALERT****************************************** I actually don't know if I give away too much but I am putting the alert here just to be safe.As a mom of a little boy with autism, I was drawn to this movie and come back again from time to time.
But like in this movie when you look at the parents and teachers working so hard, it is on the little things you take for granted.
But when the ordinary things happen like the boy at the school hugging his mom for the first time, that is when we parents shout for joy and hoot and holler in celebration.Dealing with a child with autism is like putting together a giant puzzle with infinite pieces.
And since the number of pieces are infinite, you don't get a neat little picture on the box that lets you know exactly how things should look and you work towards that.
First of all, let me add to what other reviewers have said by repeating that Sally, the little girl, was NOT autistic.
The best we can offer is psychology, but Kathleen Turner as Sally's mother instinctively knew that putting her child through a course of standard treatment would result in turning her daughter's psyche into "healthy shards." At the same time, I think the movie did an excellent job treading delicate ground by pointing out the flaw in using one approach (the psychological-treatment approach) for all emotional problems known and unknown, without condemning psychology itself, which has in fact given real help to countless people.Having said that, I have to add that the ending was both too tidy and too mysterious for my taste.
Pay attention to what the movie is actually saying rather than trying to impose what you think it should say, and you will be rewarded for your efforts..
This movie has nothing to do with autism, (I noticed a reference to that in other comments from viewers) they pretty much thrust you into the movie, the girl is traumatized by her fathers death, (which she didn't see) and the idea is given at the end that the girl is able to see her fathers death through her mother when she is looking at her (telepathy?) and suddenly, she's healed!
And the work goes on.Parents of disabled children need to fully participate in their child's education and therapy, and not take as scripture every word professionals say.
If one parent fails to get appropriate therapy for his or her disabled child because of this movie, it will have performed an unintended evil.I suppose the filmmakers could weasel out by saying that the girl portrayed in the film wasn't really autistic, she suffered from some kind of trauma-induced hysteria, which COULD be cured by unconventional means.
The girl constructs a huge tower of cards around her one morning, and Turner takes lots of pictures of it before it collapses.
How do you make a movie about a child with autism while basically dodging all information about subject?
Here is a movie that tries to softsoap this disease with lame visuals, overcooked dialogue and an ending that left my attention focusing on the digital soundtrack of 'Jurassic Park' which was bleeding through the walls from the theater next door.Kathleen Turner (one of my favorite actresses) plays a woman whose husband has died and whose autistic daughter has retreated into her own private world.
Every time there was a scene at the clinic where Tommy Lee Jones works, I kept wishing that the camera to move past him and start focusing on one of those real autistic children behind him.The mystery of autism is a good subject for a drama, just look at Rain Man. But that film was about the relationship between two brothers.
Every time this film needs to settle down and uncover the mystery it would come up with some lame scene so that the writer won't have to think. |
tt0068332 | Cancel My Reservation | Television personality Dan Bartlett, having difficulties with his wife and TV co-star Sheila, retreats to his Arizona ranch. When the body of Mary Little Cloud is found in his car trunk, Dan is placed under arrest.
Freed for lack of evidence, Dan returns home to find attractive, scantily clad Crazy Hollister there. Her stepfather John Ed owns a half-million-acre property nearby. Crazy is upset that John Ed has blocked her inheritance and may have even murdered her mother.
Sheila shows up and believes she has caught Dan having an affair, but Crazy convinces her that's not true. Meanwhile, county recorder Snagby tries to blackmail John Ed with information Mary Little Cloud gave him, but John Ed's evil henchman Reese has him killed. Sheriff Riley once again thinks Dan is responsible.
The Bartletts are taken captive by Reese and sealed inside a cave. There they renew their love. Riley is able to free them while Crazy finds proof that Mary Little Cloud had a document showing her tribe to be the lawful owner of John Ed's land. Reese is betrayed by John Ed, who ultimately learns that crime doesn't pay. Dan and Sheila can't wait to get back to their old lives. | murder | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0230670 | Pyar Ka Mausam | Seema is the only child of widowed Mohan, who is adopted by Mohan's boss, Sardar Ranjit Singh, who has no heir to his estate, as his daughter, Jamuna, eloped with a poor peasant, Gopal. Ranjit does not get along with his step-brother, Shankar. Jamuna manages to placate her dad, & he goes to her house, only to find it in flames with Gopal burned to death, and their son, Sunder, missing. Years later, Seema has now grown up and meets with a young man named Pyarelal in Ooty. She meets him a year later, but this time he introduces himself as Jhatpat Singh, a man she was supposedly engaged to in their childhood. Shortly thereafter she meets with the real Jhatpat Singh, and changes her mind about the fake Jhatpat Singh alias Pyarelal. Now Sunil knows that he was adopted and understands that he was the lost son of Gopal. He goes to Sardar Ranjit Singh and appoints to be an estate manager. There he meets Seema again and they rekindle their romance. By that time, planning to steal away property, Shankar sends his son as the lost son of Jamuna and Gopal. Ranjit Singh believes him and wants to marry seema to Shankar's son. After some misunderstandings, family finally reunites and Jamuna's sanity returns. Movie ends with the marriage of Seema and Sunil/Sunder.
It is one of two films in which Music Director Rahul Dev Burman plays a role of Jhatpat Singh's assistant in the film apart from giving the music for the film, the other being Bhoot Bungla. | romantic, murder | train | wikipedia | Pyar Ka Mausam the turning point. Pyar Ka Mausam was the first ever Hindi movie that I watched. It was screened in Malaysia in 1971. I was then 15 years old. Many of my friends at that time were already Hindi movie fans and persuaded me to watch. They told me about good songs, handsome heroes and beautiful heroines. Finally when Pyar Ka Mausam was screened in my hometown, I decided to go to the cinema. That was really the turning point for me. I was glued to the screen, enjoyed the songs by Mohd. Rafi and Lata, and was fascinated with the handsome Shashi Kapoor and beautiful Asha Parekh. They are my favourite stars until now. Since then I never missed Hindi films that came to town, especially if the films had Shashi and Asha in it, or either one of them. Old Hindi movies are sold in VCD's in Malaysia and of course Pyar Ka Mausam is in my collection. I will always cherish this film and remember it in my heart. I wish I could tell Shashi and Asha about this. But how could I? I am far away and I don't know how to get in touch with them. Nevertheless, my best regard and best wishes to my hero and heroine.. With the normal run of the mill story of the sixtees the film scores with it's excellent picturisation and music.. The plot is the usual lost and found son, intermixed with a lot of melodrama. What makes the film beautiful is the picturisation, comic scenes and excellent music. Main cast consisting of Shashi Kapoor, Asha Parekh, Bharath Bhushan and Nirupa Roy play their roles wver well. Asha Parekh looks ravishingly beautiful and naughty most of the times. Shashi Kapoor is pleasing in his style of acting. Picturised mostly in the hilly regions in the Northern India, the picture captures the scenic beauty of the region with its excellent photography. Most attractive part of the film is its music. Songs sung by Lata Mangeshkar, Mohammad Rafi and Kishore kumar are lilting and ring the ears for long. Highly likable movie. |
tt1618430 | Dum Maaro Dum | The film starts with a footballer, Lorry (Prateik Babbar), who gets admission into an American college. Due to insufficient funds, he is unable to fulfill his dream. On the other hand, his girlfriend Tani (Anaitha Nair) got a scholarship to US. Though he is happy for his girlfriend's achievement, he becomes depressed for not fulfilling his own dream. His friend, Ricky (Gulshan Devaiah), tells him that he can get him into the college, but Lorry will have to smuggle drugs along with him. Lorry agrees and at the airport, successfully passes the X-ray machine.
ACP Vishnu Kamath (Abhishek Bachchan) is a previously corrupt cop who had accepted a lot of bribes to satisfy his family. However, his family died in a car accident. Several years later, he is offered a job by the Chief Minister of Goa: to flush out all the drug gangsters in Goa, which he accepts. His success leads to a panic among the drug suppliers. The drug dealers gather for a meeting led by Zoey (Bipasha Basu). Zoey guarantees them that their drugs will be in safe hands if they are given to a mysterious person named Michael Barbosa. Kamath decides to chase Michael Barbosa and finds out about Ricky.
When Kamath reaches Ricky, he is already dead. Kamath finds out about his cocaine-smuggling and his girlfriend, Rozanna (Mariah Pucu Gantois Gomes). They reach the airport on the same day Lorry is about to leave. Kamath encounters Rozanna and finds a photo of Lorry in her phone. She is allowed to go due to lack of evidence. Kamath then identifies Lorry as the person he had seen in Rozanna's phone. They detain him and find cocaine stuffed in his bag. Lorry is sent to juvenile jail, where his friend, DJ Joki Fernandes (Rana Daggubati), tries to get him out. It is then revealed that Zoey and Joki used to date. Zoey wanted to be an air hostess, but failed. Joki introduced her to his boss, Lorsa Biscuita a.k.a. the Biscuit (Aditya Pancholi), who had worldwide contacts. With the help of his contacts, Biscuit got her a job in airlines, though she had to smuggle cocaine to international regions to repay him. She ended up getting caught and was sentenced to 14 years in jail. Biscuit's contact got her free in 14 days, but to repay him, she had to sleep with Biscuit. She broke up with Joki and made her life drug-dealing with Biscuit.
Joki meets Zoey and the two end up sleeping together. Zoey gives him a video of Biscuit announcing that he is going to have a rave in neighboring Karnataka, out of Kamath's jurisdiction and that Michael Barbosa will be bringing and exchanging drugs. Joki gives this tape to Kamath. When Biscuit comes to know about Zoey and Joki, he kills Zoey. After recruiting Lorry for help, Kamath attacks Biscuit's party and arrests the drug dealers. When Kamath's colleague Rane asks him about Barbosa, Kamath says that he knows the secret of Barbosa and Rane kills Kamath. It is revealed that Rane was always involved with Biscuit. Joki later finds out about Kamath's death and arrives at the crime scene, fitting together the pieces as Kamath has. Michael Barbosa is not a man but a gravesite Biscuit uses for storing drugs. We see Joki carefully storing the bags of cocaine somewhere, then calling Rane to arrange a meeting. Lorry is now free of the charge and he comes out of jail. When Joki and Rane are going to meet Biscuit, Joki kills Rane saying that he knows Rane is the person who killed Kamath. Kamath's body is being cremated in an electric furnace owned by Biscuit. We see that this is where Joki has put the drugs, and Biscuit arrives only too late. Having been brought down by the destruction of his stockpile, Biscuit is killed by a woman who may be Rozanna. Lorry comes to a beach party where Joki is singing, and Tani joins him in a joyful reunion. The film ends with Joki riding on his bike envisioning Kamath and Zoey. | revenge, murder, romantic | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0102813 | Rover Dangerfield | Rover lives a life of fun in Las Vegas with his owner Connie, a showgirl. He gambles and chase girls with his best friend Eddie. One night, he sees Connie's boyfriend, Rocky, in a transaction with a pair of gangsters, and accidentally disrupts it. Thinking that Rocky is an undercover cop setting them up, the gangsters flee, telling Rocky that he has blown his last chance. The next day, Connie goes on the road for two weeks, leaving Rocky to look after Rover. In revenge for ruining his deal, Rocky puts Rover in a bag, drives him to Hoover Dam and throws him in the water. The bag is later pulled out of the water by two passing fishermen, who take Rover back to shore and place him in the back of their pickup truck. However, Rover wakes up and jump out of the truck when the fishermen stop for gas, and begins to wander down the road on his way back to Las Vegas. Instead, he ends up in the countryside, and eventually runs into a farmer, Cal, and his son, Danny, who convinces his father to take the dog in. Cal agrees on one condition: at the first sign of trouble, he'll be sent to an animal shelter, and if nobody claims him, the animal shelter can put him to sleep.
Rover has difficulty adjusting to life on the farm, but with the help of Daisy, the beautiful dog next door, and the other dogs on the farm, he succeeds in earning his keep. Rover spends Christmas with the family, and begins to fall in love with Daisy, who returns his affections. However, one night, a pack of wolves attempt to kill the turkey on the farm. Rover tries to save the turkey, but ends up caught by Cal while holding the dead bird, looking as if he killed it. The next morning, Cal takes Rover into the woods in order to put him down, but is attacked by the wolves. Rover manages to fight the wolves off, and brings the other farm dogs to get the injured Cal home.
Rover's heroics make the papers, allowing Eddie and Connie to find out where he is. Danny informs Rover of his trip back to Las Vegas and leaves. Rover begins to miss his life on the farm. One night, Rocky comes into Connie's dressing room, where Rover engage to get payback for what he did to him. After Rocky accidentally confesses to what he did, Connie angrily slap and breaks up him. Infuriated, he tries to retaliate against Connie. However, Rover and his dog friends chase him into the limo of the gangsters. At first, he's relieved that they seemingly came to his rescue but questions why were they even there in the first place. While Rover happily listens, the thugs proceed to reveal that they set him up and imply that they are going to murder him by throwing him into the Hoover Dam.
Sometime later, Rover, missing Daisy, becomes depressed. Connie, realizing her old companion met someone, takes Rover back to the farm to stay. Rover is reunited with Daisy, who reveals to him that he is now a father, unveiling six puppies. The story ends with Rover teaching his kids how to play cards, and playfully chasing Daisy around the farmyard. | romantic | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0100816 | Tridev | Bhujang (Amrish Puri) is powerful crime Boss who wants to rule India. After the Assassisnation of an honest politician the police department comes under huge pressure. Inspector Karan Saxena (Sunny Deol) manages to catch an arms dealer Ramesh Tejani who helps him arrest Don who supplies firearms for Bhujang. Karan is engaged to Divya Mathur (Madhuri Dixit) the daughter of Commissioner Mathur . Divya's brother Ravi (Jackie Shroff) is a street fighter who fights small criminals, and is hated by his father Commissioner Mathur for his violent nature. Karan's father is a respected judge.
Later on Karan Saxena is framed by Bhujang and his brother with the help of Ramesh. But Ramesh due to his guilt consciousness tells judge, Karan's father everything. Ramesh and judge is killed by Bhujang and his sons and Karan's father death is made to look like suicide due to Karan's crime. Corrupt Inspector Suraj Singh works for Bhujang. Even though Commissioner is aware of Karan's honesty: but being under pressure from seniors he transfers Karan to a village. There he meets a crusader named Jai Singh (Naseeruddin Shah) who fights criminals and help poor. Jai Singh meets actress Renu (Sonam_(actress)) and they fall in love. Karan comes to know that Jai Singh is not a bad guy. In his childhood his father who was a freedom fighter, was murdered by Dacoit Bhairav Singh. The police headed by Mathur refused to listen to the statements of Jai.
When the Mathur's daughter Divya is abducted in order to release Bhujang's brother, Ravi breaks the law and releases his sister. Being an outlaw he joins the criminals. There Ramesh's sister Natasha Tejani (Sangeeta Bijlani) who has joined them to avenge her brother's death and working with journalist Shrikant Verma is shocked to see Ravi as a new member of the gang. When the police decides to bring Karan back, Bhujang, Don and Bhujang's two sons decide to kill him. Before trying to kill Karan, they reveal that they killed his father. Karan is shocked to see Ravi and Suraj Singh working for his enemies. When they burn the entire house with petrol after tying him on his bed, Ravi without anyone's knowledge puts a knife just under Karan's hand. The whole house burned. Karan struggles to get the knife but whether he is successful remains unknown. Jai Singh is unable to save his friend as he mocks Commissioner Mathur that he is late once again. Jai Singh leaves the village in sorrow. But later on Karan rises from the remains and swears vengeance as he is presumed dead.
Meanwhile, Divya is shocked about Karan's death. Jai Singh meets Renu who is the daughter of a politician. He hires Jai as Renu's bodyguard. Karan continues to destroy Bhujang's arms and properties and they all get confused about their new enemy. Meanwhile, Karan and Ravi meet and decide to help each other. Before Jai and Renu could declare their love, her father engages her to Bhujang's son. In the party Jai recognizes Bhujang as Daku Bhairav Singh, the one who killed his father. Later on journalist Srikant is poisoned by Bhujang's son with the help of the corrupt inspector.
Natasha and Ravi understands each other and express their feelings for each, understanding the constant threat they live on. Unable to bear the loss due to Karan's works Bhujang decides to rob a bank. Ravi informs Karan . Jai Singh overhears the conversation between Renu's father and her fiancé. At first Renu refuses to believe him but in the bank she is shocked to see her fiancé as bank robber. There the corrupt inspector is forced to stop robbery by Karan and is killed. The entire group of criminals and Jai is shocked to see Karan alive. During the funeral of Bhujang's son who died in the shootout, Karan, Ravi and Jai exposes their identity and escape.
Bhujang captures a large group of policemen and Natasha, Renu, Divya along with Manriji (Renu's Father) : and demand the release of the three heroes whom they frame as dangerous criminals. At the end the three who calls themselves as Tridev attacks the hideout and destroy the enemy. | good versus evil, murder, flashback | train | wikipedia | truly is a volcanic saga best movie of 1989.
Tridev is one of my favourite movie of all time, Its one of those films that you cannot get over it, at the end of the film you feel as though reaching for the rewind button, anyway this movie is absolutely awesome, I watched it on Max television in 2005, I am really out of words, basically all the stars played there part very specifically and very well done, Rajiv rai created a situation, where all the audience would get hyped up to see what happens in the next scene, honestly this movie is the best, after tridev became superhit in the 1989, Rajiv rai delivered another action packed movie "Vishwatma" in the year 1992, Rajiv thought of bring the starcast from tridev into Vishwatma, but unfortunelty Jackie became a Father and his fortuneteller told him not to go abroad, because the majority of the shooting were involved in kenya, so they replaced Chunky Pandey, nevertheless I would recommend you guys to watch Tridev, seriously at the end of the film you guys will reach for the rewind button..
Tridev indeed A volcanic saga of three Angry men.
Karan Saxena who is a very honest and dedicated inspector is being transferred to Madhupur when he sets out to investigate about corruption, murder and idealism in his community.
The police suspect is that a criminal called Bhujang/Bhairav Singh (Amrish Puri) is involved in every crime of the country.
While in Madhupur, Karan befriends Jai Singh another victim of Bhujang's terror.
While Ravi who is Divya's (Madhuri Dixit) brother has doubt for Bhujang in his mind too.
He, however, ends up and fall in love with a cabaret dancer Natasha (Sangeeta Bijlani).
All three men decided to form a gang called Tridev and destroy Bhujang and his gang..
A nostalgic action flick with wonderful music..
I watched this film many times as a kid, and it always kept me on the edge of me seat.
This of course is not an example of great filmmaking or storytelling, but it still works as a masala flick, and is actually quite slick for a movie of its sort.
The action scenes are typical for the times but are quite fun to watch.
There are three heroes in this film, and all three are very good: Jackie Shroff doing the nonchalant guy in search of himself, Sunny Deol playing the angry-young-man, while obviously Naseeruddhin Shah steals the show in a ceaselessly amusing role, which he plays with a great deal of humour and seems to have no qualms about ridiculing himself.
Then there are the three hot ladies - the pretty Sonam, the impossibly stunning Madhuri Dixit, while actually it is the beautiful Sangeeta Bijlani who gets the meatiest part in what is possibly her best role, and does the most of it in addition to having a very nice chemistry with Shroff.
And there's the music, and what an amazing soundtrack it is.
Each song is a gem and holds such great nostalgic value for me.
"Tirchi Topiwale" and "Main Teri Mohabbat Main" are great numbers, but it is "Gali Gali" which is one of my all-time favourite songs.
A true gem of a song - soulful, melodious, and wonderfully written, composed and arranged with a rare touch of psychedelia.
This number was one of the first that shot the phenomenal Alka Yagnik to fame, and her rendition is flawless.
Other than that, Tridev works as a nice thriller which should not be taken too seriously but enjoyed, and there's plenty to enjoy here..
Tridev- An explosive saga.
I have extremely fond memories of this classic.
Out of Naseer Udin Shah, Sunny Deol and Jackie Shroff it was Sunny Deol that stood out as the angry cop Karan Saxena.
Amrish Puri was superb as Bhujang in one of my favourite roles of his.
There was also so many other characters, including Anupum Kher as the devoted Pollice commissioner.
The music is so good it deserves a special mention.
My personal Favourite is Oye Oye. The director Rajiv Rai went on to make other great movie including the superb follow up Vishwatamma, Mohra and the suspense thriller Gupt.
Unfortunately he has hit a rough patch with this recent releases Pyar Ishq and Mohabbat and Asambhav flopping.
Rajiv Rai has a reputation for repeating his cast, Sunny Deol came in Tridev and its follow up whilst Naseer Uddin Shah starred in Tridev, Vishwatamma and Mohra.Character actors like Tej Sapru have appeared in almost all of his movies.
Tremendous fun..
A masala film of the 80's.
Tridev , as my title suggests, is a typical masala flick of the 80s - top heroes with lady loves, great songs and dances, action, dialogues...it's a 3 hour entertainer.
But perhaps nowadays nobody will have the patience to go through it all.Story is about 3 frustrated young men fed up of the inefficient law system in the country and set out to bring justice on their own.The good - Dialogues, catchy songs,action sequences, plot of the movie The bad - Weak background score (quite silly at times), jobless ladies.It you are a fan of Sunny Deol, Jackie Shroff or Naseeruddin Shah, then watch this..
It's like a riptide...not really..
Rajiv Rai's 'Tridev' is very much the typical multistarrer flick on the 80s.
With its over the top action sequences, songs appearing out of nowhere, heroines who are there for eye-candy, repetitive coincidences etcetera.
Let's start with the good side.
The catchy soundtrack is quite good, my favourite song being 'Gali Gali Mein Firta Hai'.
The 'heroines' are quite pretty.
While there is Sonam and Madhuri Dixit, they can easily be overlooked when a sizzling Sangeeta Bijlani appears on screen (however, she is an awful dancer).
Sunny Deol, Jackie Shroff and Naseeruddin Shah are cast as the action heroes and it is Shah who steals the show with his over the top performance by providing some excellent comic relief.
The late Amrish Puri is a delight to watch when he plays the over the top villain.
'Tridev' is quite entertaining in parts.
It's not as boring as for example, Feroz Khan's 'Janbaaz'.
I fast forwarded most of the dishum dishum action sequences and maybe it's not such a bad movie to play on your DVD player while you're cooking or ironing your clothes.
Campy..
Very Good movie and family entertainment..
Master piece of late 80's.
I watched this movie on TV but I must say that this is true thriller, suspense and spell bounding movie.
Acting is average by Sunny Deol(Karan) but Naseeruddin Shah(Jay Singh) and Jackie Shroff(Ravi Mathur) rocked this movie.
Other actors including Amrish Puri (Bhujang) is true villain.
He knew about the moods and balance of acting.
Bassy voice and deep personality suits for this character and he plays it off nicely.
Anupam Kher(Mumbai Police Commissioner) did a great job and he was looking a real life police commissioner.
Renu(Sonam) was looking hot.
Now this movie tells that if you want to show hot actresses then there is no need to remove clothes unnecessarily.
A movie can be good if it has content and the spice for audience.
I liked the work of Ravi Rai(Director).
He had control over film and no overacting.
That is what we call a disciplined movie which has "only" everything to please viewers.
Hats off to this Masterpiece.
I think Bollywood should take lessons from earlier movies rather than redoing the Hollywood flicks which only worsen the charm and viewers abuse them when they leave theaters in running movies....
A truly volcanic saga.
Before Rajiv Rai's VISHWATMA (1992), this film came out in 1989The two movies bear a lot of similarities with the cast, the same trio with a hatred for the villain (Amrish Puri being the villain in both the films), lavish locations and at least 1 chart buster songThe film is done-to-deathThe film starts off quite nicely and has some over-the-top scenes but this was 80s masala The film gets more interesting when Sunny Deol is posted to Madhavpur and where he meets the savior Naseeruddin Shah Eventually Sunny Deol discovers his hatred for the terrorists and discovers that Jackie Shroff is part of them Or is he?Sunny Deol makes an angry cop and this type of roles suit him Naseeruddin Shah is a pleasure to watch and does make a good innocent villager Jackie Shroff has a small role Amrish Puri is menacing and makes a balancing villain Anupam Kher is good Sharat Saxsena is usual.
Typical 80s action film.
Rajiv Rai after YUDH in 1985 returned with TRIDEV(1989) which was a typical 80s action film The film moves at a decent pace with stunts, music and comedy The story is done to death but handled wellThe film starts off well and keeps your interest alive, there are several overdone scenes perhaps which 80s boasted of and several masala ingredients The film started the speciality of all RR films, long list of henchmen and goons Direction by Rajiv Rai was good, Music was a superhit by Kalyanji Ananji, with OYE OYE topping the charts sung well by Amit Kumar Other songs were good too especially GALI GALI Action scenes were as usual Sunny Deol was going through a roughphase those days before GHAYAL though this film and CHAALBAAZ did well in 89 yet he was labelled a non actor and didn't shout how he did today In his role he is average but in one scene when he is tied to a bed he is expressionless Naseeruddin Shah excels and the role brought him fame showing his versatility Jackie Shroff in a smaller role did well Amrish Puri excels as Bhujang, though a done to death role for him Anupam Kher though looking young to play Jackie's dad still did a good job The heroines which include Madhuri, Sangeeta Bhijlani didn't get much scope Amongst rest Sharat Saxena is as usual, Shekhar Suman is okay |
tt0323642 | Piglet's Big Movie | Eeyore, Rabbit, Tigger, and Pooh are working on a plan to get honey from a beehive. Piglet wants to help, but his friends tell him that he is too small. When the plan goes awry, Piglet saves the day by trapping the bees in a decoy hive; but nobody notices what Piglet has done. Feeling ignored and unappreciated, Piglet sadly wanders away.
Piglet's friends realize that he is missing, so they search for him by using a scrapbook Piglet has made of their past adventures as a guide. On the way to Kanga's house, they reminisce about when Kanga and Roo arrived in the Hundred Acre Wood. Everyone is afraid of the newcomers and Rabbit concocts a plan to use Piglet as a decoy so they could kidnap Roo. Kanga pretends to believe that Piglet is Roo and gives him a dose of fish oil and a bath. She gives him a cookie afterwards and Piglet realizes that she is actually very nice. Roo and Rabbit have become friends and everyone agrees that Kanga and Roo should stay.
Back in the present, Roo joins the search party and they head to the next destination in the scrapbook: the North Pole. They remember the story of the expedition to find the Pole. Partway through the expedition, Roo falls into the river. Tigger, Rabbit and Eeyore try to save him but to no avail. Piglet uses a very long stick to catapult Roo out of the river and hands it off to Pooh as he runs to try and catch Roo. Christopher Robin arrives on the scene, sees Pooh holding the stick, and declares that Pooh has discovered the North Pole; Piglet's role in both Roo's rescue and the Pole's discovery went unacknowledged.
Back in the present, Piglet's friends express their regrets for not celebrating Piglet's heroism. They become increasingly worried as a storm rolls in; to reassure Roo, Eeyore and Pooh tell him about the time Piglet built a house for Eeyore. Piglet has pointed out to Pooh that Eeyore did not have a house to keep him warm. Pooh decides that they should build Eeyore a house on that very spot, which he names "Pooh Corner." Pooh briefly considers calling it "Pooh and Piglet Corner" before deciding that "Pooh Corner" sounds nicer. Tigger joins Pooh in trying to build the house while Piglet struggles to keep up; eventually, Pooh and Tigger give up. Then they learn that Eeyore has already built himself a house out of sticks, though it has gone missing. Pooh and Tigger realize that they are using Eeyore's old house to build Eeyore's new house. As they struggle to explain, Piglet arrives and leads them back to Eeyore's newly completed house. Once again, Piglet's contributions are overlooked as the wind gets the credit for moving Eeyore's house.
As the rain begins to fall, Tigger wants to skip to the end of the book to find where Piglet is, but Rabbit insists that they go through it in order; they begin fighting over the book, which falls in the river. The friends sadly return to Piglet's house to keep Roo from catching a cold. They draw new pictures of Piglet, then set out to look for him again. They find the scrapbook bindings, suspended on a hollow log, overhanging a raging waterfall; Pooh goes to retrieve it, but falls into a hole in the log.
Pooh's friends form themselves into a rescue rope, but it is not quite long enough and Pooh is stuck hanging precariously over the waterfall. Piglet appears and pulls Pooh to safety, but the log begins to break, which knocks Piglet's scrapbook into the river below. Rabbit, Eeyore, Tigger, and Roo all make it to solid ground, just in time to see half of the log plummet to the water below. Tigger, Rabbit, Roo and Eeyore begin to cry and almost fail to notice Pooh and Piglet emerging from inside of the other half of the log. Piglet's friends take him home and show him the drawings they have made of him, demonstrating their appreciation for everything Piglet has done. They have a party and Pooh shows Piglet the new sign for the renamed "Pooh and Piglet Corner." | cute, entertaining | train | wikipedia | This movie has captivated not only my almost three-year-old's attention, but the hearts of our entire family!
This movie is sweet, charming, and chock-full of reminders of how we should value and treat our precious friendships!
Being the "tiny voice" in the group, Piglet and his kindnesses are often overlooked, leaving him feeling alone and insignificant...how many of us can relate to that, especially our children?!
I know my children have thought twice about how they are treating their friends after having seen this movie!
Songs include, "A Few Good Friends", "A Mother's Intuition", and Simon's own, softer version of Pooh's theme song.Don't miss this delightfully enchanting film...you'll be "singing" its praises too!!.
Sweet children's movie.
Piglet's Big Movie is a sweet children's movie, though I don't think it is as good as the Tigger Movie.
There are flaws with the movie, the characters due to the voice actors changing have drastically changed, Rabbit especially.
The plot is a little unfocused, it is nice that adorable Piglet has his own movie, but only the last quarter of or so of the film was dedicated completely to Piglet, there were parts when it was suggestive of an extended TV episode.
However, the voice acting is very good, Jim Cummings is marvellous as Tigger and Pooh, and John Fiedler voices Piglet beautifully.
The art work, while not as good as the animation in the Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh, is still decent, and the songs by Carly Simon, especially the stirring Sing Ho For the Life of the Bear are surprisingly memorable.
7/10 Bethany Cox. A fantastic Disney film and the best of the Pooh Bear series..
It's a wonderful film for children and adults bringing together all the various Winnie the Pooh stories.
Piglet's Big Movie gives you insight into many of the Pooh Bear characters.
Having seen this film, I find that reading the Pooh Bear stories is more interesting.
You can sing along with many of the songs (and learn them if you let the subtitles run with the film).
We keep coming back to this film because it has the most entertaining elements for the Pooh series.
The film pulls together all the elements of Winnie the Pooh.
Our 9-year-old got very sad at the middle and near the end of the movie.
My son especially liked it when Pooh changed the end of the "House at Pooh Corner" story..
Disney is certainly guilty of releasing a long string of disappointing, soulless, superficial animated features, e.g., The Lion King.
However, Piglet's Big Movie has soul, and is extremely well-crafted.
I'm 43, and I enjoy this movie just as much as my five year old daughter.
The flashback sequences work well for me, particularly since I read the original Milne books to my daughter, the source material for these flashbacks.This movie is much better than other Disney attempts at Pooh I've seen, such as the Tigger movie from a few years ago.
In Piglet's Big Movie, the key elements of the soundtrack are from Carly Simon (New York), and the animation was crafted in Japan.I don't quite understand why this movie receives such poor reviews in IMDb. Perhaps viewers have been fed so much garbage from Disney for so long that, like sugar and high fructose corn syrup, viewers' tastes have become dulled and swollen to the point that craftsmanship is no longer appreciated, nor can viewers appreciate an elegantly executed, yet simple storyline.
I'd like to blame Disney for just "giving its audience what it wants", but then, this is a democracy, and ultimately, the people decide where quality lies..
Any review looking at this movie as anything short of entertainment for kids is missing the point.
There were laughs, but mostly this was a very good movie to make people and kids realize value and worth.
As always Disney manages to end with a great deal of the realization of friends and family being important.
It isn't the most stimulating of all movies (i.e. Shrek, Monsters, Inc) but it's for the kids, not the adults..
Our children are four (boy) and two (girl) and have only seen two other Pooh movies.
Piglet's Big Movie is...
Trying to prove that he really can be helpful, Piglet goes missing in the Hundred Acre Wood, which prompts his friends to go look for him.
The first highlight of this film is that we get to see many of the A.A. Milne stories (Kanga and Roo Come to the Wood, Pooh Corner, and the North Pole) when the characters remember Piglet, although they have been slightly altered in Piglet's favor, which is fine.The second highlight is that the movie itself is made beautifully.
You really feel the emotion that the characters go through, which is strange for an animated film.
It is not cheesy or forced - it is simply sweet.But I must give you warning: as soon as Tigger and Rabbit lose the scrapbook, tears will be shed - and they won't stop until the movie ends.
But that's okay, because we could always use a good cry.This is by far the BEST animated Disney film ever, and the greatest animated movie period.
Seeing as Winnie The Pooh is one of Disney's most recognisable and popular characters, I guess it didn't take them long to realise that multiple sequels, each one focused on a different character, would be a sure-fire money-maker.
Thus, we have "Piglet's Big Movie" for any fans of the diminutive pink pig.Essentially three short stories, "Piglet's Big Movie" is the tale of the smallest resident of the Hundred Acre Wood - Piglet (voiced by John Fiedler).
When he disappears, it's up to Winnie the Pooh (Jim Cummings, who also voices Tigger) and the rest of the gang to go looking for him.
Yep, this is as sugary and as sweet as they come - all the Christmas cake in the world won't get near to this.Despite some venomous remarks from Disney purists, this is actually a very traditional picture.
A shame that they couldn't quite get the voices right - they sound like impressions of the original films back in the Sixties (which, of course, they actually are).
This is lazy film-making, a bland and unexciting outing for some much loved characters.
I just hope they can work wonders with Eeyore's movie because everyone knows that Eeyore is the best....
"Piglet's Big Movie" seems to be another Disney sequel treated with total disrespect and disregard, only this time, it's not straight to video - it's in the theaters.
Tigger had his own movie a few years ago (which was a joyful movie filled with a fair amount of humor), so with the success of that film Disney has decided to target a brand new film specifically at Piglet fans, though fans of the classic Piglet may be disappointed, as the new voice of Piglet sounds wholly different, and his size has decreased significantly (he used to be about half the size of Winnie the Pooh, now he's about the size of Pooh's paw).I've personally always hated Piglet.
Pooh's had his own children's book series, his own short films from the mid-sixties, a cartoon series in the nineties, and a complete franchise built upon him.
Tigger is the most widely-loved character from the series (and I agree), and so he has had his own movie and is featured in many merchandise tie-ins.
Quite honestly, many people favor Eeyore over Piglet, and so the next film will probably be "Eeyore's Big Adventure" or something.
The question is whether we need films based soley upon characters who were never meant to be totally expanded upon in the first place."Piglet's Big Movie" starts off in the Hundred Acre Wood.
Winnie the Pooh (voice of Jim Cummings), Tigger (also Cummings), et al, are working on something and exclude Piglet because he is too small.
It is then that the gang reflect on many different adventures they had in which Piglet paid major parts of (although Piglet's feats in "Pooh's Grand Adventure: The Search for Christopher Robin" are left unexplored, as that would be ripping off an audience even more than they already are being ripped off).I realize "Piglet's Big Movie" is for children, and in that respect I don't blame Disney for making it.
Second, I know that there are a lot of Piglet fans out there (mainly women) who absolutely adore the character, who wear pirated shirts with irons of Piglet stained on them, and by making this crap they're hurting their chances at respect from big-time fans.There isn't any wonder in this film, there isn't anything fresh, to say it is a film entirely about Piglet and his Big Movie is lying.
This is a rip-off cash-in that Disney has crafted just to make some extra cash through Piglet fans.
Midway through this cartoon adventure, a seven-year-old I was watching the movie with said, "This is stupid." She then advised a friend, "Whatever you do, don't buy 'Piglet's Big Movie,' it's stupid." If a seven-year-old has enough cinematic taste to realize "Piglet's Big Movie" is a rip-off, Disney may have to remarket their strategy - kids aren't as stupid and devoid of cinematic taste, it seems, as they think.2/5 stars -John Ulmer.
I saw the Disney's animated pooh stories as a child.
Now I am old enough to have my own kids (I'm 24) and I'm so glad Disney has continued to make such lovely kiddy movies.
There's really nothing to dislike when it comes to choosing something sweet, innocent and good for children.the song are fun.However!
As this movie is not really a movie at all but a series of short stories revolving around piglet.
And little kids again won't CARE about movie quality animation.
This is made for CHILDREN and not adults like so many movies are nowadays.
Not much to say, above that it is a childrens movie and for a time brings ones mind off the ugliness that most other movies present - when seen as an adult :-).My thumps up comes forth as my girlfriend dropped a few tears watching Pooh and the gang make drawings of Piglet and remembering him as a good friend..
I took a 5 year old to this and she liked the songs, she said but she wiggled and squirmed the whole time because the film drags along going over former tales about the friends of piglet.
Previous comments have already covered that this movie basically recycles old Winnie The Pooh stories (including the original book) - the little kids may not care but don't the authors owe more to the fans of the series and actually produce a decent screenplay?
They were cute but rather intelligent.This movie borders on the sadistic at times - such as the scene where Kanga puts Piglet through the ordeal of giving him a bath, while perfectly knowing that he is Roo. Now, I realize that this is yet another recycled story but the way it is handled resembles something from the Animaniacs.
The writers basically said 'let's make something that'll make the kiddies laugh before they are old enough to realize it is not funny.' There is no sensitivity or creativity shown whatsoever.My advice to parents - buy Milne's book or, if you are desperately looking for a rental, get your kid a Miyazaki..
A big disappointment for both kids and adults alike.
I bought this movie on DVD as a present for my 3 year old nephew.
This movie just regurgitates all the old Pooh stories and is not really about Piglet at all.
What a total waste of time and a complete rip off by Disney.
If you want to see an animated feature that is entertaining for kids and adults then see Finding Nemo, Monsters Inc or Shrek instead.
This is a great children's movie.
When you think of Disney you think of children's movies and children's cartoons.
Piglets Big Movie is for a child.
My brothers and sisters enjoyed it and after watching the movie myself I have to say the movie was exactly like a children's movie should be.
There was no cussing no violence it was like any other Winnie the pooh movie, and who can say poohs silly ways are ever dull and boring.
I know I always get in at least ten laughs with each Winnie the pooh movie which is saying something when it is a children's movie.
This movie is a must see for younger children, and I guess anyone who doesn't have a problem with realizing that most Disney movies are stories made for young children.
It's great that Piglet has his own movie but....
'Piglet's Big Movie' could have been much better.
While watching it, it felt as though one was watching a straight to video Disney film.
Piglet being the littlest one in the group and often ignored, the characters walk down memory lane while as they reminisce their little friend while searching for him.
The songs have beautiful lyrics but most of them are poorly sung except for the one beautifully sung by Carly Simon herself which is one of the highlights of the movie.
'Piglet's Big Movie' may have its flaws but it's far from Disney's worst.
Overall, I'm still glad that Piglet got his own movie..
Tired of always been overlooked and unappreciated by his friends due to his size and quiet manner, Piglet goes missing without letting anyone know.
On the way they begin to realise that Piglet is much more important than they gave him credit for.With so much of children's animated films being aimed at both children and adults these days, I didn't feel I was out of place sitting down to watch the Piglet movie - surely it will have something to offer me I reasoned.
Sadly this is old school animation in so many ways and was a severe disappointment to me - even at less than 80 minutes I was struggling not to stop the video (and the toddlers who it had been rented for had long since given up on it).I didn't expect it to be full of sharp wit aimed at adults but I was prepared for just how simplistic the whole affair would be.
The songs are all good example of how the film was - they are all bland and old fashioned.
Piglet's internal hurt could have been explored better but in the end it is just resolved and accepted all too easily.Overall I am struggling to find anything good to say about this film.
I do like the Pooh characters and it is sad to see them being presented like this..
here, nothing needs to be removed(and why should it-at 75 minutes long?) My review statement is this is a fine movie to watch, but not numerous times or the viewing experience will die out..
For anyone who has seen a previous Winnie the Pooh cartoon this will be a disappointing movie.
The characters are presented in a callous manner in regard to each other and especially Piglet.
Rabbit is as close to a villian as portrayed in any Disney movie.
And a scene near the end left one of my kids crying well after the movie because she thought that Pooh and Piglet had been hurt.
The barest redemptive value would be the series of scenes where the characters are making drawing for Piglet and the scenes come to life.
This film is great just like the others.
I nearly cried when Pooh lost Piglet's scrap-book.
This film is cute just like all the others and I have a friend who thinks Pooh cares more about his honey than his friends, which this movie prooves is false.Piglet feels left out because of his size and runs away.
Pooh, Tigger, Eeyore, Roo and Rabbit are concerned and look for him using his scrap book.
Along the way they learn that Piglet is a big part in their lives and that they took advantage of him.
In the end Pooh is almost killed, but Piglet saves him.
This film is good and is underrated just like all the Pooh films!Plus, Carly Simon ain't half bad at singing the songs.POOH ROCKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.
Piglets big movie is the best movie I've seen, nd I'm 15!
it is an emotional film about friendship, if only we all had friends like them!
Piglets big movie shows that no matter how small you are you are big in peoples lives and that meant something to me as I'm short!
it made me see that no matter how much you think no one needs you, at least one person needs you and would do anything to make sure you are ok1 i was so thankful for my friends after i saw this film!!.
Although it starts out slow in the beginning, it gets interesting after the part where Pooh and the others lose their map for finding Piglet after he goes missing.
This movie makes you realize how much you love your friends, and had me in absolute tears by the end.
Mystery, friendship, music, drama, Winnie the Pooh, this movie's got it all!.
I don't normally give 1 as a score, especially to a Winnie the Pooh movie.
Obviously, no one who was writing or editing has ever seen The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh, which is the release of the three main vignettes created by Disney himself with his original artists, etc.
Never buying this movie and maybe even sending mail to Disney to let them know fans of Pooh weren't napping on this one. |
tt4019560 | Exposed | A police detective investigates the circumstances behind his partner's death. The mysterious case leads to an attempted police cover-up and a dangerous secret involving an unlikely young woman. The two parallel story lines initially appear to have little in common, but as events gradually unfold in the two separate urban worlds, the young woman appears to somehow be involved in the detective's demise.
The dead cop was depraved and corrupt. His colleagues fear that the investigation into his death will bring these facts to light. The results would include bad press for the police department and the loss of his pension for his family. The fear is based on the fact that one of the prime suspects in the case is a young ex-convict who had allegedly been sexually molested with a broomstick wielded by Detective Cullen. Supervisors within the precinct would rather let the murderer go free than to open up a Pandora's Box of troubles for everyone concerned.
Meanwhile in Isabel's private world, she believes that the strange beings she has begun seeing on the streets are angels. Accordingly, she thinks that her mysterious "impossible" pregnancy is a gift from God. Strangely, however, nobody in her family believes her. Surprisingly, they are eventually proven to be correct.
Isabel's "angels" are a fabrication of her own mind. She created them to accompany a fictional narrative that would replace the unbearably traumatic memories of being raped by Detective Cullen on the subway platform the night that her "visions" began. She further suppressed the memory of catching him off guard afterwards and killing him in a fit of righteous rage. The buried memories are released in an avalanche of images after a brief stay at her parents' house triggers a sudden recollection of sexual abuse from her father many years ago.
There is a plot device employing the use of a young girl whom Isabel befriends who, it is finally revealed, is almost as imaginary as her "angels". The girl is revealed to be Isabel as a child. She disappears from the pew in the church as Isabel prays for the strength to accept what has happened. | violence, murder | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0097971 | Night Game | A number of young women are found dead on or around the beaches of Galveston and the one thing they all have in common is that they were murdered when Houston Astros ace pitcher Silvio Baretto (an amalgamation of real-life pitchers Bob Knepper and Juan Agosto) pitches and wins a night game at the Astrodome. Additionally, each victim had her throat slashed by some sort of knife or hook.
Scheider plays former minor league baseball player turned Galveston homicide detective Mike Seaver. Seaver is a staunch Astros fan and is the only person on the case who begins to realize the coincidence of the deaths coming after Sil Barretto's night game wins in the Dome.
After 95 minutes of sleuthing, Seaver ultimately realizes that the murderer is a disgruntled former Astros pitcher named Floyd Epps. Epps had lost his pitching hand in a minor league bus accident and now wears a hook. He personally, if illogically, blames Sil Baretto for his misfortune and decides that his murders on the same night as Baretto's wins will steal the headlines from his former teammate.
The penultimate scene features Seaver shooting and killing Epps at a Galveston beach front restaurant. Epps has been attempting to murder Seaver's fiancee, Roxy, but the swings of his hook prove to be as wild as his mental state, and he fails. The final scene of the film features Sil Barretto walking off the mound before the start of a game in the Astrodome to lead the entire stadium in a standing ovation for the newly married Seaver and Roxy who are standing behind the dugout. | revenge, murder | train | wikipedia | Before "Silence of the Lambs" and "Seven.
. this what the serial killer movie looked like.
The plot is leaky to say the least: someone would have picked up on the fact that the murders only occur when the local team plays, and when a certain player scores.
The fact that he kills with a hook would get out, and someone would immediately remember a disaffected loner with a hook for a hand.
FBI Behavioural Sciences would solve this in a day.The director seems immensely impressed with the fact he's filming in Texas, far from the gaze of Studio execs, and packs in endless loving aerial vistas.
His visual style is stuck in TV Movie Lite, and along with the soundtrack could have originated from anytime since 1972.
Only the clothes and hairstyles suggest its 80's dating, and even those seem stuck in a timewarp from 1985 rather than 1989.Roy Scheider looks embarrassed, Karen Young flashes her breasts in the first 10 minutes.
Subplots about Scheider's character's father's links to organised crime and tension with his girlfriend's mother (who he dated in High School) detract from the story and go unresolved.
One face to watch out for: the blonde victim in the Hall of Mirrors is played by Renee O'Connor, Xena's sidekick Gabrielle.
I only watched the rest of the film because I thought I recognised her face and wanted to check the credits!.
Baseball & Murder in Houston Texas.
****SPOILERS**** Towards the end of the movie "Night Game" Houston Astro pitcher Sil Daretto, Alex Garcia, walks off the pitchers mound as the game is about to start and to the surprise and astonishment of all those on the baseball field and in the stands walks over to newlyweds Mike & Roxy Sever, Roy Scheider & Karen Young.
Daretto congratulates them on their wedding and sincerely tells Mike & Roxy to enjoy the game, the nightmare was at last over for all of them.A number of young women were found dead in and around the beaches of Houston and Galveston and the one thing they all had in common is that they were murdered when Houston Astro ace pitcher Sil Daretto pitched and won a night game at the Astro-Dome.
They also they had their throats slashed by some hook that the killer used.
The movie "Night Game" mixes baseball with murder in this very unusual story about a disgruntled former Houston Astro player Floyd Epps, Rex Linn, who was cut by the team to make room for Daretto and on top of all that lost his pitching hand in a bus accident as he was leaving.
Epps wants to upstage Daretto when ever he wins a ballgame by committing a murder that same night and getting the headline for his crime over Daretto victory.
It's Epps' insane way of getting even for what he holds Daretto responsible for; the loss of his job being a pitcher for the Astros and his left hand.
Roy Scheider sleep-walks through his role as a former baseball player now Galveston policemen and the movie is better then the average made for TV movie even though it isn't but should have been one.
The ending was a bit ridicules with Epps chasing Roxy all over the catwalk outside a waterfront restaurant with Roxy not having the sense to get inside and thus not getting trapped by the insane hooked killer.
In fact Roxy actually ran outside the eatery as she saw Epps and easily got trapped by him.
Mike came to Roxy's rescue in just the nick of time with Rex hook and all getting dumped in the ocean below after taking a number slugs from Mike's revolver.Dopey but watchable film that was a bit too unbelievable not in the fact that Epps was a crazed former baseball player who felt that he got a raw deal from life and wanted to rectify it in his own crazy way.
As you would have expected the local police as well as the Texas justice department were so slow and incompetent in realizing who Epps was when the evidence was right in front of them, the man the hook and the motive, but were just too blind to see it..
A passable time waster..
Roy Scheider plays Mike Seaver, a Texas police detective (and former ballplayer) who picks up the trail of a serial killer in this very pedestrian thriller.
The hook here is that the killers' attacks are tied in to night games at the Houston Astrodome.
Roy's impending marriage to the much younger Roxy (Karen Young) forms a subplot, as does Roy's vendetta against a fellow detective, Broussard (Paul Gleason) whom he believes to be corrupt.A rock solid cast does the best that it can with this routine script by Spencer Eastman and Anthony Palmer.
(Palmer also plays the supporting role of Mendoza.) Peter Masterson is a good director, and the movie isn't incompetently made, but it's of no real distinction.
It's pretty predictable, although it might hold the attention of some viewers because of its brutal murders, location filming, and fine performances.
It's gorgeously shot by Fred Murphy, and the score by Pino Donaggio is okay but it's definitely not as memorable as the scores he composed for features such as "Carrie", "Piranha", "Dressed to Kill", and "The Howling".
Pacing is mostly decent, but the movie is just not that exciting, even in its final act when Seaver realizes who the killer is and races to prevent them from committing another murder.Scheider is fine as always in the lead, even not having that much to work with.
Young is radiant and appealing as his love interest.
Gleason is amusing in one of his typical jerk roles, and Richard Bradford glowers and rants adequately as Scheiders' commanding officer.
Lane Smith is rather wasted as a government man named Witty.
Carlin Glynn (Mastersons' wife) plays Scheiders' domineering future mother-in-law; Rex Linn of 'CSI: Miami' makes one of his earliest feature film appearances.This is watchable enough but completely forgettable once it's over.Five out of 10..
A Foul Ball Of An Actor And Foul Movie.
I wondered if anyone could come along in the '80s and be more verbally blasphemous than Brian Dennehy.
He seemed to be the "Babe Ruth" of using the Lord's name in vain.
However, in this movie, Richard Bradford stepped up to the plate and becomes Barry Bonds!
Bradford must have set the record for the most usages of the Lord's name in vain by a policeman in a Hollywood film, as well as being in the Top Ten for any role at any time.
He was so ridiculous that I watched this with a TV Guardian the second time and four of his profane tirades skipped by the machine in less than seven minutes.
Most of what he said, sentence after sentence, had to be edited.
What a classy guy!
Too bad, because I enjoy films with sports angles, particularly baseball.
It wasn't just Bradford's mouth, however, that turned me off.
This entire film had Class B dialog throughout it, along with sub-par directing.One reviewer here might have said it better than anyone with the comment, "If you liked I Know What You Did Last Summer, I Still Know What You Did Last Summer, and Candyman, go ahead and rent this from your local video store."Well, that's some testimony.
I didn't like those pieces of crap, either, and so this aptly belongs with them.Who needs rain??
This "night game" should have been called in bottom of the first inning on the count of incompetence..
Double D - Dreadful Directing!.
The main drawcard is the exciting actor, Roy Scheider.
Sadly, he can't carry such a deadweight on his own.
The script was absolutely awful and the directing dreadful.
The story was slow and the fight scene at the end was like a children's recital.
That's not the fault of the actors as I blame that on the director.
I like to know who finances these type of films.
Too much money and not knowing what to do with it must be the diagnosis.
On one interesting note is Karen Young.
Does she remind you of Shirley MacLaine or what?.
Baseball has-been kills young women.
This is a classic, in which a serial killer preys on young women, in which they are connected to home games played by the Houston Astros.
The story might be mediocre, but fits the detective/murder mystery/serial killer genre.
If you liked I Know What You Did Last Summer, I Still Know What You Did Last Summer, and Candyman, go ahead and rent this from your local video store..
What is the connection between baseball and murder?.
Roy Scheider plays a Galveston, Texas police detective trying to catch a serial killer.
It seems when a popular Houston Astro pitches a winning night game, a beautiful blonde winds up dead near the beach.
This crime drama also stars Richard Bradford, Paul Gleason, Karen Young, Lane Smith and Rex Linn.
This movie quickly becomes predictable, but keeps your interest to the end..
Solid premise, poor execution (ha!).
My endless search for baseball movies led me to a beat-up VHS copy of NIGHT GAME purchased off Amazon for 1¢.
A serial killer flick with a baseball connection?
This I had to see.The plot, or at least the motive of the killer, was intriguingly unique: a reliever cut from the team exacts revenge by using his hook (which replaced his throwing hand lost in a bus accident that occurred when he was going back to Triple-A) to slash blonde women who resemble his replacement's new wife, striking when the new star pitcher posts a win.
Cool, right?
Like the movie BLINK, this killer's motive is unlikely but plausible; it could have made a decent movie (like BLINK).But NIGHT GAME --um, don't want to go there...but..okay -- strikes out with poor directing, most notably in the complete lack of suspense during the stalk sequences.
This is one of those movies where the female victims do nothing to defend themselves, actually putting themselves in unnecessary danger.
The worst offender is the last victim.
Question for the ladies: If you were being followed by a creepy truck in the middle of the night, would you run into a construction site, up the stairs, with your shoes off?
Suppose you would; after stepping on a nail, would you cower on the edge of the floor begging for mercy, or pick up a 2x4 and defend yourself?
One other attack doesn't make much sense either.
Two young ladies are murdered inside a carnival's house of mirrors.
Now, wouldn't you think somebody would notice a guy with a hook for a hand enter/exit the attraction?
With a serial killer on the loose who already killed an employee of the carnival, security would be stepped up just a bit, don'tcha think?
One expects these lapses in a Jason flick, not a supposedly serious movie starring the man who killed Jaws.
These scenes (actually, every scene in the movie) are directed with the minimum amount of energy required, and so forty minutes into the movie you're wondering how much longer 'til the end.There's not enough bloodshed here to satisfy the gore crowd, only one gratuitous boob shot to please those looking for gratuitous boob shots, and not enough actual baseball intertwined with the plot to make those like me recommend it on those grounds.
In fact, the only things I got out of this movie are some shots of the Astrodome and some movie-geek trivia: here's a movie with actors from Jaws 1-2 (Scheider) and 4 (Karen Young I think her name is, possessor of aforementioned boob).
Too bad Dennis Quaid or Lea Thompson didn't make an appearance..
Roy Schieder disco dances.......
There is no real plot to this slice of Eighties cheese.Man with a hook, goes around after a baseball game and points at girls really hard, forcing their necks to open up and for them to fall over.Roy plays a rugged cop, who shouts at people and wears cool shades.
You know he is trouble because of the way he has a swagger at dead people photographs, and argues with Dwayne from Die Hard.There are random sub-plots involving Schieders fiancée and her mother (whom he both dated) and something to do with the bloke from the new adventures of superman.It should be awful, it really should, but thanks to the unnecessary sexy soundtrack, and the fact that Schieder busts a move, it's watchable only for the fact that it's so funny and predictable.In some ways it reminded me of The Hero And The Terror, and the fact that the killers victims decide to stand there and scream, rather than run, or in the funniest scene, leave a nightclub full of people where it is safe, when you are being followed by a man with a hook hand, who looks really unstable.Schider is watchable as ever, and saves the film from its averageness.It's not for everyones taste, and i'm sure i'll never watch it again, but it was okay for a late eighties thriller. |
tt2334896 | The Dirties | The film opens with the main characters, Matt and Owen, making a movie about a gang of bullies and the revenge that two victimized students take on them. This project, “The Dirties”, contains references to a score of other movies such as Being John Malkovich, Pulp Fiction, and The Usual Suspects. Matt is shown being bullied.
Afterwards, Matt asks some members of the student body, as well as faculty about what someone should do if they are getting bullied. The students see that getting help is much more difficult than the faculty members perceive it to be. Matt and Owen are then shown editing clips together for their film, during the course of which it is revealed that a popular girl, Chrissy, had a crush on Owen in grade three. Matt and Owen shoot more scenes for their film project, and Matt has Owen attempt to look cool in front of Chrissy to see if she still likes him.
After finishing filming, the rough cut of the project is brought to the film teacher, Mr. Muldoon. The movie is revealed to contain Matt and Owen shooting and killing other students, as well as their teacher, in addition to containing a large amount of expletives. Muldoon demands the film be changed.
The edited version of the film is shown in class, and Matt leaves the room in humiliation, while Owen puts his head down while the rest of the class talks and laughs through the entire movie. On their walk home from school, Owen has a rock thrown at his head. As Owen is icing his head back at Matt’s, Matt suggests that the movie would have been better if the two had actually shot the Dirties within their movie with real guns.
Matt erases the script for The Dirties from his whiteboard, and proceeds to begin working on The Dirties II. Owen begins to practice the guitar more in attempts to win over Chrissy, and the boys are shown being bullied some more. Matt then acquires blueprints of his high school from the library for the school project he told them he was doing, which Matt points out was concerningly easy to do, and that his school ID was never even checked. Owen is then shown having a lunch dumped on him and being slapped across the face by another student.
The boys go out at night and create a bonfire, where they reflect on being bullied. Matt measures the lockers and takes photos, which Owen sees as suspicious. Matt says that it is entirely inconspicuous, and goes as far to tell Chrissy that they were planning a school shooting and gets Chrissy’s number for Owen. Owen calls Chrissy and says he is at a party, at Matt’s suggestion. The two go to a cottage and fire guns together with Matt's cousin, shooting targets consisting of milk jugs, melons, and a propane tank bomb. They bake a cake for Chrissy, and Matt gets upset with Owen for sharing it with the Dirties.
Matt is seen reading Columbine, and checks out six copies of Catcher in the Rye “to seem crazy.” Owen gets concerned that Matt’s basement has plans and pictures of people he plans to shoot in the movie. Owen tells Matt that he is “always acting” and that he is not always in a movie.
Matt self-diagnoses himself as a psychopath, which he glorifies as he reads Columbine. Owen, having had enough of Matt's attitude, berates him for "talking big" and not doing anything, leading to an argument between the two. Matt indignantly responds that Chrissy doesn't care about him and that she exists in Owen's life because of "his plans", but Owen takes a firm stand and asserts that Matt is jealous of Chrissy because he has no other friends. Owen then takes off his wireless mic and leaves, much to the dismay of Matt.
Matt has a conversation with his mother where he asks if she thinks he is crazy. His mom says that crazy technically means that someone loses their ability to tell their thoughts from reality and the real world. Matt goes, alone, to the place where he and Owen had the bonfire and burns all of his notebooks. Owen tries calling Matt, who ignores it. Matt goes to the school with a duffel bag full of his cousins firearms entering through a stairwell. He then sets up cameras, shoots Josh and Jackman, and chases Owen. Matt enters a dark classroom where Owen is cornered trying to open a locked door, Matt simply asks, “What are you doing? It’s me!” | comedy, cruelty, murder, violence, humor, revenge, sadist, prank | train | wikipedia | The Dirties premiered in Park City Utah this year, and it was clear from the beginning that it was one of the best films at either Sundance or Slamdance.This film is quite possibly the most real and engaging exploration of what it means to be bullied and what it can drive people to.
Part of the high rating (by my standards) is the fact that the flick's as self-made as self-made gets, being produced and acted by basically the same guys (which is something I often dig).The movie throws the viewer directly into its documentary-styled collage of at first glance seemingly random scenes featuring two best friends during their high school time.
While "Two best friends are filming a comedy about getting revenge on the bullies at their high school.
I was relieved that the ending's at least consequent, finishing the movie in a satisfying way nonetheless.I like the concept of the movie and mostly like the execution, and I like being able to say that it's a film worthy of watching with high schoolers, since it provides a lot of stuff to discuss about things that are important to know and realize for each and everyone out there..
Director Kevin Smith, who released The Dirties through his self-proclaimed "movie club," has called the film "the most important movie you will see all year" and he isn't wrong.
They are making a film project about a lawless gang called "the dirties," which is also the name they give to the school bullies who humiliatingly beat them up and harass them whenever they get the chance.
Matt makes it clear he doesn't want to go after everyone in the school; just those who caused him and his friend untold misery by mocking them when they were nothing but harmless and obeying.First-time director Johnson employs the popular film school tactic that will either captivate or alienate you upon its arrival and it's the shaky camera.
It was the first time he was bullied for being himself, and the pain and torment hasn't ceased since then.Constantly I was reminded of Gus Van Sant's Elephant, a highly-impressionistic film that based itself off of the tragedy at Columbine High School.
At only eighty-minutes, it had the power and impact on me I don't usually get from films two hours or longer.NOTE: The Dirties is now available on various video-on-demand outlets and will receive a DVD release later this year.Starring: Matt Johnson and Owen Williams.
The Dirties follows these kids who are making a short film about two kids going into their school and shooting all of the bullies.
Also to anyone who loves film and wants to get into the industry, you (including me) will find that these characters are extremely relatable which ends up being really scary and makes the movie memorable.The acting is just as if the kids were going through everyday life.
They were probably just playing themselves, so it was pretty interesting.The camera work is in the found footage style, but not in the way that it's annoying, it just feels like you are the camera man documenting them making their short film.The soundtrack has some good songs in it, mostly indie music.The Dirties is an experience.
There's obviously a lot to explore in regards to the people who do it, and this film has an interesting take on it.To start off, it's kind of a different film from other school shooting films like Zero Day or Elephant that have a serious and somber tone throughout.
Two high school best friends, Matt and Owen, decide to make a movie project for class where they pretend to murder the group of boys who routinely harass them.
It's one of the better indie films that I've seen and is certainly worth your time.Matt and Owen are two friends who are in High school together.
There's not as much gruesome violence as one might expect from a film that is essentially about a school shooting, but it is still terrifying, and works better without any blood and gore.While the movie is very dark and disturbing, don't expect the film to be completely void of any entertainment value.
So they decide to make a film about how they take revenge on the bullies - as they call them 'the dirties' - and use as many filmic references as possible.This all seems well and good, only one of them is slightly more serious than the other - cue the mayhem.Well this is a rather well made indie and you can tell a lot of heart and soul has gone into the production.
I felt compelled to watch it a second time because I was wondering what I'd missed that some reviewers obviously hadn't, and after watching it a second time, I realised I hadn't, in fact, missed anything, and the movie was at least as bad the second time around.I'm going to give it a solid 3/10, because there was some fairly decent acting in it but realistically, as a movie, it probably deserves a maximum of 2/10 but I'm feeling generous.I do love reading lengthy reviews from contributors who never reviewed anything before but felt it was their moral duty to write a glowing review for crap movie, although it does bring out the Sherlock in me and makes me wonder how legitimate some of these reviews are.Anyhow, I guess everyone is entitled to an opinion...
The film doesn't indulge in constructing overwhelming terrible world they live in, so other than the odd physical bullying by stock type characters, there is an authenticity to the school, home, and outside world they live in, as well as the films they draw from and inspired by.Also, there are people I knew and know that talk and act that way, albeit annoying to many, so the rendering and dialogue of these characters isn't too far off the mark, especially in terms of film nerds and today's eccentric outcasts and 'beautiful losers'.
Honestly, if it wasn't for sheer curiosity and Owen Williams...I would not have watched this movie to the end, as it is slow and boring in a lot of the parts and considering what the movie is supposed to be about....they don't seem to talk to each other or anyone for that matter about their actual feelings toward themselves being the target of bullies.
You wanna act like that in high school then you are just rolling the dice for crap to happen to you.Maybe the movie got better...
While the escalating bullying does pierce the atmosphere efficiently, feeling like its acting against filmmaking and passion for anything itself, the fact you know it's going to end badly makes it fascinating to watch and confronts the viewer about how they feel on the matter.
Which may work for some genres like documentary, but when your leading actors, directors, cameramen, and editors are the same people, and they are mostly playing themselves, it just screams "shoestring budget".The filmmakers were there after the showing to talk about it with the audience after the film and among some odd things that they said, they kept trying to pass off this aspect of shaky-cam, poor acting, and editing errors aspect as "found footage" or youtube viral video style.
So funny and refreshing, enjoyable to watch, the two main actors especially the lead were genuine and engaging and fun to be with ,The main won has such a great smile and penetrating eyes makes you want to smile along with him,His joy of life comes through and his manner are fun .You feel like you are hanging out with these two guys.I like the idea that they are wanting and living in the now.It is kind of a peace loving Buddha like movieI really like the simplicity and naturalness .Doesn't rely on special effects or the implausibility of most movies.The dialogue and writing were great and natural.
Shooting their own schlock movie, they may have just stumbled upon a genuinely new AND SICK idea, while simultaneously being filmed by a documentary crew..Rather than be mocked for their derivative short films and pushed around by jocks, why don't they take part in a high school shooting and film the whole process? of course, if they only shoot the bullies or 'bad guys', it shouldn't be a problem, should it? Do they mean this literally?I want to come back to my answer that this film works.
A great example of low budget indie filmmaking that succeeds without ever truly taking off, the Kevin Smith supported The Dirties is a sufficient comedy, a love letter to cinema's influence and also a sometimes scarily accurate portrayal on alienation and bullying that can sometimes turn deadly.Written and directed by Matt Johnson and starring Johnson and Owen Williams, The Dirties was clearly a labour of love for the two budding filmmakers and the rawness of their film that moonlights as a real documentary, does often make it feel legitimately like a true life doco even if there's little reason for the cameras to be around at certain stages in the narrative.Johnson and Williams share a great on screen chemistry together and it's obvious their real life affiliation as friends has carried over to The Dirties and their love for film shines through in many of the films scenes.
From classics through to modern contemporary pieces of entertainment spotting the many varied references that are spread throughout the film would be quite the job and it's interesting to contemplate the influence films have on certain people in certain situations and Johnson's character of Matt's increasingly unstable mind is a product of not only films but years of torment at the hands of school yard bullies.The dealings of The Dirties, with its titular group of nasties, is both its blessing and its curse.
There's an important message here of tolerance and acceptance but never once throughout this tale are you wondering where things are going to end up and for a film that has a particularly strong opening act the last stanza (and in particular last scene) of the film's final half hour or so feels a tad underwhelming and certain scenarios feel harder to take such as the "cool" kids sudden acceptance of William's awkward Owen or the fact no one cares to stop Matt from becoming increasingly unhinged.The Dirties is a small film with a big message and while emotionally it doesn't exactly hit a home run, the film turns a fairly generic plot line into something unique and wholly watchable and it will be a great joy as movie fans to see where Johnson and William's next project might take them.3 creepy cousins out of 5.
Filmed on a budget of approximately $10,000, first time filmmaker Matt Johnson and his team simultaneously manage to create a work of art flourishing with film-making energy, while displaying an honest, realistic and chilling portrayal of those who are victimized as a result of bullying.
I've seen a couple of school massacre movies, this one may be the best.I don't know if I prefer Elephant because its more artsy.But in terms of story/character development The Dirties is by far one of the greater movies on the subject.This is the only movie in the genre where I felt like the characters really had a personality, and I knew I would never forget them.Also this is the only movie on the subject that I feels has the strongest message.
That's how this film made me feel.But that's a good thing.It means that this movie is incredibly well written and directed.
The subject of school shootings continues to be a hot button topic in America, and it's with no small bit of irony that a young Canadian filmmaker challenges us to re-examine our preconceived notions about these events in The Dirties, the latest release from Phase 4 Films and The Kevin Smith Movie Club.
Written and directed by Matt Johnson (who also stars), the film follows a pair of high school students working on a project for their film class, a Tarantino-esque revenge tale that sees them portraying a pair of renegade detectives hell-bent on taking out a group of bullies they've dubbed "The Dirties."It quickly becomes evident that Matt and Owen (Owen Williams) are using this assignment as an outlet for their own frustration, an opportunity to live out a fantasy which casts them as the heroes, standing up for the little guys.
How would people react to a film about two kids that have finally decided to stand up for themselves, a pair of teenage vigilantes trying to make the hallways a safer place by taking out every arrogant jock that ever stuffed another kid into a locker or threw a classmate's clothes into the shower during gym class?As Matt's excitement and enthusiasm grows, Owen becomes increasingly suspicious that his pal might be planning to inject his next feature with a startling dose of realism, especially when he takes a trip to the shooting range with his older cousin and spends an afternoon poring over blueprints for the high school, charting where to find each of "The Dirties" at any given hour.
But the boys have known each other forever, and despite a lifetime of being on the wrong end of a bully's fists, Owen knows that Matt wouldn't really hurt anyone
right?Perpetrators of school violence are always cast as ruthless, cold- blooded killers, but with The Dirties, Johnson forces us to look at the other side of the coin, creating relatable, sympathetic characters that are easily recognizable.
Before I get into spoilers, I just want to say please watch this film and also go in without knowing anything about this movie.
As the title of this review states, this film offers viewers a 'real' insight into the mind of a boy mentally pushed to a place the majority of us will thankfully never reach.The initial 5 minutes introduces us to the protagonist, Matthew, who is creating a satirical 'High School Shooting' documentary with his best friend Owen, for a school project.
Matthew Johnson's finest emotive work is realised in the final scene, which is magnificent, yet genuinely disturbing.Owen Williams is a great Co-Star who has fairly limited dialogue, yet manages to play a huge role in the film, flawlessly.
--The Dirties is a good film with some examples of great acting, however, the final 5 minutes could have been drawn out over 10-15 minutes, built upon the suspense that started when Matthew enters the school doors on the final day.
As mentioned above, I feel the final scene came too soon and I was slightly disappointed when the credits appeared.All in all, The Dirties is a very good film, albeit a rushed ending, which can, and will pick up more awards, deservedly so.I look forward to the next Directorial offering from Matthew Johnson and expect to see Owen Williams feature in studio films within the next 3 years.The Dirties - 8/10.
Being too afraid to speak up to someone because you feel like everyone already knows what they're like, just not doing anything about it.The two main characters Matt and Owen are perfect for the role, such an incredible emotion from both characters which makes you feel like you are really a part of it, which is actually something I think they purposely involved in the film.
The fact you never see who's behind the camera, its almost like you're the person with the camera watching the whole time.The ending was the only thing that makes this film 9 stars out of 10 for me, and that's because it doesn't give the viewers closure, and I think in a film like this, closure is needed to show the point of the actual film..
I hope that the writer of this movie is able to get over the bullying that happened to him, believe me when I say I know it sucks, I could especially relate to the scene where the student was antagonizing the main characters from behind during a class, but there is no need to celebrate violence in schools during a time when instances of school violence are increasing at an alarming pace.
Eventually Owen begins to choose the girl over Matt which leads to the stand off at the end of the movie.Overall the movie has it's draw backs but it's genuine in it's attempt to reveal a new side to the school shooting pandemic.
The Dirties writer, director, and lead actor Matt Johnson, takes on the subject of bullying, adds his love of film, and creates one of the most shocking and unsettling films of the year.
Matt and Owen create a video of compilations of scenes from their favorite movies, to show to their film class.
The movie shows a clear insight and the thought processes of a school shoot, the action is phenomenal, I do like a few Kevin Smith movies, however this is one of my favourites, the very strange inception within the film is a wonderful feature, because it gives a feeling of being close with the characters and following their ideas.
The Dirties is gripping, frightening, and devastating, and I would say that if you've been avoiding it like me, it's time to check it out.One of the things that really makes this movie work is the performances.
Their time in high school is complicated, and feels a lot like my own experiences with bullying, friends, and just trying to get through.The mockumentary format is very effective, though there are sections that don't make a ton of sense in terms of where/why a camera man is present.
THE DIRTIES is about two teenagers, Matt and Owen, who are making a comedy film about getting revenge on their school bullies which Matt labels "The Dirties".
There's simply no looking away as Matt finally pulls out the guns and lets all hell break loose.THE DIRTIES starts out like an innocent comedy romp and ends up being a modern classic, a thoughtful exploration of the troubled human psyche that also serves as a scathing commentary on the issues of bullying and school violence, and the things that regular people would normally consider as harmless entertainment. |
tt1092016 | Meu Nome Não É Johnny | The film narrates the true story of João Guilherme Estrella, an upper-middle-class man from the State of Rio de Janeiro that would become the head of the drug traffic in the late 1980s and early 1990s.
João is a young boy from an upper-middle-class family of the city of Niterói, the second wealthiest city in the state of Rio. João demonstrates a knack for entrepreneurship early on in his life, when he delivers papers as a teenager, unusual for an upper-middle-class teen in Brazil. Once his parents get divorced, João begins partying a lot, holding lavish parties in the downstairs of his dad's house. At one of these parties, João meets his love interest, Sofia. The more he parties, the more he begins dealing cocaine, tying back to the entrepreneurship alluded to at the start of the film.
The film shows the glamorous side of drug dealing, with João and Sofia dealing in Europe and spending exorbitant amounts of money.
Eventually, João gets caught and sent to prison and court. He tries to lie his way out of the situation in court, but then takes pity on the woman who would get blamed instead of him and does his time in prison. João's story is received as a tale of rehabilitation, as for now he is a successful musician and music producer. | home movie | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0081229 | Night of the Demon | In England, Professor Harrington (Maurice Denham) visits his rival, Dr. Julian Karswell (Niall MacGinnis). Harrington promises to cancel an investigation of Karswell's involvement in Satanism if Karswell will rescind a threat he has made against Harrington. After learning that a parchment given to Harrington has disintegrated, Karswell glances at the clock and ushers Harrington out, promising to do all that he can. As Harrington drives home, a gigantic demon materialises and pursues him. Losing control of the car, Harrington crashes into an electrical pole and is electrocuted.
Dr. John Holden (Dana Andrews) arrives in England to attend a convention at which Harrington had intended to expose Karswell's cult. Holden is informed of Harrington's death and that the only link between it and Karswell's cult is an accused murderer, Rand Hobart (Brian Wilde), who has fallen into a catatonic stupor. While Harrington's collaborators consider the possibility of supernatural forces, Holden rejects the idea as superstition.
Following Harrington's notes, Holden visits the British Museum's library to examine books on witchcraft. A book Holden requests is discovered to be missing. Karswell offers to show Holden his own copy at his mansion. At Harrington's funeral, Holden meets the dead man's niece, Joanna (Peggy Cummins), who gives him Harrington's diary. It reveals Harrington's increasing fear of Karswell's power. Holden remains sceptical, but goes with Joanna to Karswell's mansion the next day.
There, Holden and Karswell mock each other's beliefs. A very strong windstorm abruptly starts, which Karswell claims to have created with a spell. When Holden continues to mock him, Karswell grows angry and predicts that Holden will die in three days.
Holden and his colleagues discuss Karswell and make plans to further examine Rand Hobart. Harrington's diary mentions the parchment passed to him by Karswell; Holden finds a parchment with runic inscriptions that Karswell secretly passed to him at the library. Powerful winds come through the window, blowing the parchment from his fingers. It nearly burns in the fireplace before Holden rescues and pockets it.
Holden begins to feel more uneasy after a visit to Hobart's family. As Holden leaves, the parchment flies from his hand again. Hobart's family become fearful and declare Holden to be "chosen". Holden compares the parchment's runes to ones inscribed on the nearby stone circle at Stonehenge.
Joanna takes Holden to Karswell's mother (Athene Seyler), who has arranged a séance. The medium channels Harrington, who tells them that Karswell has the key to the problem from his book. That night, Holden breaks into Karswell's mansion to examine the book. He is caught by Karswell, but is permitted to leave. Holden leaves through the woods and is chased by a ball of smoke. On exiting the forest, Holden finds that the phenomenon has vanished. He reports the event to the police, but feels embarrassed.
Mrs. Karswell telephones Joanna, imploring her to tell Holden that Rand Hobart knows the secret of the parchment. While Holden prepares an experiment to break Hobart's stupor, Karswell kidnaps Joanna to prevent her from giving Holden the message.
Under hypnosis, Hobart reveals that he was "chosen" to die by having a parchment with a curse passed to him, but avoided death by passing it along to another person. When Holden shows Hobart the parchment he received from Karswell, Hobart goes berserk and throws himself from a window to his death.
Informed that Karswell is leaving London by train, Holden races to catch it. He finds Karswell with Joanna. Karswell avoids any contact with Holden to guard against the parchment being passed back to him and grows increasingly fearful. When the train stops at the next station, Karswell tries to leave, but Holden manages to sneak the parchment into his coat. Karswell becomes frightened when he realises this. When the parchment flies from his hands, he chases it down to the tracks, but the parchment burns up. As an oncoming train approaches, a demon appears above it, seizes Karswell, slashes him, and tosses his body onto the tracks. The station crew find his mangled, smoking corpse and believe that he was struck by the train. | violence, murder, sadist, flashback | train | wikipedia | They find a backwoods woman who had a child with this creature (actually a somewhat interesting subplot) and end up trapped in her house when the Bigfoot finally attacks the hapless campers.Lots of blood.
Night of the Demon boasts some of the most atrocious production values in the scenes with it's human characters - yet this somehow adds to the reality of the sequences featuring Bigfoot - enhancing it in an almost documentary cinema verite sort of way.
Unintentionally hilarious at times, gruesome at others, Night of the Demon even manages to be slightly chilling in some moments.Night of the Demon features all the things that make cheesy horror great: bad acting, slimy gore, gratuitous nudity, and BIGFOOT!
Lots of gore, bad acting, some nudity, a bigfoot/humanoid baby and the low budget makes this an enjoyable viewing treat for all drive-in movie/ bigfoot fans!!
"Legend of Boggy Creek" will always be #1 to this Bigfoot fan, but "Night of the Demon" is the Bigfoot film genre's "weird uncle that nobody likes to talk about".
I swear her screams sounded like she was having an orgasm.Bigfoot grabs another camper, still in his sleeping bag, and twirls him round and round before throwing him into a tree with a broken branch.You might want to watch where you whip it out to relieve yourself.
There's also a bizarre sub-plot involving a disturbed woman, who as a child, was raped by the monster; had his baby and was then forced to kill it by her father!A crazy, gory, cheesy B-movie that is worth at least a rental..
Another film that is something like an urban legend: being banned in countries like Germany or Norway and also very hard to find the reputation of "Night of the Demon" is much more interesting than the movie itself!The story is simple: a professor and some students travel to the dark forests to investigate some cruel murders which were caused by a Bigfoot-like monster that looks like Chewbacca from "Star Wars".
And also people who like priceless trash should check it out, because "Night of the Demon" is well-done for a movie which was shot without any money!
O.o For some reason, this part of the movie feels like you're no longer in the year 1980, but more like the late 1800's- early 1900's...Then Bigfoot comes and rapes Wanda!
The action opens at a hospital,where a bunch of doctors and a cop are talking to this guy with a cloth over his face to cover his hideous injuries.Apparently he's the only survivor of a recent massacre and the cop wants to know what happened.The guy on the hospital bed is a Professor Nugent from the local college and he tells of how he'd got interested in recent reports coming from the mountains-reports of bizarre murders linked with Bigfoot sightings.Intrigued he assembles a search party of willing nubile students to go with him and hunt for this Yeti.They go looking and the bloodbath ensues..."Night of the Demon" was originally banned in the UK,Germany and Norway due to its gore content.Sure,it offers lots of violence and gore including a notorious scene where a motorcyclist gets his penis graphically ripped off while urinating,but some of the murder scenes are downright hilarious.The film does have more than twice as many deaths as your average body-count flick.Overall,"Night of the Demon" is well made with reasonable acting,a competent storyline and an interesting monster.Give it a look..
This movie is surprisingly much more gory than I was expecting, but mixed with at times passable acting and kills that seem to bring more laughter than fear this Bigfoot horror movie falls flat on its back.
It started as a cool bad movie, it was so bad it became funny and had some small gore in it but when i kept watching it became worse every minute and at one point it just wasn't 'that' funny anymore but rather a chore to make it till the end..The gore was the reason i watched the movie and don't get me wrong, i love bad cheesy horror movies, but this was just painfully bad and i was kinda disappointed in the gore there was just to much talk and too little gore.Making long story short: Gore was disappointing and didn't made up for the terrible acting/story/movie..
this old time classic is the most gory an scary big foot movie of them all, professor Nugent and his motley gang are looking in the deep dark woods for the yeti.
Read on.Night of the Demon is about Professor Nugent, who travels to a secluded area of woods accompanied by a couple of his students and friends.
But if you enjoy cheese in your movies, or if you like bigfoot/slasher/gore flicks, I'd say give this baby a look.
In this low budget gore film, there are some significantly gruesome dismemberment and bloodletting - in one scene a motorcyclist has his penis ripped off whilst taking a leak at the roadside.Night of the Demon is practically a slasher film (prevalent in the horror market at the time), in its approach of the infamous myth of the Bigfoot - or Sasquatch.
In the opening a man has his arm ripped off by the monster, the camera zooms onto the stump at the shoulder, the blood pours out, and as the title, Night of the Demon, emblazons the screen, the blood has filled a foot print in the mud of Bigfoot.
This incredible scene has the editing spirit of the shower scene from psycho, and cuts in some very gut churning shots of knife penetration.Night of the Demon does have a few accomplished moments, but the film is generally a very haphazard production, with lamentable narrative drag, and incompetent performances (but it's preposterous to even criticise acting abilities in films like this).
Of course, as you would expect also, from low budget horror, the monster - man in a suit - is stupid, looking like Chewbacca with a shaved face and an afro, and they save that beautiful reveal (sic) for the climax of the film.
Watching Night of the Demon is like attending a horror reunion filled with parts that were 'borrowed' from hkkthe more popular films released from the mid-seventies to when this hit the shelves.
An anthropology professor and his students travel to a wooded, mountainous area where a huge creature has been attacking and killing anyone he can get his hairy, over-sized hands on.The first time I saw Night of the Demon was during the dark days of the 'Video Nasty', on an nth generation bootleg tape that was fuzzier than a drunken caterpillar wearing an Angora sweater.
Still, I was just thankful that the gore was intact (unlike the recent R2 DVD release, which has been cut by 1:41s, and is still crap quality), because without the splatter, this film would be about as much fun as having your Johnson ripped off by a Sasquatch (my advice: go R1 or take advantage of the wonders of modern technology to get your paws on the uncut version).A predictable script chock full of dull dialogue, crappy acting, and shoddy production values make this one hard to endure at times, but regular doses of cheesy, bargain-basement gore certainly help to relieve the boredom: the pre-credits sequence sees a man have his arm torn off; a couple in van are attacked mid-shag (a scene that nicely ticks the gratuitous nudity box in the process); a man in a sleeping bag is impaled on a broken branch; a motorcyclist stops for a pee and has his wedding tackle torn off; a woodsman is given the chop with his own axe; two knife-wielding girl scouts are made to slash each other to death; and one of the students is bashed into a tree, causing him to accidentally blast himself in the head with his shotgun.
We are also treated to a touch of big-foot rape and the resultant birth of a mutated baby!This all brings us very nicely to the film's 'pièce de résistance', a brutal all-out attack by the monster in which all but one of the group are killed (the sole survivor just has his face seared on a red-hot griddle!).
During this protracted wholesale slaughter, the beast throttles a girl to death, pushes one guy's neck onto a broken pane of glass, and slices another's stomach open on a saw before yanking out his guts and swinging them triumphantly through the air.All this trashy graphic violence might not be sophisticated stuff, but it sure is fun, and earns the otherwise dreadful Night of the Demon a reasonable rating of 5.5 out 10 (rounded up to 6 for IMDb)..
I loved the start of the movie, feel liked the first kill in the movie and how they way victim blood fliled the big foot print was really clever, There were some very funny deaths scenes in this that maybe me laugh out loud, some of the scenes do look a little out dated now.
Night of the Demon (1980)** 1/2 (out of 4) I'm not going to lie and try to pass this thing off as some sort of masterpiece but it's certainly one of the all-time campy horror movies.
If you're looking for a well-made, brilliantly acted, heartfelt film that makes you think when it's over then NIGHT OF THE DEMON certainly isn't for you.
He may have a thankless job here of portraying a grunting and snarling beast that yearns for blood but he is very lissome with his movement and he plays the creature very effectively.Night of the Demon is not one of the great horror films of our time.
James C.Wasson's NIGHT OF THE DEMON is a strangely entertaining, even compelling (if it hits you in the right frame of mind) slice of zero-budget horror that certainly delivers the goods if you're looking for mean-spirited, violent thrills and spills.
Indeed, Wasson constructs his bloody tale with something approaching subtlety - given that the opening scene shows a bandaged man lying in a hospital bed being quizzed by the police about some missing students, it won't take a genius to work out that something bad's going to happen (and indeed already has) - and en route to the denouement, Wasson throws us plenty of juicy tidbits including Bigfoot's previous victims, a bizarre backwoods cult, religious mania, inter-species rape and even patricide.
This marvelously tasteless and trashy low-budget horror splatterfest compensates for what it lacks in pacing, acting, writing, direction and basic narrative coherence (the incredibly ramshackle and episodic mess of a story unfolds in an awkward and confusing flashbacks-inside-of-flashbacks elliptical manner) with a terrifically teeming and uninhibited surplus of outrageous nutty touches, hideously graphic gore set pieces, and good old fashioned bottom-of-the-barrel grindhouse exploitation brazenness.A dippy college professor and an entourage of students go trekking into the North American wilderness to confirm local stories about a girl who allegedly got knocked up by Bigfoot and had his half-man, half-beast bastard offspring.
Wasson enthusiastically pours on the nauseatingly explicit grue by the gleeful bucketful: one hapless hick has his arm torn right out of its socket (the stump bleeds over the opening credits!), two libidinous teens doing just what you think in a parked van are rudely disrupted by Bigfoot, who proceeds to paint the van's windshield a saucy red with the amorous guy's blood; two girl scouts accidentally stab each other to death, intestines are yanked out and waved in the air, a man dozing in a sleeping bag gets impaled while hanging upside down on a tree branch, the professor's face gets severely burned up after he's pressed against a hot stove, and, undoubtedly the picture's wince-inducing splatter highlight, an unfortunate biker winds up being brutally castrated (ouch!) after he makes the fatal error of picking the wrong tree to do his business behind.
Expect lots of gust, blood, stabbings, a head crushed, a man stabbed with a broken window, a scene where a couple after having sex is killed off screen (HORRIBLE acting by the woman by the way), and my favorite, a biker getting castrated.
This unknown monster flick is a story about an anthropology professor who takes a group of his students and goes deep in the woods to find out truth about BigFoot.
When the lawman asks for his description of the events that left him so severely disfigured, he kicks it all of with the cheesily intriguing build up, `Those horror stories that you heard about the forest.they're all true!' So begins the flashback that will narrate us through his gore-laden adventure.Apparently, the man without a face (heh, no pun intended!) is Bill Nugent, an anthropology lecturer (a popular career amongst slasher alumni, I'm sure you'll agree), that you could say is somewhat obsessed with uncovering the truth behind the legend of the murderous Big Foot.
When the lawman asks for his description of the events that left him so severely disfigured, he kicks it all of with the cheesily intriguing build up, `Those horror stories that you heard about the forest.they're all true!' So begins the flashback that will narrate us through his gore-laden adventure.Apparently, the man without a face (heh, no pun intended!) is Bill Nugent, an anthropology lecturer (a popular career amongst slasher alumni, I'm sure you'll agree), that you could say is somewhat obsessed with uncovering the truth behind the legend of the murderous Big Foot.
He expresses his apparent distaste that they've come traipsing into his area without direct permission, by surrounding and then violently murdering them one by one, in one of the goriest final scenes in the whole history of splatter flicks!Watching Night of the Demon is like attending a horror reunion filled with parts that were 'borrowed' out of all the more popular films released from the mid-seventies to when this hit the shelves.
The film starts with a giallo-style framing device, where several policemen are interviewing Professor Bill Nugent, an anthropology teacher who was found in the woods with his face mutilated, surrounded by the bodies of his dead students.This is a film of unconnected narratives, where one character after another appears to tell a story about Bigfoot, then that story is reenacted.
NIGHT OF THE DEMON is another such movie, yet despite gobbets of bloody gore and gristle, the resulting story is so ineptly played out that only the most ardent horror-lovers will find themselves having a good time.
More of a film to laugh at than actually be scared by, NIGHT OF THE DEMON is a cheesy and badly-made nightmare of a movie..
"Like A Bad Student Film About Bigfoot!".
This is like a bad student film about Bigfoot that I only give points for it's nice surroundings and bloody effects.
Professor Nugent takes a group of students into the woods to check out the Bigfoot creature that may be behind the carnage.
A 'young girl', who looks about 40, is getting it on with her hairy-arsed boyfriend in the back of a van when Bigfoot comes along, pulls the guy out the van and proceeds to kill him on the roof before draping him over the front window, whereupon the director cuts back and forth between nude woman screaming and man bleeding all over windshield.
Casting her out of the house for the night, Bigfoot wanders (geddit) out of the woods and rapes Wanda in such a cheesy way that it's only surpassed by the great death scenes I'm a-keeping for the end of this review.
As the students bed down for the night, for some reason the film cuts away to a guy roughing it in the woods during the day.
A few years ago my mother had bought me a DVD called Night of the Demon out of the 5 dollar bin, she knew my love of horror films and thought that the cover looked cool and that I would probably like it.
Night of the Demon does that for me, while the story, acting and directing isn't up to par, this is a fun movie with the killing scenes.
Along the way, the team learn about the creature's previous victims, uncover the squalid story of a hermit who gave birth to a mutation after being raped by the monster, and finally come face to face with the beast himself.Eighty dollars worth of your time; no, not really, but if you're able to still find it cheap and are a horror fan like I am, I totally recommend this film.
This is a crazy monster we have in the film, we go from this light hearted music that sounds like it belongs in an elevator to seeing Big Foot rip a guys hot dog off!
*END OF SPOILERS* "Night Of The Demon" is very gory; in fact it's one of the goriest film of the 80's slasher glory.
one of the worst horror films ever made has laughable dialog and laughable acting.It has some nice scenery lots of love scenes but this just seems to be an excuse for throwing a bunch of extreme gore to the mix no don't get me wrong i love gore but it' so fake and amateurish that it is unbearble to watch there is a cool opening death scene where a guy gets his arm slashed off and they are all bizarre murders this has bad direction and on top of that i almost fell asleep it was so boring and the characters are a bunch of idiots and not one is likable overall one of the worst movies i have ever seen AVOID!!!!!!!!!!
I just love how Wasson manages to pile on the gore by showing lots of deaths in flashbacks, Night of the Demon contains a lot of good kills & some surprisingly explicit gore scenes.
I'm not sure who I can recommend Night of the Demon too, none of the people I know would like it but what the hell if you can find a copy & are interested in gory horror then give it a whirl. |
tt0329691 | Torque | The film begins with two cars racing in the middle of the desert. Biker Cary Ford (Martin Henderson) pulls up on his motorcycle and tries to pass them. He finally does so and stops at a diner which his old girlfriend Shane (Monet Mazur) owns. There are pictures all over the wall of Ford and Shane back when they were together. Ford takes one of the pictures. He then goes back outside and the two punks who didn't let him pass show up. The three get into a fight but Ford beats up both of them.
Next Ford meets up with his two best friends Dalton (Jay Hernandez) and Val (Will Yun Lee). They take a ride back to town to see a motorcycle party. Ford sees Shane and the two begin to talk with Shane saying that she is mad that Ford left. A biker gang called the Hellions pulls up which contains Henry James (Matt Schulze) the leader, his girlfriend China (Jamie Pressly) and his right-hand man Luther (Max Beesley) . Henry is saying that he is pissed at Ford for stealing his bikes (which contain drugs). Ford tells Henry that he stole the bikes to pay off bills and his own bike. The Hellions leave and Ford, Dalton and Val all take a ride on their bikes.
Another biker gang who is friends with the Hellions pull up. The black biker gang called the Reapers, contains Trey (Ice Cube) the leader and his brother Junior (Fredro Starr). The gang says that Ford better stop stealing bikes or he is going down.
Ford and his two friends and Shane arrive at a nightclub where tons of biker gangs hang out. The three gangs run into each other and cause a big brawl. Junior is scared and runs into the bathroom. Henry, China and Luther are in the bathroom also and confront Junior there. Junior says that he is sorry for not paying Henry back for a blown drug deal (which Trey refused to allow prior to this scene) and begs Henry to give him some time to work it out. But Henry refuses and kills Junior by strangling him to death with a biker chain. Ford, Shane and the two friends go back to a motel to stay for the night. Meanwhile Ford and Shane are in the back of the motel flirting and talking.
At the murder scene where Junior was found dead, two FBI agents show up. A woman, Henderson (Justina Machado) and her partner, McPherson (Adam Scott). They say they will take care of the case and find out who killed Junior. China says that she was a witness to Junior's death (obviously she is lying). She says that Cary Ford killed Junior. Trey finds out and tells his biker gang to catch Ford and kill him.
Next Ford, Shane and the two friends stop at a diner. Shane sees on the TV that Ford is wanted for Junior's murder. Shane tells Ford and the four leave the diner and hit the road. The Reapers pulled up at the diner and chases the four. The four ride into a forest full of palm trees to get away. Trey's gang members meets up with them in the forest. Ford tells Shane and the friends to split up. Ford rides out of the forest into a desert. Trey follows. Here at the desert we see a train. Ford jumps up onto the train and Trey follows riding on top of the train. After a while Ford jumps off the train and Trey follows. Trey slips and falls in front of the train and his leg gets caught on the tracks. Ford decides to help Trey. (He helps Trey because Ford must tell Trey that he didn't kill Junior). Ford saves Trey and gives him his bike. Shane, Dalton and Val meet up with Ford and the four find a cave for the night to stay.
Ford talks it out with his friends and says that he should call the FBI agents to tell them that he is innocent. Ford calls them and McPherson picks up the phone. He says that he doesn't believe Ford but Henderson does. We next see that it is morning and the four leave the cave and find a huge truck and hop in the back of it. The trucker doesn't know that the four are in the back. As the truck is driving it gets stopped by the cops. The four in the back hear the cops and take what is inside the back of the truck....a fast car. Just before the agents open the back of the truck, Ford and Shane bust out of the truck in the car and the two friends on their bikes. The four drive onto a highway. The FBI agents follow and so does Trey.
The next scene takes place on the highway with tons of other cars. Ford jumps out of the car and jumps onto Val's bike and tells Val to ride with Shane. Trey and the two agents follow. The partners aren't paying attention and their black Hummer hits a construction pipe and flies into the air and lands upside down(they survived though). Trey rides his bike into Ford's and the two crash. Ford holding Trey at gunpoint explains to Trey that he did not kill Junior. He believes him says that he wants to find out who killed Junior. Ford says that it was Henry and that he set them both up. At Shane's garage Ford calls Shane and tells her that he wants her and Val and Dalton to come and meet him and Trey there. Just after that, the two FBI agents bust in and tell Trey and Ford to get down. Henderson says that she wants an explanation since she believes Ford is innocent. Ford tells them and the two agents believe them. McPherson turns and shoots Henderson and she falls to the floor. McPherson reveals himself as Henry's inside man and that he is working with the Hellions after making a deal with him. Henry, China and Luther show up revealing they have tied up Ford's two friends with chains and have also taken Shane hostage. Ford says that Henry can take the bikes back but Henry wants to kill Ford and Trey (after admitting to Trey that he had killed Junior).
There is a big fight scene with Trey killing Luther by hanging him with a chain. Henry and China leave the garage. Ford frees Shane while Trey unties Val and Dalton and they leave the garage. Just before they do Henderson gets up and tells McPherson that she is wearing a bullet proof vest. She tells Trey and the others to leave the garage which they do. Henderson then blows up the garage killing McPherson. Outside of the garage China meets up with Shane. The two fight on their bikes.
The fight ends with Shane kicking China off her bike and throwing her through a car windshield, killing her.
Finally Ford catches up with Henry on the street in a bike chase. Henry shoots at the gas of the bike Ford is driving causing gas to leak from it. As Henry is shooting at Ford the bullet hit the leaked gas causing a fire trail. Ford then soars through the air and lands on top of Henry's bike, the fire catches up to them both causing both bike's to explode throwing Ford in the air and killing Henry. Shane picks him up and they drive back to the garage to find the others. It is also revealed that Henderson survived but is injured
Ford and Shane get back together and decide that the four need a vacation (with Shane suggesting Mexico). Val picks up his girlfriend Nina (Christina Millian) and from a distance we see the four ride off in the desert as the screen fades to black and the credits roll. | revenge, comedy, murder | train | wikipedia | After years of watching 'serious' films with ridiculously over the top chase sequences (especially lately), finally a movie comes along and puts them all in their place.
I have waited a long time for a racing-movie to recognize its own lameness and just (knowingly) go for all the over-the-top stunts it can possibly collect in a loosely strung together plot about a bunch of stereotyped misfits no one really cares about.As stated above, the key was the fact this film does not take itself seriously.
How 'bout when a bike speeds past a road sign, making it do a Looney Toonsesque-spin, and if you look carefully you can see the words 'Cars Suck?'Everything perfectly matched the goal this film set out to hit, which is basically a tongue-in-cheek XBox game on the silver screen so commenting on the characters and plot seems virtually pointless.
A lot of people think that I love the "Charlie's Angels" movies because I think they're "so bad, they're good", when that's actually not true.
And yes, they are totally silly and unrealistic and goofy, but what I like about that is that it's completely intentional (which is what most people don't get, and is so obvious to me)."Torque", on the other hand, is a perfect example of a movie that is TRULY so bad, it's good.
As a classic B-movie enthusiast, I offer no apologies for having fun watching a scene like that.
Jamie Pressly is an absolute hoot as the evil biker chick, and Adam Scott scores some laughs as a conceited F.B.I. agent.Also, several of the action scenes are pretty amazing, once you get over the idea that this movie is obviously not taking place on planet Earth, but rather some video game universe or a 12 year-old's dream.
I wish Ice Cube was off doing the kinds of good movies he used to make (like "Three Kings", the original "Friday", "Boyz N The Hood", "Higher Learning", "Ghosts Of Mars"...), but he contributes some laughs as one of the heavies here.
Spectacular action movie with fast and furious fun by sensational motorbike races.
From the beginning to the end the action-pace is continuous , the movie provides fast and furious amusement with spectaculars scenes .
You know that when you are going to watch a movie like "Torque" you are going to see a bad story with some second rate actors but with some nice action.And this movie surely has some nice action.
It's obvious when watching this movie that Joseph Kahn is a music video director but that certain style works perfect for a fast paced movie like this.
Yeah sure, the ending is pretty bad and fake looking but it didn't ruined the movie for me in any way.
I would rather see a "Torque 2" than a "The Fast and the Furious 3".Really, just give this movie a chance, you might very well end up liking it.6/10http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/.
I don't think this movie will appeal to everyone, but it will get two types for sure: action gearheads who just want a solid uncomplicated action picture, and smart viewers who can appreciate clever film-making and the in-jokes threaded throughout.
The film is too good as an action movie to be dismissed - what are the looking for, Cold Mountain?
I thought this was a fun watch and all the votes seem to be coming from people who were looking for a serious movie with great acting.
Then there's Torque which very well may have defined a new term of "bad".For those previous comments who argue that this is a B-Movie and that viewers should "lighten up" - you need to look up your definitions.
Well, it's more like a grade Z movie.The cinematography was so off putting that I couldn't watch parts of it, having to look away from the extreme garishness seen on my beautiful TV screen.
It's so bad it makes FAST & FURIOUS look like 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY.This movie is a complete Torquey!.
Oh sure, it's not going to win any Oscars, but it's also as "good" as the other movies about racing cars FAST AND THE FURIOUS and its sequel.
The only thing that spoiled it for me is that I wasn't expecting the over the top, not believable stunts.I thought it was good to see women actually riding bikes.
When sitting down to watch a movie like Torque my expectations are down so low that they almost touch the earth's core.
I liked the fact he's unknown so he's mysterious.Ice Cube, says something about the police if you know what I mean.The humor, it's all good.The action, what else is there to say, amazing.The direction, this is a really great looking film.Jaime Pressly, um...wow.Now, the bad: It's really short.That's it.
Now I don't enjoy a lot of movies out there (because I want to be a filmmaker and know I can do better) but sometimes that one movie comes along and makes you wonder, "people REALLY enjoy this?" Whats next from the producers of this film, "2 Torque'd"?
Upon seeing this film, the only way that I could believe that someone paid to produce this mockery of cinema was as part of a nefarious plot to create a new torture device for enemies of the English-speaking world; or as some diabolical psychological experiment reminiscent of the Auschwitz atrocities; or perhaps as a reminder to would-be filmmakers that the laws of physics cannot be excluded while trying to achieve a suspension of disbelief.However, as it turns out, some people actually liked this movie.
With the help of his friends, Ford must outrace the two vengeful biker gangs, as well as the FBI, in order to prove his good name and live to ride again.The film is pretty much as silly as the plot sounds.
Ice Cube isn't much better and he gives an over the top performance though that is kind of the point since the whole movie is over the top.The whole story is predictable and it looks like something a three year old put together.
All the while being threatened and insulted by Ice Cube on top form.The soundtrack is loud, the mostly dodgy CGI is used to full and fun effect, the characters are preposterous and one-dimensional and the photography and editing make this look like a pumped up MTV video times ten!
Well, I've just killed 81 minutes of a Sunday evening watching "Torque".And I enjoyed it!The chase scenes got more ludicrous as the movie progressed, finally ending up with a CGI orgy that bore little resemblance to real life (in fact it was pure arcade game).The plot was also fairly predictable, drawing plot elements & ideas from movies as varied as "The Fast & The Furious", "Tron" and "The Warriors", with the ever-popular "bent cop" thing thrown into the mix as well.But the chicks were seriously HOT, the dudes looked cool, Ice T was at his sneering, snarling baddest best and the heavy-metal soundtrack drove the film along at a great pace.The 3.0 rating here doesn't do it justice and on balance I'd say that if you don't sit down to watch this expecting any sort of high-brow entertainment and enjoy seeing good-looking girls in tight biker costumes and some fast-paced action, you won't be too disappointed..
He will need all the bike skills in the world to fight his way out of this mess.Hot on the heel of "The Fast and the Furious", "Torque" is the motorcycle equivalent.
The film has unbelievable action sequences that make James Bond look real but are presented in a decent enough way that made me enjoy the film for what it is
good dumb fun..
torque had a really really great cast Matt Schulz has to be the greatest villain ever i loved all of the really awesome motorcycle action its a five star movie hands down the plot was not lame i was so exited when i left this movie i had to buy it when it got on DVD and I've watched it ever since.
Thats basically the entire premise of this movie, so if you are not into bikes and cars (yes those people exist) then you can scratch this movie from your list now.One aspect that was not that bad was the use of CGI to create a kind of hyperdrive-feeling during some of the driving/chase scenes.
If bikes are your life and you always wanted something like Fast and the Furious but with bikes then give this a try, if you want a good movie then just avoid this..
I guess whoever did that movie was not pleased that movies like "SWAT" and both "fast and furious" were awful enough so they needed to make another worthless piece of 15 minute script, idiotic dialogue andhorrible camera work.
I wanted some mindless entertainment where the plot does not interfere with the movie itself, with young attractive people, fast bikes, and big explosions.
STAR RATING:*****Unmissable****Very Good***Okay**You Could Go Out For A Meal Instead*Avoid At All CostsCary Ford (Martin Henderson) is a young bike racer who returns home to patch things up with old flame Shane (Monet Mazur).However,he's also stolen a couple of bikes from drug dealer Henry James (Matt Schulze) which had a consignment of drugs in them.Their dispute grows even more violent when the brother of Trey (Ice Cube,not exactly passionate about his work!) is murdered by James and Cary is put in the frame for it,causing Trey to forcefully pursue his wrongful target of retribution.This movie is aimed forcefully at young men who dig fast cars/bikes,beautiful women in bikinis and thongs and everything to move at 100 miles a minute!And I was moreorless able to deduct this after having watched the trailer,and was given further proof by the surprisingly short running time!And,to a degree,I was not really disappointed on these counts.However,there is an intriguing angle to the story and the script flourishes pleasantly throughout.Some of the action's,unsurprisingly,very nice too.The story isn't,though.So,all in all,not a big pleasant surprise in any way but certainly not as big a tur-que as I originally thought it would be.**.
But I love action movies and this one was like Fast and Furious but more clever.
Torque is one of those action-movie nightmares where you can sense all the actors and extras and stunt-people just wanting the movie to end so they can go on with their lives.
And I'm pretty sure I've never seen anything like the 60 mph fight scene on motorcycles between between the "bad biker chick" (dark hair, lots of nasty piercings) and the "good biker chick" (blonde, no visible piercings), which ends with the viewer pondering this question: How much do you think Mountain Dew paid for product placement?
This movie is for all of those who loves romantic,comedy and some action scene with motor bikes.you just have to give a chance to this film.
I also have to congratulate Joseph Kahn the director and Matt Johnson the writing credits I want to thank to have made a such great film its to bad it didn't made a lot of success but every one in this world don't have the same taste in movies so for me till now its my favourite movie of Monet Mazur and Martin Henderson.
It's funny to watch them although I have to give a minus from the last effect trick where the maker's just went too far --> you know what I mean when you see the film.Actors aren't anything special but they managed to bring the needed thing to the screen; Charismatic faces, bad ass attitude and some sort of coolness.
Well, I think that this movie is giving the same feeling to the bikers than `Fast and the Furious' did to the car folks.
The main thing is that movie is working well.Don't get me wrong Torque isn't an Oscar winning great spectacle in film history.
No, it's far from that BUT if you are looking a fast paced action pack what lets you put you brains in to the off mode and just enjoy the ride while sipping your ice cold beer after long and frustrating work day Torque might just do the trick..
This movie had been out for several months before I decided to rent it and I'm extremely glad I did because I found it to be " one of the best BIKER movies I've ever seen".Generally speaking I've always found this type of motorcycle movie boring and embarrassing but Torque struck a very positive chord with me.The plot isn't especially new but its acceptable , and the acting isn't exactly "Academy Award Winning" but many of the characters are interesting and the hero types and villain types have you appropriately booing and cheering for them.Joseph Kahn directed this movie and he does an absolutely amazing job.
It's better than, for example, any of the Fast and the Furious movies.I think Torque must have come out at a bad time.
It has been said that music video director Joseph Kahn's feature debut Torque was never intended to be taken seriously, every scene intentionally taken to ridiculous extremes, thereby mocking testosterone fuelled petrol-head films such as The Fast and the Furious and its sequels.
This level of dumb surely doesn't happen by accident.Of course, that doesn't automatically give Torque a get out of jail free card—there are still aspects that are difficult to endure, even if the film as a whole has been designed to lampoon mindless popcorn fodder for teens: the plot is virtually non-existent, with the non-action scenes merely dull padding, while Martin Henderson makes for a very bland pretty-boy hero.
When I watch a movie like this, I keep a separate space - a kind of mental shelf - for putting all the thoughts of how ridiculous it is so I can enjoy the film without worrying about them.Didn't work.
Typical story, some guy gets framed for something he didn't do (obviously), he wants to prove he's innocent, but that appears to be super-tough (yay).If you watch the trailer you'll think it will feel a lot like "the fast and the furious", but thats not entirely true ...
Fast bikes, ridiculous stunts, some explosions, some bad guys goofin around: this movie has it all.Don't look for more than just a one-time-see movie (so rent it, don't buy it).
For a motorbike fast paced movie, Biker Boyz is a better watch, got a story line you can follow, and half believe...This movie(Torque) seemed like they spent millions on graphics and found the the story on the back of a Cereal box and milk cartons.
I enjoyed it so much I bought the DVD.So what if the stunts are impossible.Who cares if the dialogue is a bit corny?When you come down to it there are films that are 'worthy' and there are films that just entertain and don't try to be the best written/shot film ever made.If you like bikes, action and quality stunts then this is the film for you.If you hate films that do not strictly conform to the rules of physics then don't watch..
Okay, so the plot's nothing new and the bike and bike-fight scenes are not exactly realistic, but it was very entertaining nevertheless and surely that's why people go to watch a movie.It's very clearly a Fast and the Furious clone, but that's not a bad thing.
The scene with the Y2K bike is a bit over the top...But what action movie is not??
All in all a must watch for all fast paced ,all out action fans of the movies..
Don't take it seriously and its fun and action packed ICE CUBE is leader of a biker gang, the star comes back after going on the run from the FBI over drug dealing and makes more enemies and the film runs.You liked fast and furious?
No matter what happens you know that the main actor is going to win...Sort of like James Bond...the plot of the movie is straight forward, no brainier, no twist, and highly predictable.2) A few scenes are so ridiculous, you have to just over look them.
When I watch a movie, I always look for entertainment first thing before I can find the plot.
Three points off because of plot and because of final chase sequence at the end of movie which is plain stupid as it was used like a computer game.
It is about time we saw a good action street bike film.
At first, I thought it'd be like Biker Boyz or Fast and Furious from the beginning, but it truly was a great movie.
I like them too, but when you write one at least give it a coherent story and some interesting characters you might care about.Torque is the biker movie dream, if he were alive Steve McQueen might want to do stunts incognito.
This movie is SO bad it's goodHighlights- * Girl vs girl bike fight * Motorcycles on train sequence * Palm tree scene * Dialog so bad I could not stop laughing * Some good music ( if you like harder rock songs)There's actually some good stunts in here.
I really tried to enjoy this movie, but I think it's beyond my capacities to truly appreciate films like this TORQUE.
I love bikes and great chases, but for me that doesn't make a good film.
Beautiful people, shiny cars and motorcycles, colourful cinematography and colours all over, fast-paced edited action scenes, camera work very skillful capturing different angles, special effects extraordinary (not very real-looking though - doesn't matter!); heck, even the music and songs were good (shame to hear Nickelback's 'Someday' in rubbish like this, but anyway).The screenplay is *beep*.
This movie is "The Fast and Furious" on bikes.
The movie looks like Warner Bros' spent a lot of money, but why could't they afford some real stunt guys who would drive those bikes with 240km/h ?
I pity the people that liked this movie seriously it is that bad. |
tt3212904 | Curve | Mallory (Julianne Hough) is a young bride-to-be on her way to Denver for her wedding rehearsal. She video chats with her sister, Ella (Penelope Mitchell), on her way there. Ella tells her that she hasn't bought her plane tickets yet because she wants to make sure Mallory is actually in love and happy with her decisions. Mallory responds by telling her she's happy in a fake voice. She hangs up with her sister and continues driving. A few minutes later, her car breaks down unexpectedly. She tries calling AAA, but she has no service. She also tries doing some tricks under the hood of the car, but to no avail.
While Mallory tries changing her clothes near the back of the car, she spots a man, Christian (Teddy Sears). She quickly puts on a tank top and tells him her situation. He eventually gets her car started for her. She then says she would offer him a ride, but was in a rush. She starts to drive away but, out of guilt, stops and offers him a ride.
Along the way, he starts acting odd. He talks about how fate brought them together and how it was supposed to happen like this. He then tells her how she couldn't "deepthroat his huge cock". She then stops and tells him to get out. He pulls out a knife and tells her to drive.
She notices his seat belt is off and tries to kill him by speeding towards a guardrail near a curve. They crash violently. Mallory wakes up to find the car upside down. She unhooks her seat belt, but she can't get out. She notices her leg is caught and pinned between the seat, all bloody. She tries pushing out, but fails. Christian slowly wakes up and tells her she needs to get herself out of this one and leaves her. She tries honking her horn and screaming for help but no one can hear her.
Mallory slips on a hoodie and drinks the last bit of her water bottle. The following morning Christian comes back and eats and drinks in front of her. He tells her how this was supposed to happen and how fate is a funny thing. That night a bunch of rats come in and slather around her. She kills one of them and eats a strip of its meat and drinks her own urine. Christian comes back and tells her how he's holding a family hostage and pretending to be a police officer. He then gives her a saw. At first Mallory thinks he gave it to her to cut through the seat, but he tells her he doesn't expect it to and how if she doesn't cut off her leg she's going to die.
That night a huge rainstorm hits and Christian comes to say his goodbyes but she attacks him and throws his car keys outside to where he can't find them. A police car pulls up from the curve, he runs and tells the officer his car won't start. The officer tells him he'll give him a ride but hears Mallory's scream. The officer thinks he's imagining things and drives away with Christian.
The car starts to flood and she starts trying to cut her leg off, but barely makes a few superficial cuts before her leg comes free out of the seat due to the assistance of the flood. She makes it out and goes to the cabin where Christian says he was at. She discovers he killed the police officer and the parents and he's keeping the daughter Katie hostage. She aims a gun she found and tells him if he moves, she shoots. He attacks Mallory as Katie runs out the front door. Mallory twists his nose and elbows his stomach before running. She hides under a table, he finds her and she gets up and runs. He smashes her into a mirror but she manages to keep him down on the ground long enough for her to run upstairs. Christian looks for her upstairs, but Mallory sneaks from behind a dresser, creeps behind him and pushes him off of a second-story balcony and he falls and crushes his leg into a bear trap. She limps downstairs and gives him his knife and tells him how fate really brought this together and she's going to give him the same chance that he gave her. Christian soon succumbs to his wound and dies. The final scene shows Mallory limping down the road with Katie as the front door of the house slams shut. | murder | train | wikipedia | It is exactly what it looks like, a survival type movie with some horror mixed in.
With that said though it's not terrible, it held my attention throughout, the acting was good enough, and the ending was fairly thrilling.I didn't hate the film, however it is one of those movies that I will eventually forget about.
If you want something simple to watch as a time killer you could probably do better than this, but you could do worse as well.5/10.
As survival films go, this one isn't bad but doesn't bring anything new to the table.
That said, the twist ending is a nice surprise although most of the film plods along quite predictably.
There's some great acting and impressive cinematography, so I assume there was a decent budget for this movie.
The script was entertaining though and evoked a real sympathy for the characters, so it's worth a watch if you enjoy this genre..
Pretty decent survival movie..
If I had to compare this to another movie it would be "Open Water" except in a car with a killer instead of a shark and a more satisfying ending.
In essence this is more of a slow survival movie with a faster paced "survivor girl vs killer" finish.All of the production, acting, directing, etc are well done.
However, as others have mentioned it doesn't really bring anything new to the table, but then again, does any movie these days?In the end I liked it.
If you like movies like "Open Water" and "127 Hours" then this is probably worthy of a watch..
Have you ever watched a movie, particularly a horror movie or thriller, in which you really didn't like the protagonist?
This was that type of movie.Mallory's (Juliane Hough) car breaks down on her way to Denver from San Francisco.
She returns the favor by giving him a ride and lo and behold he's not such a good guy.This rehashed, good-looking-bad-dude-whom-you-trusted plot is so tired and they did nothing to make it likable.
Then couple that with her hoarse voice and she became more annoying.This movie was replete with a flimsy predictable plot, impossibly absurd lead character and bad acting.
This was a movie I just wanted to end...
I even began to question if this is a horror movie or not.3rd: the acting was in my opinion bad.
Whenever a movie fails to deliver some horror parts it goes the torture porn direction and tries to get away.
Intense Decent thriller..Julianne delivers the best!!.
Greetings from Lithuania.Short summary of horror/thriller "Curve" (2015):*Isolated scene = cheap settings +check.*Few chills here and there and some dead bodies to get "horror" rating +check.*Psychopath with a paper thin "killing philosophy" (some crumbs left from "Se7en") +check.*Few actors to make this situation look even more isolated = small costs for cast +check.* Uniformally OK acting for this material for a quick paycheck +check.*Descent director that will make this average screenplay into a watchable movie +check.*Running time 1 h 19 min which you will forget as soon as the same amount of time will elapse +check.
This movie changed my opinion of her acting skills.
I always give any movie five minutes to convince me to watch it.
It is so predictable, you can talk your way through the movie right from the start.
Mallory offers Christian a lift (after initially thinking it best not to).
Mallory takes the drastic action of crashing the car and ends up with her leg trapped and unable to get out.
Christian however, even though he was thrown from the car and did not have a seat belt on comes out of it much better than she does and literally walks away.She is then basically stuck in the car behaving like a pathetic whinging child as he comes and goes for around five days.
She also somehow manages to pee in a bottle and drink it even though she has had water.It just goes on and on.My one positive is the acting skills of Teddy Sears, he's excellent in the role of a psycho baddie.
However, the main character (Hough) made a lot of smart moves.
All in all, it was a good, simple movie.
A recent example of a successful film like this was '127 Hours', and it's no coincidence that 'Curve' is very similar and also a very good movie.
The human will and desire to survive at all cost always makes for fascinating viewing, and this case is no exception.There's more to it than just that aspect of the film though.
Do not expect anything surprising out of this movie.
It is so full of clichés that the whole movie could be predicted correctly from the first ten minutes.
3/4 of the movie is the same scene with the girl's leg stuck in a crashed car and the "bad guy" torturing her.
There is little character development or reasoning behind the killings of the "bad guy." The only thing you know about the protagonist is that she is going to see her fiancé in Denver, CO coming from San Francisco, LA when, surprisingly enough, her car breaks down.
Average Movie, unlikeable Protagonist, Watch it while doing something else..
Have you ever watched a movie so bad you were cheering for the bad guy?
The protagonist in this movie is a girl on her way to Denver to get married.
Like any bad horror movie, she decides to take the path less traveled and ends up stranded with a broken car.
Enter seemingly nice guy who helps her fix it and that's where the movie begins.
I was intrigued in the beginning, the movie adds refreshing spin to the stranger-danger tale but it runs into the same problem all horror movies based on recycled plots usually do: how to make the end interesting and memorable.
Few scenes are thrown in, seemingly randomly, to make the scenario realistic but it comes off as an after-thought and doesn't work well with the theme of the movie.
All in all, I kept thinking throughout the movie "that isn't what happens in real life" and "what a dumb move" skip it, if you ask me.
In the scene where the deputy stopped to help Christian, you could hear over the police radio, "suspect Mallory height, weight"...etc.
As a great suspense/thriller/horror fan, I give this movie only 2 star just for the first half cause it had everything to be a great suspense horror survival movie...but it didnt developed that way...it even had some flaws with some definitely poor decisions just to keep the movie going...so they can make the movie be an hour and a half...I mean...cops sitting on the top of the rock and she did not put the hand on horn...she goes exactly at the cabin where he is at....an officer is missing a whoooole day and no one bothers to search for him!?!?
I mean gooosh...the movie was like it was made by a teenager who was bored spending his mommy and daddy's money.You can watch the first half and than just turn it off....
Because let's keep it real, if you know you are watching a thriller, you know that picking up a hitchhiker: never a good idea.
Maybe someone should have told our main actress that (actually she knew, because she read the script).But what happens after a very quick revelation (bad guys are not always subtle and the movie knows audience might get bored if they know a character is bad but tries to hold it together), is what matters.
The movie gets into another drive.
In many movies like this, the character(s) take obvious dumb choices.
Why would they write something where the character has almost no chance of survival?
Movies should have Realistic, and Common sense scenarios.
Was this a Straight to DVD movie or was this actually released in cinemas?!
The bad Horror movies of my Childhood were better than this.
Julianne hough is sexy looking, if you like that Nordic look and Mormon girls(I'm half black, lol), but She can't Act, and It's not worth my time or money.
Regarding this movie, it seemed like the writers/producers colluded and thought "hey, how can we make some money with weak quality, lazy effort project and a C-List actress and A Male Actor who Looks like He could be Her BROTHER, rather than her Lover?
If Writing is bad, no good actor can do it justice.
What kind of Lazy, selfish fiancé would EXPECT his woman to drive alone, to meet him?
The writers CHOSE this unrealistic scenario which ruins the Whole movie.
This is the sort of movie that has everything you want with a little bit extra..
This movie is the epitome of a white knuckle film.
This was helped greatly by the actors in the movie.
To add on, the scenario in which the movie took place seems very probable as well.
This helped build on the fear of the movie.
The final thing that made this movie great was the amount of plot holes in the story line, or the lack there of.
The main "bad guy" did a lot of things that felt very unnatural, but if you look further into the character development you could see that he was a very impulsive man.
"Curve" stars Julianne Hough (TV's "Dancing With The Stars") as a bride-to-be who veers way off track with an unhinged hitchhiker on an ill-advised back road detour to the wedding.Pretty standard fare madman-menaces-beautiful girl (and Hough stays STAGGERINGLY so even after being beat up in an over the cliff car crash) fare with some pretty fair acting from the damsel in DEEP distress.
I will make mention however that even in this modest movie I expected more from the ending than the cath...no, wait.
This film has a slow start, but just enjoy the beautiful cinematography because you will soon be catapulted into a true horror story.
Sears is a glorious creeper, although he may actually overdo it a little bit towards the end of the film.
Mallory Rutledge (Julianne Hough) is driving her fiancé's truck to Denver to meet him and get married.
However the gentle drifter Christian Laughton (Teddy Sears) offers to fix the car and Mallory accepts.
Mallory sees that the psychopath Christian is not wearing the seat bell and decides to throw the truck off the road in a curve.
But the leg of Mallory is trapped in the overturned car and Christian leaves her without any help, in the beginning of Mallory's worst nightmare.
"Curve" is a tense low-budget thriller with good performances of Teddy Sears and Julianne Hough.
I love survival movies, so I had high hopes on this one....
To be honest, I was kind of getting a little bored with her trapped in the car for a lot of the film.
The ending was pretty good, although I think it would have been awesome to see her confront her fiancé about the stuff she found in the truck.
It's something to watch to pass time, but it's kind of a forgettable film..
I liked this film and found it to be pretty entertaining and suspenseful.
I thought the acting was good from the Lead Woman and the Man who played the Bad Guy.The Supporting cast were Okay but the Lead women and the Man who played the bad guy were The Best.
This Is a Survival Horror Thriller and I thought the story was told well.
The Film starts off with a woman who's car breaks down and a hitchhiker stops to help her fix her car and to repay him the women gives him a Lift.
The Man seems like a genuinely Nice guy but the women soon finds out this man isn't as nice as he appears to be when he starts saying Nasty Things to her.What starts out as a Survival Thriller escalates and by the end it becomes a Brutal Thriller.
This film had some really Tense scenes in it that I enjoyed watching.
I also Liked the Location the Film was Shot in I thought it was a good looking place.
I liked the Music in the film too.
I personally liked the Lead Woman and I wanted her to survive,I found her to be a strong and likable Character and I Liked her determination to survive.I also liked how she played the bad guy at his own game.
The Women put up a good fight and she stood up to the bad guy and I like that she did that because it showed she wasn't just your typical damsel in distress.The women was actually Smart and she knew what she was doing,and she had to do some pretty Crazy things to survive like eat animals among other stuff.
I thought the River scene was very Exciting and intense and definitely a memorable scene.I also really Enjoyed the Ending to this Film when the women finds out the Man is a killer and she Fights Him. The killer was definitely a Crazy Psycho and the actor who played him Did a very good job.
The Film had a bit of a slow start but the Last Half was Brutal and intense!
The Film also has a few twists Toward the End that I did not see coming.
The Ending Score Was pretty good and it fit the Film like a Glove because it kept the same Dark Atmosphere The Film Had. Overall This Film was Decent and I recommend it..
It is probably a good film at best.
I even wondered if I would end up finishing the movie.
I also admit my reasons for going into it were pretty shallow and that is my crush on Julianne Hough.
Also I scored this film an 8 because I thoroughly enjoyed it and was entertained AND its one of those almost "one-person" survival films (think Brake or Buried or Freezer) but this film has two main players (one being a nut-job) and a few supporting characters hardly seen.
Most of this film rides on Hough surviving and she pulls it off.
The film's pace is perfect because its incredibly short (run time of about 1 hour and 17 minutes) but it works for the movie.
Its believable and actually pretty intense.I guess I already sort of covered Julianne Hough's performance but this is really good for her.
He is literally near perfect in this role and maybe overplays it just a tad but it works for this movie.
I suppose you can't give a film too high a rating for being significantly better than you thought but I actually very much enjoyed it.
It entertained me and definitely kept me on the edge of my seat and had a couple of good twists and turns.
It won't be one that I will forget right away and that's definitely saying something for this genre, cast and film.
A bit slow starting out and then an intended car crash turns things upside down.
Mallory (Jullianne Hough) is a young bride-to-be on her way to Denver and contemplating the pros and cons of her upcoming marriage, when she has car troubles taking the scenic route.
She gets help from a charming hitchhiker named Christian (Teddy Sears), who out of the blue becomes a naughty guy causing Mallory to wreck her car on purpose with hopes of escaping the man.
The nice looking young woman becomes trapped upside down in the overturned vehicle and Christian turns into a full blown terrorizing psychopath.
Below Average movie.
Not really memorable.Mostly nothing happens throughout the movie, she is stuck in the car and he mentally tortures her by doing nothing to help, It gets annoying after a while.After 5 days of being stuck in an awkward position, having nothing to eat and little to drink she is still strong enough to go and get revenge on him and that's the first thing she does..
But any worries this may be Baywatch soon dissipate.Mallory (Julianne Hough) is driving around the Grand Canyon, when her car breaks down.
Christian (Teddy Sears) helps out, and she gives him a lift to the motel where he is staying.
His slow, methodical taunting of Mallory is sadistic and measured, underlining the fact he likes to be in complete control of the situation - especially when Mallory deliberately crashes the car and becomes trapped inside, while Christian is free and happy to leave her to suffer.As time goes on, the punishing imprisonment means many demeaning moments for Mallory, but just as luck seems to reach an all-time low, she might just be alright.
And that's after 48 hours trapped upside down in a car.Stretching credibility as it does, this nevertheless has some tense and harrowing moments, and the acting is excellent throughout – especially as the bulk of the film is essentially a two-hander..
As luck would have it a hiker appears who gets her car started again, after he takes his shirt off for no good reason.
Finally the rain gets really bad and the river moves the car.
Mallory limps to the very same cabin, discovers what's going on there and will have to confront the bad guy eventually.Curve is one of those very minimalistic thrillers--two actors and most of the movie taking place in just one setting.
And even though acting isn't Julianne Hough's talent, the movie works.
The unfortunate lesson the movie wants to teach though is don't be good to strangers.
Mallory (Julianne Hough) is traveling on alternate route 92 near I-80 in Utah.
Her Ford breaks down and she gets help from a nice clean cut hiker, Christian Laughton (Teddy Sears) of 1419 Harriet St. Topeka, Kansas.
At this point we can pretty much predict what will happen, including the ending, minus a few details.For much of the film, it consists of Mallory trapped in a vehicle.
If you like those one man formula films, this one has that going for it.Guide: F-bomb. |
tt0069002 | The Night Strangler | In 1973, reporter Carl Kolchak (Darren McGavin), now in Seattle, Washington (having been run out of Las Vegas at the end of the last film), is hired by his former editor, Tony Vincenzo (Simon Oakland) to cover a series of killings in which the victims, all exotic dancers, are strangled, have their necks crushed and are then drained of a few ounces of blood. A coroner's report also reveals that the victims all had traces of rotting flesh on their necks.
Researcher Titus Berry (Wally Cox) discovers that there was a similar rash of killings in 1952, setting Kolchak on the trail of another unbelievable story. Kolchak is stonewalled by the police, who want to have certain details of the murders kept secret. Out of "burning curiosity," Berry researches further back, and learns of another series of murders in 1931. Berry and Kolchak discover that similar murders have been occurring every 21 years since 1889, with each series of murders taking place over a period of 18 days. Kolchak determines that the killer needs the blood for a kind of elixir of life which keeps him alive for 21 years at a time. Of course, no one believes Kolchak, and the powers that be want to silence him.
Berry uncovers further clues in an old interview with Mark Twain leading to a Dr. Richard Malcolm, a surgeon in the Union Army during the Civil War, who was one of the original staff at the Westside Mercy Hospital. Though the hospital is long gone, Kolchak goes to the clinic standing on the site, in the hope that it might still have the hospital's old records, but he finds something far more important just inside the front door: a painting of the clinic's founder, a Dr. Malcolm Richards, who is the spitting image of Richard Malcolm.
Kolchak calls Berry to meet him there and proceeds to alter the painting to make the similarity more obvious. Berry is amazed, but the police are less than impressed, and Kolchak is arrested.
Finally, Kolchak and Berry convince the police (and their boss) of the facts: that the killer really is practically immortal, and that he will kill again. But the story is once again suppressed.
Kolchak enters into a race against time to stop the killer before he is able to complete the creation of his elixir and disappear for another 21 years. In a "Underground City" under the old clinic, Kolchak has a face to face confrontation with Dr. Malcolm/Richards; the night strangler admits having first tried the elixir in 1868 and that he had hoped to spread the knowledge of immortality until he started aging in 1889 and his family also died {their mummified remains are kept near the doctor's laboratory}. Before the night strangler can drink his sixth creation of elixir {he claims the 7th creation of 21 years in the future will make the process permanent}, Kolchak smashes the beaker. The night strangler tries to kill Kolchak but fails due to rapidly aging; as the police burst into the room the aging killer commits suicide by throwing himself outside a high window. | murder | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0112744 | The Crossing Guard | Freddy Gale (Nicholson) has been tormented for the five years following the death of his daughter Emily. Once a devoted husband and father, he is now an alcoholic who spends his nights hanging out in strip clubs and sleeping with prostitutes. Now the drunk driver who killed her, John Booth (Morse), is released from prison. Freddy immediately reveals to his ex-wife Mary (Huston) that he is going to kill Booth. She begs him not to, and they get into an altercation that ends with her new husband throwing him out of the house.
John Booth is now living in a trailer outside of his parents' house and merely plans to go on with his life, even as he is haunted by remorse for killing Emily. At night Freddy arrives at the Booth residence, armed with a pistol. He clumsily breaks into the trailer trying to shoot, but he forgot to load a magazine. John calmly tells him he won't call the police and will let Freddy kill him, but asks for some time to savor his freedom. Freddy accepts, and gives John three days to live.
John tries to live his life as best as he can before the third day arrives. He meets an artist named JoJo (Wright) at a friend's party and he has a brief romance with her before she realizes that he can't let go of the mistake he made. He reveals to her that when he hit Emily, he came to her side as she was dying and she apologized to him for "not having looked both ways". Freddy goes to Emily's grave and leaves flowers, but leaves when he sees Mary there.
On the third day, Freddy calls Mary and breaks down in tears as he tells her of a terrible nightmare he had. In the nightmare, he is driving by his daughter's school and stops at a crosswalk where children (including a living Emily) wait. He sees that John Booth is the crossing guard. Freddy then sees himself run over all of the children, even Emily. They meet at a diner, and Mary tells him that he is beyond her help; Freddy becomes enraged and curses her. After Mary leaves, Freddy gets drunk and starts to drive to John's house. John waits in his trailer armed with a shotgun. Freddy is pulled over by the police en route to the house and arrested for drunk driving. Before the police can take him in, however, Freddy grabs his gun and runs away. He breaks into a home and hides in a little girl's room. The girl guides the police away, and Freddy thanks her and leaves.
Freddy arrives at John's trailer and waits before he enters. John abruptly jumps from a corner with a rifle in hand. Freddy tells him since he is on the run, on his property, and armed, John should be able to get away with killing him. There is a standoff as they point guns at each other. John however drops his gun and runs away; Freddy follows him. After a lengthy chase across the city, Freddy catches John climbing a fence and fires at him. John is only superficially wounded, however, and continues running. Freddy follows him, until he realizes that John has led him to a graveyard where Emily is buried. John talks silently to the grave and finally says "Your daddy's coming". Freddy gives John the gun and cries over the grave, apologizing to his daughter. John takes Freddy's hand as the sun rises. | revenge, murder, violence, romantic | train | wikipedia | A powerful and compelling story, filmed well and with some great performances.Sean Penn seems to have managed to level the actors here, with David Morse, Anjelica Huston and Jack Nicholson putting in great performances and none of them stealing the scenes from the other.
I found this very surprising as I expected Nicholson to flood the screen, as he so often does with such little difficulty.However, the emotion between Huston and Nicholson in the latter half of the film during the coffee shop scene is so powerful to watch.
Huston is such a wonderful actress, and Nicholson shows some emotional depth that I haven't seen before, or rather, not felt with his performance before.The story is written and planned extremely well, with tension rising slowly and almost imperceptibly, until the final day.
I found myself caught from the opening scenes of the counselling session cut with the drunken, partying Nicholson, right through to the pivotal moments of the main characters lives.It is a fantastic way to address this subject.
Jack Nicholson, the father of a girl killed by a drunk driver, spends some of his nights at strip clubs, while Anjelica Huston, the mother of that girl and Nicholson's ex-wife, spends time listening to those grief stricken parents pouring their hearts out.
Like that opening juxtaposition the film's points are hit with all the nuance of a sledgehammer pounding in a nail.Therefore, little attention is paid to how Huston's character attempts to come to terms with the death of her child; instead, the focus is on how Nicholson destructively grieves for his daughter.
David Morse, as the drunk driver who killed Nicholson's daughter, is, by contrast, and surprisingly, shown as some kind of repentant saint.
Another subplot of Morse falling in love with Robin Wright Penn adds nothing to the plot other than act as filler so the film can reach the standard 120 minute run time.
Sean Penn has directed other fine films (especially Into the Wild) and Nicholson, at least prior to the '90s, is a first-rate actor.
I just felt like Sean Penn had all these great ideas and grand schemes for an intense movie.
The acting was certainly good, as you would expect in a Jack Nicholson movie, but the real tragedy is that David Morse was absolutely wasted.
Sean Penn directs Jack Nicholson in this story of a man who swears to avenge his daughter's death by killing the drunk driver who struck her.The movie opens up with Nicholson's character being a sleazy guy in a strip club and instantly we don't care very much about him, because he treats everyone like crap and doesn't really seem to have much depth.
Robin Wright did give Morse at least something to work with as her performance was fairly good, although hampered by the story.....which brings us to the worst aspect of the movie--the screenplay.
And bad filler.The climax of the movie (if one can call it that) is a pathetically unrealistic chase scene where the out-of-shape, 50-something, smoking alcoholic character played by Nicholson out runs the young, muscular and fit Morse over a distance of some 3 miles or so (although it seems like 20 miles to the viewer).
Nothing is given away by this description however, since most viewers already know how a movie like this will end.The title of the film, "The Crossing Guard" is of course irrelevant to all but self-described film experts who have infinite time and desire to conjure up the "real" meaning of films and teach them to the rest of us.
It was way too long and while there were some scenes with some good acting , Nicholson was not very good--due more to the poor direction and the script than to him.The plot was certainly different and very dramatic , the reaction of parents to the death of their young daughter by a man driving his car in a school crossing.
It is never made clear if the crossing guard shown in one brief seen half asleep was asleep at the time of the accident.Not only was the ending far too long , it was completely improbable , Neither actor was a Marathon runner.You might want to see it for the same reason I did , viz.
to see Jack Nicholson and Angelica Huston ,,but if you are looking for a great movie , look somewhere else..
Robin Wright plays what might be the most interesting of characters, the woman sympathetic to her lover's situation, but unwilling to live with his sorrow.The story, in quite a subtle way, keeps the viewer shifting his / her sympathy between two of the main characters (played by St. Elsewhere's David Morse, and Nicholson); I was never certain about for whom to root.
Sometimes good, sometimes bad actor Sean Penn proves that he can be a bad writer and bad director as well, in this bogus impression of a European art film.
Other than Kari, the movie's highlight is a short fragment from the rare Jewel song, "Emily"."The Crossing Guard" is dedicated to Bukowski, an appropriate nod given the predilections of the Nicholson character..
Sean Penn can be a great actor, but with the Crossing Guard he displays a hit or miss attitude in the believability of his characters.
It starts with a given for a gripping premise: a man torn completely psychologically from himself, Freddy (Jack Nicholson) finds out the man who killed his daughter in a drunk driving accident is released from prison after only six years.
But through this premise, and the divide between self-destructive, drunk Freddy and the guilt-ridden, morose John Booth, Penn paints his characters sometimes into corners even when things become most intriguing.
It's about a man, Jack Nicholson, who is obsessed with killing the ex-con who ran over his little girl several years ago.The pacing is excruciatingly slow and the story line self-absorbed.
However nothing is that simple.Sean Penn, Jack Nicholson and David Morse are pretty much going to be worth a look as they are all pretty intense actors when given the material to work with.
Huston is given nothing of value to do and the inclusion of Robin Wright Penn can surely be nothing but nepotism.Overall there is a good film in here somewhere, but this is not it.
A fine movie, with excellent performances by Nicholson and Morse.The unspoken and stoic pain endured by David Morse's character is effectively portrayed by Morse.
"The Crossing Guard," written and directed by Sean Penn, was originally scheduled for release in late 1994 but gathered dust for a year before hitting movie screens.
The film, about a father determined to kill the man who killed his daughter in a car accident, is a humiliation; a series of dreary, often unrelated scenes stitched together to resemble a feature.There is no drama (not genuine, anyway), and, worst of all, Jack Nicholson, who I never would have believed could embarrass himself, demonstrates that even the best actor needs a good director.
Operating with no direction at all, Nicholson gives his worst performance since "Hell's Angels on Wheels." Only David Morse, the baby-faced doctor from TV's excellent "St. Elsewhere," distinguishes himself with a controlled characterization worthy of a decent script.Although I do not question his sincerity with this project, Sean Penn really should stick to acting, and if he refuses to abandon his writer/director pretensions, the least he could do is hire actors whose abilities are as limited as his own.
Freddy Gales daughter is killed by drunk driver John Booth so guess which character THE CROSSING GUARD portrays in a sympathetic light ?
Sub-plots detract from the main narrative, with Robin Wright a colorless love-interest for convict David Morse and Anjelica Huston lost in a confusingly-written role as Nicholson's ex-wife.
For six agonizing years, Freddy Gale(Jack) has waited for John Booth (David Morse), The man jailed for a crime that smashed Freddy's life.
I cannot take my eyes off Jack Nicholson !David Morse (The Rock , The good son & The Green mile) is a very underrated actor.
The movie casts Jack Nicholson as Freddy Gale, out to get drunk driver John Booth (David Morse), who accidentally killed his daughter.
Uneven piece from director Sean Penn has moody jeweler Jack Nicholson swearing revenge on the man (David Morse) who killed his daughter while driving drunk.
There is one scene further on in the film where Nicholson's character, in a conversation with his ex-wife, portrays some genuine grief and pain, but his portrayal up to that point completely belies that.
The completely contrived and unbelievable ending brings to mind Oscar Wilde's quote that "one would have to have a heart of stone not to dissolve into tears ...of laughter." Sean Penn should stick to his day job of acting and stay away from writing and directing..
With a powerful script and an amazing foursome of actors The Crossing Guard should have been a contender for one of 1995's best drama's, though a few elements get in the way of achieving this.Sean Penn's sophomore attempt behind the scenes yields striking promise, though some scenes flow in a rather hit and miss way.
Surprisingly the script is quite decent as well, producing it's fair share of memorable lines.Nicholson, as usual in a film where he is the star, commands and demands nearly all the attention, though at times the over-reaching nature of his talents do begin to seep through the emotional core of this revenge-minded redemption picture..
Sean Peen directed Jack Nicholson in what I consider his last truly exceptional performances, this film and "The Promise".
This is film is somewhat more accessible than the other, and has an ending that can almost be called 'upbeat'.This is an odd film; none of the characters are very likable, but by the end, we find something to like in every one of them; or at least forgive.Penn gives Nicholson, as a father of a manslaughter victim, plenty of opportunity to over-act and chew the scenery, which he takes advantage of on occasion.
Sean Penn's directorial efforts are predictable or hackneyed in places (the strip club/loss of morals metaphor), but the devices DO work, especially when delivered by Jack's absorbing performance -- this role underscores how Nicholson embraces his characters from the inside out.
regardless of nicholson's usual great performance, the movie was so bad, i had to stop the tape...can't discuss any further for i am trying to repress all memories of this film..
If You're Gonna Kill Him, Then Kill Him. David Morse must have watched the Nicholson/Brando dungheap, 'The Missouri Breaks', before shooting began on Sean Penn's 'The Crossing Guard'.
Whatever the case, the tone of this scene fatally damages a well-meaning movie.To explain: Freddy Gale (Nicholson) has come to kill John Booth (Morse) for running over young Emily Gale while driving drunk.
Clearly, Penn has a passion for this "I want vengeance for my dead daughter" story, since he wrote, directed, and produced 'The Crossing Guard' and also won an acting Oscar for 'Mystic River' (with its similar subject matter).
There could have been a couple less bar scenes, as we know from the first several (and there were MANY) that Nicholson's character Freddy, was in a deep depression over the death of his daughter and his life was going nowhere.
I found it amusing that the 'bad guy' so to speak, John Booth (Morse) was having a better time in his life than Freddy (Nicholson) was.
This is a surprisingly good and strong movie.Incredible scenes,brilliant acting specially by Morse and Nicholson and a beautiful and incredibly touching ending.This one deserves highest praise.;) Way to go Sean,keep it up!.
How 2 people...both father and drunk driver...deal with their hate and guilt after the death of the daughter...is not a feel-good movie.
Still, Penn's second film is good but it's no breakthrough like his recent new movie "Into the Wild".
this film was amazing.it's basically a story of loss,revenge,redemption and forgiveness.there are two main characters, for both of whom redemption and forgiveness seem impossible.both have suffered loss,but only one seeks revenge.the movie tells the story of how our main characters get to the point of redemption and forgiveness,and it's not how you'd think.at least it wasn't for me.Jack Nicholson puts in what i would call a career performance here,as does David Morse.Sean Penn wrote the script and directed the movie.he did a masterful job in both areas.it's emotionally very powerful,and i shed some tears in some scenes.the only downside i can think of for this film,is for me,there was a bit too much unnecessary nudity.i realise that there had to be some to give.us an idea of one of the main characters,but i think it went a bit overboard.still the rest of the movie is so well done,that i give it a 10/10.
It's been six years since Freddy's daughter was killed tragically a manslaughter case committed by John Booth(David Morse), now Booth gets out of prison and revenge awaits.
Overall this film is a winner due to it's emotional feel that contains so much heartbreak and search for peace within one's heart, with Jack Nicholson at his powerful best make this a must see..
Legendary Actor Sean Penn's Criminally Under-Rated 'The Crossing Guard' is an astonishing, powerful Human Story, that leaves a terrific impact.
Jack Nicholson stars as a man who lost his daughter five years ago to a drunk driver.
Nicholson's performance is uneven - he has a lot of good to great scenes, but there are times when he overacts, as well.
The day has finally arrived, when the man, John Booth (Morse, in one of his best ever performances) who accidentally ran down his daughter, is coming out of the pen.
Sean Penn, of course, better actor than director (I mean he's a great director, but his acting quality is so high) makes good films with real stories.
The daughter of Freddy Gale (Jack Nicholson) was killed in an accident by John Booth (David Morse).
One of these individuals is Jack Nicholson's Freddy Gale; a man, whose daughter is Emily and who was killed in that driving incident five years ago, whom is initially revealed as someone combating whatever grief he experiences by frequenting strip clubs so as to meet with his equally sleazy colleagues and which usually leads to the spending of a night with one of the performers.
Jack Nicholson, David Morse, Angelica Huston and Robin Wright make for an interesting foursome, I'll say that.
Written and directed by Sean Penn, this film's focus is on Freddy Gale(Jack Nicholson), who's daughter was killed by a drunk driver.
However it wasn't until the credits rolled on The Crossing Guard that I knew Mr. Sean Penn himself had directed and wrote this powerful film and kudos to him because he did an incredible job.
I am still completely confused by the title...I mean I get that The Crossing Guard watches Nicholson's character as he almost makes his kill but other than that I don't make the connection.
Jack Nicholson plays Freddy Gale, the completely distraught, hopelessly depressed and lost father of a young girl killed by a drunk driver that spiraled his life into hopelessness.
I have never seen Nicholson embrace a character like this and take the film goer on such an incredible ride of emotions.
I look forward to every film with Jack Nicholson because let's face it, the man is one of the great actors of our time.
The character of Freddy Gale, played by Nicholson, is out to avenge his daughter's death by a drunk driver, played by the very good actor David Morse.
On the other hand, Jack Nicholson overacts rather badly, his character is a hate filled jeweler bent on killing the drunk driver (Morse) who caused the death of his daughter.
Worth a look, go in realizing Sean Penn isn't able to really bring off the story, but manages to get some good performances out of his actors--too bad he couldn't control Nicholson more (who puts in great performances fifty percent of the time, Hoffa was abysmal but As Good As It Gets was as good as any acting gets)..
Everybody in writer & director Sean Penn's "The Crossing Guard" deliver fabulous performances, but this pretentious film is a drag to watch.
I'd call this a film rather than a movie because you only need to watch it once to know you seen it one time too many.
I like Penn (in both his acting roles and 'some' as director - 'Into The Wild' was fantastic), I like Morse and Nicholson is a good addition as well.
David Morse, an incredibly underrated character actor, plays the depressed ex-con who feels a great deal of guilt.
There's a scene where Nicholson character completely breaks down and bawls to Anjelica Huston who is playing his wife.
Unhappily divorced jeweler Jack Nicholson (as Freddy Gale) learns the drunk driver held responsible for the death of his daughter has been released from prison.
She will hook up with writer/director Sean Penn, behind-the-scenes...Nicholson's Freddy continues to get drunk and pick-up arousing strippers.
There are big, competent names attached to "The Crossing Guard" who are big and competent throughout; yet, you may never completely forget who they are and what you're watching.****** The Crossing Guard (9/10/95) Sean Penn ~ Jack Nicholson, David Morse, Robin Wright, Anjelica Huston.
Freddy Gale (Jack Nicholson) licks his chops; vows to his wife Mary (Angelica Huston) he's going to kill this killer of his daughter - Booth ran her down accidentally on a school crossing; his jail time was for that manslaughter.
From producer/writer/director Sean Penn, I didn't really know what to expect with this film I didn't know anything about, about from the lead actor and it being rated four stars, and that for me was enough.
Basically Freddy Gale (Jack Nicholson) has waited for six for the man responsible for killing his daughter in a hit and run, John Booth (David Morse), to be released from prison, and that day has come. |
tt0069228 | Der scharlachrote Buchstabe | In June 1642, in the Puritan town of Boston, a crowd gathers to witness the punishment of Hester Prynne, a young woman found guilty of adultery. She is required to wear a scarlet "A" ("A" standing for adulteress) on her dress to shame her. She must stand on the scaffold for three hours, to be exposed to public humiliation. As Hester approaches the scaffold, many of the women in the crowd are angered by her beauty and quiet dignity. When demanded and cajoled to name the father of her child, Hester refuses.
As Hester looks out over the crowd, she notices a small, misshapen man and recognizes him as her long-lost husband, who has been presumed lost at sea. When the husband sees Hester's shame, he asks a man in the crowd about her and is told the story of his wife's adultery. He angrily exclaims that the child's father, the partner in the adulterous act, should also be punished and vows to find the man. He chooses a new name – Roger Chillingworth – to aid him in his plan.
The Reverend John Wilson and the minister of Hester's church, Arthur Dimmesdale, question the woman, but she refuses to name her lover. After she returns to her prison cell, the jailer brings in Roger Chillingworth, a physician, to calm Hester and her child with his roots and herbs. He and Hester have an open conversation regarding their marriage and the fact that they were both in the wrong. Her lover, however, is another matter and he demands to know who it is; Hester refuses to divulge such information. He accepts this, stating that he will find out anyway, and forces her to hide that he is her husband. If she ever reveals him, he warns her, he will destroy the child's father. Hester agrees to Chillingworth's terms although she suspects she will regret it.
Following her release from prison, Hester settles in a cottage at the edge of town and earns a meager living with her needlework. She lives a quiet, sombre life with her daughter, Pearl. She is troubled by her daughter's unusual fascination by Hester's scarlet "A". As she grows older, Pearl becomes capricious and unruly. Her conduct starts rumours, and, not surprisingly, the church members suggest Pearl be taken away from Hester.
Hester, hearing rumors that she may lose Pearl, goes to speak to Governor Bellingham. With him are ministers Wilson and Dimmesdale. Hester appeals to Dimmesdale in desperation, and the minister persuades the governor to let Pearl remain in Hester's care.
Because Dimmesdale's health has begun to fail, the townspeople are happy to have Chillingworth, a newly arrived physician, take up lodgings with their beloved minister. Being in such close contact with Dimmesdale, Chillingworth begins to suspect that the minister's illness is the result of some unconfessed guilt. He applies psychological pressure to the minister because he suspects Dimmesdale to be Pearl's father. One evening, pulling the sleeping Dimmesdale's vestment aside, Chillingworth sees a symbol that represents his shame on the minister's pale chest.
Tormented by his guilty conscience, Dimmesdale goes to the square where Hester was punished years earlier. Climbing the scaffold, he admits his guilt to them but cannot find the courage to do so publicly. Hester, shocked by Dimmesdale's deterioration, decides to obtain a release from her vow of silence to her husband.
Several days later, Hester meets Dimmesdale in the forest and tells him of her husband and his desire for revenge. She convinces Dimmesdale to leave Boston in secret on a ship to Europe where they can start life anew. Renewed by this plan, the minister seems to gain new energy. On Election Day, Dimmesdale gives what is declared to be one of his most inspired sermons. But as the procession leaves the church, Dimmesdale climbs upon the scaffold and confesses his sin, dying in Hester's arms. Later, most witnesses swear that they saw a stigma in the form of a scarlet "A" upon his chest, although some deny this statement. Chillingworth, losing his will for revenge, dies shortly thereafter and leaves Pearl a substantial inheritance.
After several years, Hester returns to her cottage and resumes wearing the scarlet letter. When she dies, she is buried near the grave of Dimmesdale, and they share a simple slate tombstone engraved with an escutcheon described as: "On a field, sable, the letter A, gules" ("On a field, black, the letter A, red"). | historical fiction | train | wikipedia | Nontraditional but wondrous version of "Scarlet Letter" with magnificent Senta Berger performance.
This version of "The Scarlet Letter" is no more faithful to Hawthorne's novel than most of the others, but in its own way it's utterly magnificent.Hawthorne's gloomy?
Well, Wenders makes Hawthorne look positively cheerful!
The film begins with Pearl about seven years old, and Hester is summoned to stand on the scaffold in what seems to have been some kind of annual ritual for the town elders and clerics to demand that she reveal the child's name.
It's positively sadistic.
At least Hawthorne only subjected Hester to one such public humiliation.But it's Senta Berger's performance that makes this film such an absolute stand-out.
She generally appears heavily wrapped up in clothing, and here's where the desolate Portuguese coast comes in so nicely, justifying such heavy clothing as protection against the wind and the cold.
But it also comes across as if Hester is trying to wrap herself so heavily to suppress her own womanly sexuality.
It's much like survivors of abuse, who often "overdress" in a form of psychological protection, almost as a kind of armor.
And make no mistake, Hester is clearly a victim of abuse, condemned for her sexual expression and now reacting to that condemnation with such heavy self-defense against any emotional contact with those who have shunned her.What this "cover-up" of her sexuality does is make it all the more impressive when Hester uncovers her hair and lets it flow down her back in the "forest scene" with Dimmesdale.
For at least a few moments, this woman is finally finding some freedom, and it's especially impressive with that combination of gentleness and extraordinary beauty that Senta Berger manages to project as she "lets her hair down."There's so many wonders to this film, especially with this wondrous performance by Senta Berger.
I can understand that someone might dislike the constant background music.
If I knew German and were trying to follow the dialog, I'd probably find it distracting.
But since I'm simply following the subtitles, I actually found this constant background music a reinforcement to the extreme claustrophobic pressure on Hester's person-hood throughout this movie.
Yelena Samarina (whom Wenders apparently wanted for the role of Hester but was refused by his financial backers) is fascinating as "Mistress Hibbins," playing the role non-traditionally as the governor's daughter.And Hans Christian Blech is also a fascinating Chillingworth, but his is not the traditional demonic portrayal of the betrayed husband.
Instead, he's the "rational" investigator, the kind of "scientific detective" who would tear wings off a butterfly to see how the creature will react.
All in all, he's actually even more evil than Hawthorne's portrayal, evil in a coldly and unemotionally "scientific" kind of way.The one flaw in this movie is Lou Castel as Dimmesdale, who I actually think is the most difficult of all characters to cast in any of the film versions.
The problem with Dimmesdale is that he can't be a "hunka hunka" (like Gary Oldman in the 1995 version with Demi Moore) or you wonder why he doesn't just take charge of the situation and set everything to rights.
On the other hand, he can't be such a wimp that you start wondering whatever it was that Hester saw in this poor slob in the first place.
Well, Lou Castel certainly doesn't err on the "hunka hunka" side, but I for one do wonder what any woman would see in the Dimmesdale that he portrayed!I'm biased.
I adore Meg Foster and think her performance in the 1979 TV-miniseries is the greatest portrayal of Hester imaginable.
Unfortunately, the 1979 miniseries, though literally faithful to Hawthorne's novel, was flawed by its length which resulted in a loss of intensity.
The Wenders version, on the other hand, is painfully and claustrophobic-ally intense, and Senta Berger's performance is one that draws the viewer literally into inhabiting Hester's own person and viewing all of Salem through her eyes.You'll find VHS tapes of this on eBay. The video isn't as sharp and crisp as I might like, but since it hasn't been reissued in a better version, be happy for what you can find and snap it up as soon as you can.
This film is an absolute glory..
German period drama....
I watched this film as part of my lovely Wim Wenders Collection boxed set, with eight films/documentaries, which I'm slowly working through.As an English film lover, who's so used to 'our' often excellent dramas of old, that the thought of a German one seems quite odd and with Wenders normally associated with more contemporary and thought-provoking subjects, perhaps surprising, too.Such films are never going to be my favourites but I can tell immediately that his version here of the Salem-set melodrama looks the part, is well-made and convinces in its period detail.
Some of the coastal scenery is impressive, too, with quite a Danish feel, to my eyes.
The story is most likely to be a familiar one to those seeking out this, so I don't feel the need to elaborate too much on this aspect.
As the central character Hester Byrne, Senta Berger looks attractively regal, but with a distant, cool look and the main men-folk are interestingly featured, facially (in other words, a bit ugly!) but in a not unattractive way.
Another reviewer has talked about a heavy musical score which they thought hampered it - true, but this is suited to a slow-moving period drama, as it's all orchestral and musically fitting but also keeps the movie flowing along better.
Visually, in parts, it could be rather static otherwise.As I said, I'm no expert on period drama, nor on this story and haven't read the source material, so cannot say how faithful it is.
However, it is a well presented, good-looking drama with a good cast and the subtitles present us with a fairly well written script.
It is not as dingy and dark as many of such ilk, specially from the 70s, that I've come across and whilst Wenders will never be known for such, his 1973 (so, early) adaptation is well worth watching if you either enjoy the literary source, Wenders himself or indeed, good period drama.
The German dialogue will put some off, as will the requisite subtitles and those Wenders fans expecting something more modern, or snappy will be disappointed, possibly very much so..
Disappointing meeting of two great artists.
Wenders has made some extraordinary films, but this is not one of them.
Low budget, poor acting, and a terrible score render this film a total failure; the subtle intermixture of fantasy and reality that is so characteristic a trait of Hawthorne's novel is wholly lacking in Wenders' adaptation which comes dangerously close to unintended parody at times..
Pretty good German adaptation of American classic.....
Pretty good adaption, but the music was outright silly at times, not to mention too loud...
what could have they been thinking?
Most of the time the rhythm or feeling of the music had nothing to do with what was happening, it seemed as if they ridiculed the storyline on purpose.In my opinion the actors in general were quite talented, Berger was excellent with those long meaningful looks she cast at the others (Dimmesdale and Chillingworth).
The only negative thing I can think of about her is that she had on too much makeup; it got kind of distracting since this was supposed to be a Puritan colony and I'm sure they opposed such practices (especially since she was punished for being a "wh..." and she tried as much as possible to be accepted again), oh well!
The filming location was beautiful, but I don't know if the Portuguese landscape convinced me enough to believe it was New England, particularly during the beach scenes that were originally forest ones (and the sense and objective of confrontation, darkeness, and secrecy take on a much heavier meaning in the woods, which just aren't conveyed in the same manner in a bright and sunny beach).The actor who played Dimmesdale wasn't the best choice at all, it made me wonder how a strong-willed, sexy woman (as played by Berger) such as Hester Prynne could have fallen in love with, well, a weakling, who wasn't even strong in the looks department!
He was just fainting all over the place in every other scene and it made me want to tell Hester to run away from him as fast as possible and look for a real man!Excellent performance by the actor who played the evil Chillingworth, he was perfectly cast.
His overall appearance was downright creepy, well done!
The costumes in general had the look of an elaborated school play, not very real at all.
Hester's "A" was put in the wrong place; there was nothing remarkable about its design as it's so often mentioned in the book, with the gold thread and all which made all the villagers want to hire her for sewing, an important step in her eventual acceptance.
Dimmesdale "A", when finally discovered by Chillingworth was simply laughable, they would have transmitted so much if they didn't show it and maybe just showed Chillingworth's reaction.All in all, considering the year it was filmed, 1973, and the fact that it was filmed in Europe, with European actors (who might not have learned and read the book in High School as it's done in American schools, thus making it perhaps quite difficult to understand and grasp the true meaning of living in those times in a recently colonized area where the Bible was taken literally - just my opinion, I don't mean to insult anybody-), this American classic was very well depicted and acted.
The emotions the actors transmitted to the audience were the right ones, which is what in the end counts.If anybody has the chance of watching an alternate interpretation of The Scarlet Letter, you won't be disappointed with this one!.
Wenders succeeds with Hawthorne period piece.
"Der scharlachrote Buchstabe" or "The Scarlet Letter" is a collaboration between West Germany and Spain and the outcome was a German-language film from 1973.
The director is Wim Wenders and he is also one of the many writers who worked on this one.
His collaborator on the screenplay was Bernardo Fernández and it is an early career effort from him that also explains Spain listed as a production country.
The movie is based on a novel by Nathaniel Hawthorne, who was already dead for over a century when this film was made.
It runs for 90 minutes exactly and German film fans will immediately recognize lead actress Senta Berger as well as little Yella Rottländer and Rüdiger Vogler with whom Wenders worked on many occasions.
Hans Christian Blech is probably not too known anymore today, but still gives a good performance.
Foreign audiences will most likely immediately recognize Lou Castel who plays something similar to a love interest to Berger's character.This is a film set in the 17th century and the story of a woman who gets humiliated because she has a child born out of wedlock.
Things get even more complicated when her former husband returns into her life, but only with malicious intentions as he tries his all to find out who is the one that got her pregnant.
The answer is: the local priest, which makes the situation even worse, even if nobody (except the audience) finds out about it for almost the entire film.
I must say I enjoyed the watch.
The actors were good and even if there was a questionable moment or situation in terms of realism here and there (it's okay though, nothing too bad and with some fantasy you can probably explain each of these moments to a somewhat credible degree), it was a convincing watch overall.
It was easy to care for them, but Wenders still does not go for cheap emotional affection when it comes to the relationship between characters and audiences, but he goes for convincing portrayals and the characters with all their shades make very much sense.
The cinematography is occasionally stunning too.
I am a bit surprised this is nowhere near as famous as Wenders' most known works as it has depth, creativity and wit as well as nice dramatic tension from start to finish that will have you on the edge of your seat occasionally.
Maybe the reason is that the real moments of greatness and extraordinarily memorable situations can't really be found here.
It is still one of the best I have seen from Wenders so far and he proves that he can also make quality period pieces, a genre that he has not touched that much I guess.
I certainly recommend the watch. |
tt0094006 | Some Kind of Wonderful | The film is set against the strict social hierarchy of an American public high school. Blue collar mechanic Keith Nelson (Eric Stoltz) and his tomboyish friend Watts (Mary Stuart Masterson) aspire to improve their social standing. When Keith asks out the most popular and attractive girl in school, Amanda Jones (Lea Thompson), Watts realizes her feelings for him are much deeper. Watts tells Keith that Amanda will appreciate a good kisser, and shows Keith how to kiss, whereupon Keith is confused by his romantic feelings for both girls. He later uses his college fund, with Watts in tow, and selects a pair of earrings for Amanda.
Meanwhile, Hardy Jenns (Craig Sheffer), Amanda's ex-boyfriend from a wealthy neighborhood, plots trouble for Keith by inviting him and Amanda to a party after their date. Hardy jealously plans to have Keith beaten up. Keith finds out about the plot, believing Amanda to be part of it, but goes ahead with the date anyway, spending the rest of his college money on an expensive dinner and roping in Watts (as chauffeur) to help make the date special. At Jenns's party, the timely arrival of other "misfits" saves Keith from taking a beating. They attempt to turn the tables and beat Jenns instead. Keith tells Jenns he is "over" her and Amanda slaps Jenns's face.
In the end, Amanda decides that she needs to learn to stand on her own, find out who she is and make real friends. She returns the earrings that Keith gave to her. Keith, pleased with the result, and realizing that he is in love with his best friend, bids Amanda goodbye with a kiss on the cheek, after she urges him to go after Watts. Keith catches up to Watts and they kiss, whereupon Keith confesses to Watts that he had no idea how she really felt about him. Keith then gives Watts the earrings after she admitted that she wanted them the whole time, and Keith jokes that Watts knew she was going to get them, and she says that she hoped but that she didn't know. Watts asks Keith how they look, and he replies, "You look good wearing my future." | romantic | train | wikipedia | Mary Stuart's kissing scene is one of the most wonderfully romantic and intense kissing scenes on film that I've seen, yet it has an innocent quality that makes it all the more special.Eric Stoltz and Lea Thompson give excellent performances as well, with good acting and both are able to highlight dialogue with subtle nuances.
It came out at a time when there were a lot of teen movies (Pretty in Pink, The Breakfast Club, etc.), but this is a story that never grows old and is a pleasure to watch again..
Hughes decides to leave his Brat Packers behind and went with great choices in Eric Stoltz (who could've gave John Cusack a run for his money in the Teen Angst movie department), Lea Thompson and Mary Stewart Masterson, who steals the show as Watts.
By switching the sexes- Eric Stoltz as Molly Ringwald, and Mary Stuart Masterson as Jon Cryer- of "Pretty in Pink", the film delves deeper than "The Breakfast Club"- almost accidentally.
Guess the first time I seen this movie, I liked it just because it was SUCH a good movie but a few years later seeing it, it really hit me in the face and to this day I always watch it whenever I get the chance and remember my friend....
The main characters, especially Watts (a very young Mary Stuart Masterson), turn in superb performances, and lift this way above the ordinary.Good comic-relief from the support cast - watch especially for the scenes with Keith's sister Laura, and the one between Watts and her admirer - which is a real hoot!For sheer romantic escapism, this film is close enough to perfect.
Mary stuart Masterson plays a girl who has a crush on Eric Stoltz who has been friends with her for a long time but she never has told her feelings.
Howard Deutch pulled together some really remarkable actors and actresses for the roles of this movie.Lets start with Lea Thompson playing the popular girl, Amanda Jones.
Yes, it's predictable, and uses the time-honored romantic comedy formula of the friend who was there under one's nose all along being the 'true love' in the end (that's hardly a spoiler folks), but it's very well done, and I've always loved it.Mary Stuart Masterson and Eric Stoltz turn in sweet performances as non-conformist high school kids (her a tomboy, him an artist, both mechanics) trying to find not only love but also their paths in life.
Lea Thompson is the popular girl Stoltz falls for and pursues, and turns in a strong performance as well – if you get a chance, watch her facial expressions in the scene where she slaps her rich boyfriend, played well by Craig Sheffer.
But Masterson is the one to watch here: tough, funny, and incredibly pretty.John Hughes had a quite a run in the mid-late 80's, and in producing/writing this film, I consider it among his best work.
He had his own way of working that made me uncomfortable." "I know, he wanted to be called by his character name." "Mary Stuart had a tough day that day, look at her." "I know, she took it so seriously" THEY WERE THE BEST THINGS IN THE MOVIE, YOU DOPES!!!
His best friend is the tomboy Watts (Mary Stuart Masterson) and the girl of his dreams is the popular Amanda (Lea Thompson).
But that doesn't mean they're not great movies of their kind.Eric Stoltz is kinda cool as Keith but Mary Stuart Masterson steals the show as tomboy Watts.
Soundtrack is great, I love the song "Always I want to be with you."Supporting character Amanda Jones played well by Lea Thompson this is probably my favorite role from her.
I like that she doesn't play some stereotypical popular rich girl, in fact the interesting thing about her is that she's really in the same working class boat as Keith, Watts, and Duncan she just dresses up and makes herself seem like a upper class person just to get in with the in crowd.What I like is that you really feel for her character deep down she's really a lost person, we see her become disillusioned with the lifestyle from how her rich ex boyfriend Hardy mistreats her whom is a character I just want to punch.
One scene for me that was a highlight was seeing Duncan and his friends save Keith in the party which is something real friends do.But of course the film is really driven by both the characters Keith (Eric Stolz) and Watts (Mary Stuart Matherson).
This just all the more makes us want her to do what she has to do and possibly win because it's the only way, not saying anything is even more painful.I really like how Keith is slowly discovering it, in his mind he thinks that Amanda could be the one; but we see slowly he's changing his mind a little and is starting to look at Watts differently.It has some great themes which are common in most of Hughes films like the importance of opening up to someone about how you feel, becoming more, our perception on people and how their not always what they seem, and believing in yourself.Sometimes the one we truly love is closer then we think.Rating: 4 stars.
now that i watch other films of john Hughes, i absolutely love the breakfast club, but compared to this, pretty in pink is just not good enough.
I can totally relate to the character of Watts and have feelings for my best friend whom we watched the movie together and he detected.We are now kind of taking it one day at a time and seeing if our ending turns out like Watts and Keith-keep your fingers crossed for SomeKind of Wonderful for us!!
Enjoy-the ending is the best!!!Of all John Hughes films this is the most enjoyable, as I'm sure everyone can relate to the characters and having feelings for your best guy friend.The whole movie is just like the story of our friendship we've known each other since high school and now into our adult hood (not giving up the age-lol) but I'm glad to have him in my life as a friend or more and hope our ending turns out as good as Watts and Kieth's!Now go see this wonderful movie!.
If the original script had been followed where Keith turns to Watts and says: 'You look wonderful wearing my future' it would have been the best movie in its genre, hands down, no matter the decade.
i remember when i first saw the teaser for this movie, like a year before it came out, just a clip of Mary Stuart Masterson playing the drums, but it just showed the drum kit and her hands with i'm sure some great music playing.
This was one of the best from the whole John Hughes 80's film collection...It was among Breakfast Club, Pretty in Pink, etc..but this far exceeds...Mary Stuart Masterson is awesome in this film...Not only is she the most beautiful TomBoy i have ever seen, but she was a drummer to top it off...Characters like Duncan and Watts showed us the 80's anarchy side of life to some of us who don't remember that side of the 80's.
All of those elements make Some Kind Of Wonderful a great film that is John Hughes at his best.Some Kind Of Wonderful tells the story of Keith(Eric Stolz),a High School teenager who is a gas station employee and painter and has romantic feelings for Amanda Jones(Lea Thompson),a popular girl who goes out with her rich boyfriend Hardy Jenns(Craig Sheffer).
With courage by his side Keith asks Amanda out on a date which doesn't sit well with Keith's tomboy best friend Watts(Mary Stuart Masterson)who starts to have feelings for Keith.
Now,Keith has to deal with his friendship with Watts and his attraction to Amanda.Released in 1987,Some Kind Of Wonderful is a terrific and memorable Teen movie that was writer John Hughes' final film in the Teen/High School/Coming Of Age genre and maybe his most overlooked of the Teen movies he did from 1984 to 87 and is a movie that came out towards the end of the teen movie boom of the 1980s because by 1987 the Teen genre by 1987 and John Hughes' association with the genre had hit it's creative peak.
Often seen as a gender reversed remake of earlier Teen classic Pretty In Pink(1986)and some will admit there is similarities between the two films(the same director and writer,love triangle,soundtracks and even the movie posters).
And while Pretty In Pink is a great movie and a more iconic and well-known film I always preferred Some Kind Of Wonderful a movie that may not be very original but is one of the best Teen films of the 80s.
Some Kind Of Wonderful is in my opinion not only a John Hughes classic but a Teen classic as well but unfortunately is often underrated and overlooked in comparison to The Breakfast Club,Ferris Bueller's Day Off,Sixteen Candles,Pretty In Pink and Weird Science which is a shame because SKOW has all of the trademarks of those other films:memorable characters,great soundtrack and good dialog where everything just works.
The whole movie is basically a build-up to the last half hour of the film when Keith and Amanda go out on their date and what happens before that examining the relationships of the three main characters Keith,Watts and Amanda who in true John Hughes fashion are three dimensional characters and have depth.
A great soundtrack.In final word,if you love John Hughes or Teen Films,I highly suggest you see Some Kind Of Wonderful,an excellent,underrated Teen classic that is John Hughes at his best.
Meanwhile, his best friend is the tomboyish Watts who finds out she has feelings for Keith after he asks Amanda out.The acting is very good and believable.
Mary Stuart Masterson does a solid job as Watts and this is probably her best role.Overall, Some Kind of Wonderful is an 80's teen film that will keep you engaged.
Keith is infatuated by popular girl Amanda Jones (Lea Thompson) and he invites her on a date, she accepts and Keith along with help from his best friend, a tomboy called Watts (Mary Stuart Masterson), plan the most amazing date.The cast including Eric Stoltz, Mary Stuart Masterson, Lea Thompson, Craig Sheffer, John Ashton & Elias Koteas is great and all bring something great to each character.
It was.The movie tracks a high school student, Keith (Eric Stoltz) during his most difficult experience in his life thus far: falling for popular girl, Amanda Jones (Lea Thompson).Stoltz, who was well into his mid-20s at the time of the movie, displayed the teenage emotions and their intensities so well that the viewer is shocked to hear of his actual age.
You can totally relate to the characters and they are played extremely well by Eric Stoltz, Mary Stuart Masterson and Lea Thompson.
Eric Stolz was great as Keith and Elias Koteas was equally good as Duncan (a very underrated actor) but this movie belonged to Mary Stuart Masterson.It was refreshing to see that the character of Amanda was a nice person - you wanted to hate her because she wanted to be like her rich snobby friends but you couldn't because she had genuine feelings for Keith (even though in the beginning it was used as a way to make Hardy jealous)and in the lead up to the end scenes the audience were shown what exactly Amanda really felt about her life and her "friends" that you couldn't help but feel sorry for her.I didn't like the way Keith's sister Laura was portrayed.
Instead of casting Molly or the other "brat pack" members it was refreshing to see Eric and Lea (the only two well known young actors) and people like Mary and Elias (who I think is one of the best actors today - has anyone see Fallen??)I definitely recommend this movie - no matter how many times you see it you always enjoy it..
Eric Stoltz plays Keith, a working-class guy who has a crush on a popular girl in school, Amanda Jones, played by Lea Thompson.
His best friend Watts is a drummer/tomboy, played Mary Stuart Masterson, who secretly falls in love with Keith.The acting was good and there were some cute scenes.
It recycles a lot of Hughes's previous storylines/characters: working-class guy, best friend in love, antagonizing parents/teachers/siblings, high school hierarchy, smarmy rich boyfriend, rich vs.
It's funny, but I thought Watts and Keith were better off as friends, but that's just my opinion.While I definitely enjoyed "Pretty In Pink" more, despite being disappointed by that film as well, SKOW is worth watching if you are a John Hughes fan, but it wasn't one of my favorites..
Director Howard Deutch and John Hughes reunited one year after their previous joint venture "Pretty In Pink" to make "Some Kind Of Wonderful", which is essentially the same movie as the Molly Ringwald vehicle.
"Some Kind of Wonderful" can be placed next to John Hughes' other successful films that have wowed the general public, such as "The Breakfast Club", "Pretty in Pink" etc.
This is a debate I have had many times when drunk with fellow film nuts and I can honestly say, hand on heart, that I do not think anyone has ever created a better character than that of Duncan, so wonderfully played by Elias Koteas.The scene where he etches a carving into the desktop then proclaims to Keith "this is what my girlfriend would look like without skin" still kills me, even after nearly 20 years of knowing that line is coming.Just wondered what you lot think?
In my opinion, "Some Kind of Wonderful" is John Hughes' best 80's teen movie by far.
In Pretty in Pink it was Jon Cryer's performance as Molly Ringwalds hopelessly infatuated friend Duckie, in Some Kind of Wonderful it is Mary Stuart Masterson's portrayal of Watt's, the tough, tomboy best-friend and secret admirer of our main character Keith.
In the end of our film Keith comes to a crossroads, stay with Amanda, the girl he has pawned after for his entire high school career, or be with Watt's, his best friend since grade school?
Eric Stoltz plays Keith Nelson, a high school student and mechanic who asks a popular student named Amanda Jones (Lea Thompson) out on a date.
Unbeknownst to Keith, his tomboy friend Watts (Mary Stuart Masterson), the subject of lesbian rumors in high school, has feelings for him.Many romantic movies of this ilk tend to provide the question of if the boy will get the girl.
As with any Hughes film the music equally plays its part to good effect as well.I know that 'Breakfast Club' is the best known of Hughes' 80's comedies, with 'Pretty in Pink' also having a strong following, but for me there are so many lovely moments within this film that it's stuck with me the more times I see it.I can only recommend you take a look at it yourself..
Keith Nelson (Eric Stoltz), Watts (Mary Stuart Masterson) and Amanda Jones (Lea Thompson) are all from the wrong side of the tracks.
Definitely check this out if you like John Hughes, love stories, teen dramas, 80's era stuff, or if you just like straight up good movies!.
The movie truly belongs to Mary Stuart Masterson, she plays Stolz's best friend and confidant, and yes like Jon Cryer's character (duckie) in Pretty in Pink, she is in love with her best friend.She plays the character with the right mix of attitude and sensibility.
One of her first real breaks, she plays the tom-boyish friend of Eric Stoltz, which she has a crush on, however, he has a crush on the most popular girl in school, played by Lea Thompson(sounds oddly familiar to another Hughes film...Sixteen Candles ring any bells?).
I wish I looked just like Mary Stuart Masterson.This movie is my favorite movie of all time.Keith and Watts were really made for eachother.Amanda Jones is a self-centered,stuck up teenage girl who thinks she is better than other people.I think the music in this movie sucked.They could have used better songs.But the movie itself was awesome!!!On a scale from 1-10 I would give this movie a 9.The reason I would give it a 9 is because the music sucked big time.I even own the soundtrack for some odd reason.It is a must see movie.I don't think this movie was very popular to people because u would hear about it more..
Stoltz is lovely, Masterson is SO believable as the hard-done-by friend, and Thompson is great as the girl you feel you should hate, but just can't.The plot is similar to that of many of Hughes' work, you know, boy from wrong side of tracks in love with beautiful girl he 'could never score in a million years', but guess what - he does!!Many times I have wanted to have the friendship that Watts and Keith have, (with the inevitable ending of course), yet unfortunately, so far, these things seem to be confined to the screen!!
A young tomboy, Watts (Mary Stuart Masterson), finds her feelings for her best friend, Keith (Eric Stoltz), run deeper than just friendship when he gets a date with the most popular girl in school.
John Hughes certainly knew how to get into the heart of an 80's American teenager.I could relate so much with Eric Stoltz's character (Keith Nelson) and with Mary Stuart Masterson's character (Watts).
The 80s had so many teen comedies, and I say "Some Kind of Wonderful" was among one of the best along with "Fast Time at Ridgemont High", "Ferris Bueller's Day Off", and "Say Anything..." Not that it was a great comedy, per se, but it was a very in depth look of teenager trying to understand themselves.Eric Stolze played an ordinary teenager, Keith of a middle class family who wanted to go after one of the most beautiful girl, played by Lea Thompson, in school. |
tt0027690 | The Gorgeous Hussy | In 1823 Washington D.C., Major O'Neal (Gene Lockhart) and his daughter Margaret "Peggy" O'Neal (Joan Crawford) run an inn that is frequented by politicians. Peggy is outspoken for a woman of her time, and when Tennessee senator Andrew Jackson (Lionel Barrymore) visits, she affectionately refers to him as "Uncle Andy."
Peggy is secretly in love with the well-known Virginia senator John Randolph (Melvyn Douglas), but her feelings are seemingly unrequited. When new inn resident "Bow" Timberlake (Robert Taylor) refers to Peggy as a "tavern girl" while drinking, John slaps him in defense of Peggy. Bow soon falls in love with Peggy himself and proposes, but she refuses, but her feelings lie with John. John spurns her advances, thinking that she is too young and does not really mean it, but begins to have a change of heart. When he finally realizes that they are both in love, however, he learns from Bow that Peggy has finally consented to marry him. Peggy again talks to John about their future, but John again rejects her, thinking that the younger Bow would be a more suitable husband.
On the night of their marriage, "Uncle Andy" hears a commotion in their room, and can't believe that Bow and Peggy are married. But instead of reading their marriage license, Bow shows Peggy his orders. He must leave for a three-month tour of duty aboard the USS Constitution the next day. However, when Constitution returns to Washington, Peggy learns that Bow has died when his men lost track of him.
In 1828, John returns from being the Minister to Russia. Peggy is excited to see him, and he tells her how unhappy he was so far from Washington. At the same time, Jackson is elected U.S. president amid a campaign of verbal attacks aimed at his wife Rachel (Beulah Bondi), whom he inadvertently married before her divorce from her first husband was final. Soon after the election, Rachel dies after asking Peggy to look after Jackson. Having been close to Jackson since the beginning, Peggy becomes his official hostess and confidante. Fulfilling Rachel's premonition, this causes many of the Washington political wives to gossip and snub her. At the same time, Jackson comes under political fire from Southerners such as John Randolph, who feels he has turned against them by his stand on state rights.
At a ball, Peggy's childhood friend, "Rowdy" Dow (James Stewart), wants to fight Southern senator John C. Calhoun (Frank Conroy) because of an insulting remark about Peggy, however, she interrupts and asks him to dance instead. Seeing Rowdy and Peggy dancing, John returns home, but is followed by Peggy, who once again professes her love. This time, John admits his own love and they plan to marry. Soon after telling Jackson what has happened, however, Peggy realizes that differing political views will never allow her and John to be happy, and they part.
A short time later, Secretary of War John Eaton (Franchot Tone), who has loved Peggy for years, proposes. She is fond of him, and believes, like Jackson, that marriage will bring her respectability. A year later, Rowdy comes to visit and tells Peggy that John Randolph has been shot and is near death. She asks Rowdy to take her to see her John, who was shot by Sunderland (Louis Calhern), a Southerner trying to prevent him from revealing to Jackson a proposed violent rebellion. John dies contentedly after Peggy's visit. On the way back to Washington, Peggy and Rowdy's coach is accosted by Sunderland, who demands safe passage to Washington in exchange for not revealing that he has seen them. Rowdy throws him out, but soon Jackson's cabinet members and their wives come to him to demand that Peggy be sent away from Washington. When Peggy arrives at the meeting, Jackson lies by saying she was sent to see John Randolph by him and that Rowdy was asked by John Eaton to accompany her. Jackson then demands the resignation of his entire cabinet, except for Eaton.
Finally, Peggy, who knows that even Jackson's kind lie will not lead to her acceptance in Washington, asks him to send John Eaton as the special envoy to Spain where she knows that they will find contentment. | romantic, murder | train | wikipedia | MGM in trying to expand Joan Crawford's repertoire into period costume pieces spared no expense and gave her one all star cast in this drama about the Peggy O'Neal Eaton affair.
The basic facts are true, Peggy O'Neal, daughter of a Washington, DC tavern-keeper and widow of a young Navy Lieutenant, marries the Senator from Tennessee who then is chosen Secretary of War in President Andrew Jackson's original cabinet.
The Cabinet wives however refuse to receive Peggy socially as does the wife of the Vice President John C.
Jackson blows his cabinet up, requests resignations from all involved and Eaton and Peg are sent in exile so to speak as he is made Minister to Spain.The real story is far more complex than that.
Jackson did regard Peggy as a slandered woman, much like his late wife Rachel was.
Beulah Bondi plays her in the movie and it's the best performance in the film.
In real life this whole affair was being maneuvered behind the scenes by John Calhoun and Secretary of State Martin Van Buren taking anti and pro Peggy positions respectively.
Played by Charles Trowbridge, he's given one or two lines in the film.Robert Taylor strikes the right note as the young Naval Lieutenant Bow Timberlake.
It's also not explained here and that leaves the audiences up in the air.Franchot Tone plays John Eaton and I think a lot of his performance is left on the cutting room floor.
In real life there is some question as to whether Eaton and Peggy were involved while she was married to Timberlake.But the most fantastic error in this plot is John Randolph's interest in Peggy.
The real John Randolph was never assassinated, he died of natural causes and had no major role in the Peggy O'Neal affair at all.Maybe some day someone will make a better film of this incident..
The only compelling ingredients in this overlong saga about the controversial hussy Peggy Eaton who wielded much influence over President Andrew Jackson are a few of the performances and the novelty of actual political debates occurring in the context of a love affair; Hollywood seldom mixed those two elements.
Joan Crawford is not particularly persuasive as a young tavern keeper's daughter.
Things liven up with the appearance of Andrew Jackson (Lionel Barrymore) and his unpopular and maligned wife Rachel (Beulah Bondi).
Barrymore may have been a ham who gave basically the same performance in film after film, but at least he puts some juice into the proceedings, making the most he can of the extremely diluted representation of Jackson supplied by the script.
Bondi is touching in her depiction of the ill-fated Rachel, the love of Jackson's life.
Between these bits there are occasionally interesting sketches of the political contentions of the time, mostly about how much power should be granted to the individual states, foreshadowing the Civil War. But we never get a sense of what an extraordinary woman the title character was.
Nothing in Joan Crawford's performance or in the material given her indicates that this is anything other than an unusually attractive and well behaved lady with romantic yearnings but someone for whose honor and reputation a President would dissolve his cabinet and change the course of US history?
You cannot make a polite film about these characters in this historical period, but this is what MGM tried to do..
Fictionalized historic soaper about Andrew Jackson's friendship and protection of a young woman named Peggy O'Neal.
Lionel Barrymore plays Jackson and Joan Crawford plays Peggy.
Melvyn Douglas, James Stewart, Robert Taylor, Franchot Tone, Beulah Bondi, and Louis Calhern....not a bad lineup.
Andrew Jackson's wife dies and asks Peggy to look out for him.
Peggy has a somewhat scandalous reputation of her own, which reminds Jackson of his wife, who suffered at the hands of Washington gossips.
What is that most modern, at least to her time, of actresses Joan Crawford doing in hoop skirts and crinoline?
There is not one look or gesture that she makes that has a feeling of any period but the 20th century.Both stagnant and silly this completely miscast picture takes an interesting and scandalous piece of American history, The Petticoat Affair, and make it seem asinine and trivial when it practically tore Jackson's presidency apart and did lead to most of his cabinet's resignation.
Fanciful, but silly biography of Peggy Eaton (Crawford), a controversial figure during the Andrew Jackson administration in the late 1820s, and her relationships with influential men of that era.
Semi-fiction story is "gorgeous" to look at thanks to elegant period settings and costumes, not so much the performances or script..
Joan Crawford stars in The Gorgeous Hussy, often referred to as her only historical drama.
During her silent years, Crawford was the star of other historical films (Across to Singapore, Rose Marie) and westerns.
When reviewers say Crawford was too modern for historical pictures, they conveniently forget the terrific reviews she received for Rose Marie in 1928, now a lost film, and her electric presence in Johnny Guitar.The Gorgeous Hussy is not a popular film.
A lot of people went to see Gorgeous Hussy in its day--more people than saw other films referred to as hits, such as No More Ladies, and yet the high production did not allow it to make a significant enough profit to be considered a hit..
Joan Crawford shines in this movie, despite what many of her detractors have said about her.
It follows an Inn keepers daughter (Joan Crawford at her loveliest) through two marriages and a lasting friendship with Andrew Jackson.
Although her particular character is fictitious, the rest of the story line is fairly historically accurate, especially the portrayal of the close campaign Jackson ran, due to the opposition of his wife Rachel..
This lengthy melodrama does have first-rate production values and intermittent good acting, especially from the quieter performers, Melvyn Douglas and (most of all) Beulah Bondi, as a gentle, pipe-smoking Mrs. Andrew Jackson.
"The Gorgeous Hussy" impressed me at once as a rather trite, artificial history-based (I won't actually call it historical) film about the Eaton Affair scandal of Andrew Jackson's presidency.
A lot of the dialogue is just difficult to swallow or sickly-sweet, and American history is treated with a kind of overly orthodox distorting reverence -- turning the scandal into a stage for Andrew Jackson to be held up as an early defender of the Union in a proto-iteration of the Civil War -- that grates.There are good points too however: Lionel Barrymore creates a wonderfully memorable performance as the raucous and rough yet wise President Jackson.
He makes the former president human even while the script presents him somewhat two-dimensionally as a kind of grumpy but lovable old uncle most of the time (with a few nice scenes where he gets to be principled and statesmanlike in the face of his congress).
Joan Crawford seeps magnetism and sympathy as Margaret, even as we are not really allowed to see the struggles between men that make up much of the movie emotionally dramatized for her.
These actors get to play a few nice dramatic scenes amid the posturing, including a very effective one after President Jackson's wife's death.Unfortunately, the piety with which "The Gorgeous Hussy" treats American history extends to other elements of its subject matter.
There is a huge budget, lavish production values, beautiful costumes (male and female), top-notch acting and, of course, romance.The story centers around Peggy O'Neill, Joan Crawford, an innkeeper's daughter called "Pothouse Peg," for her politics and her men.
The men are a list of Metro's best—Robert Taylor, Jimmy Stewart, Franchot Tone, Melvyn Douglas and Lionel Barrymore.
Andrew Jackson (Barrymore) dominates every scene he's in.
Beulah Bondi, as Rachel Jackson, is equally good.
She won an Oscar nomination for her role.Joan Crawford is usually criticized for appearing in an historical picture because she was too "modern." Here she handles her costumes beautifully, using her skirts to express a range of emotions.
While her acting is fine, she is overwhelmed by the male contingent.Franchot Tone, Crawford's husband at the time, is quietly effective as her second husband John Eaton.
Jimmy Stewart is wasted as Peg's failed suitor."The Gorgeous Hussy" is fun, sometimes moving and a reminder that political behavior wasn't all that different in the 1820s..
When girlish innkeeper's daughter Joan Crawford (as Margaret "Peggy" O'Neal) develops into a beautiful young woman, many men in 1823 Washington, DC desire her.
Ms. Crawford finds sailor Robert Taylor (as "Bow" Timberlake) attractive, but Crawford is saving herself for Virginia Senator Melvyn Douglas (as John Randolph).
Though she still loves Mr. Douglas, Crawford marries Taylor after a fight with Douglas, who thinks Crawford is too young for marriage.Shortly after the wedding, Lieutenant Taylor is called away for three months, to the West Indies.Crawford waits in Washington with an older couple who consider her a companion and ward, politically savvy Lionel Barrymore (as Andrew "Andy" Jackson) and his pipe-smoking wife Beulah Bondi (as Rachel).
Crawford's real-life husband, Franchot Tone (as John H.
Otherwise, this historical fiction succeeds as neither.***** The Gorgeous Hussy (8/28/36) Clarence Brown ~ Joan Crawford, Lionel Barrymore, Melvyn Douglas, Robert Taylor.
The dashingly handsome men who flit around her flame are played by Robert Taylor, Franchot Tone and Melvyn Douglas, (James Steward is in there, too), and they have the charisma of cardboard.
The true story of Peggy Eaton was so much better and I have no idea why they didn't follow the storyline the way it played out in real life.
It didn't make any sense in this movie to have Joan Crawford's character not be turned on by Francot Tone, who she was married to in real life.
Her husband, at the time, did die at sea and it was rumored that he committed suicide because Peggy was having an affair with John Eaton, who she married a month later.
Then, when she went calling on the Washington Ladies, they snubbed her and called her a "hussy." Andrew Jackson was so mad, he fired his whole cabinet, like in the movie.
This movie didn't make any sense and to call it "Gorgeous Hussy" made people think they were going to get a good soap opera, which they could have if they would have written a script that stuck to the story.
Joan Crawford can't act.
No plot was developed and the political issues of nullification, states rights, Bank of America and Peggy Eaton as the 'hussy' were not developed and if the viewer doesn't know history, this whole movie would be perplexing to say the least.
This movie is only good to see the beautiful sets and costumes of the time.
Joan Crawford was just awful and Lionel Barrymore should have done a little more study on Andrew Jackson, who was a strong and noble gentleman, not a country bumpkin.I only rate this movie as high as I did for the costumes and set design.
A star vehicle for Joan Crawford, who plays Margaret O'Neal, daughter of an inn-keeper, adoptive niece of Andrew Jackson (Lionel Barrymore), hopelessly in love with Virginia Senator John Randolph (Melvyn Douglas), married first to the dashing naval lieutenant Timberlake (Robert Taylor), and then after turning down Randolph because he's intent on breaking up the Union, to steadfast John Eaton (Franchot Tone).
The cast is made more lively by the presence of Beaulah Bondi as the pipe-smoking backwoods Rachel Jackson, by Sidney Toler as Daniel Webster ready to orate at the drop of a hat, by Alison Skipworth as the gossiping Mrs. Beall, and the gosh-shucks comic interludes of a very young James Stewart as Rowdy Dow. This is a sentimental melodramatic revision of history, with historical figures gravitating or (perhaps) orbiting about a beautiful, headstrong, smart young woman.
If the dialogue didn't mention it from time to time it would be hard to remember she's not supposed to be a "lady." Her carriage reflects this problem, too, until it seems that everybody else in the cast is acting while she is delivering Joan Crawford content.
The true story goes like this: Andrew Jackson married a woman who was not divorced from her first husband (oops).
If you recall Charleton Heston's first film about Andrew Jackson, THE PRESIDENT'S LADY, Jackson married Rachel Robarts (Susan Hayward) thinking she was divorced from Lewis Robarts.
THE PRESIDENT'S LADY shows how Rachel's great love for Andrew took him to the White House in 1829, but that the scandalous political campaign against Jackson at her expense killed her.
Beulah Bondi is Rachel, and Lionel Barrymore Andrew, and Beulah dies early in the film, just as Andrew becomes President.
She has a friend here, Peggy O'Neal (Joan Crawford)who tries to confront the widowed President.
She's popular, having at least four beaux: Lt. Timberlake, a naval officer (Robert Taylor - in a very brief early part); Senator John Randolph (Melvyn Douglas), a distinguished spokesman for southern states rights; John Eaton (Franchot Tone), Jackson's Secretary of War; and James Stewart.
But Jackson stands by Peggy O'Neal Timberlake Eaton, and remakes the cabinet and his government to mirror his view of democracy.This film has a lot going for it and a lot going against it: It is a juicy, crazy scandal that makes an interesting tale - and it is true.
All the performers play their parts well, from Crawford and her beaus to Bondi and Barrymore, Sidney Blackmer (as Daniel Webster) and Louis Calhern as a fictional villain.
One hopes another attempt is made at telling the story of Peggy Eaton - one that is not so full of errors, and explains how petticoat politics got out of control in the early 1830s..
Certainly, the studio was still dickering with the film on 15 August 1936.COMMENT: Joan Crawford's rare period picture wasn't received well by the fans.
At least Franchot Tone manages to invest Eaton with a degree of charm, while Melvyn Douglas gives Randolph a similar degree of conviction.
Taylor is not out of his depth as the superficial fun-loving Bow Timberlake and there is a happy selection of character players to help things along.
He seems much closer to the real Jackson than Lionel Barrymore (who makes a much better Ebenezer Scrooge in the A Christmas Carol audio recording than he does our 7th president)..
Senator Andrew Jackson, about to become president, and his wife Rachel arrive in Washington and meet many famous people -- Daniel Webster, John Randolph, John C.
One of the less famous people the Jacksons meet -- less famous because mostly fictional -- is Joan Crawford, dressed in hoop skirts and dozens of ringlets.
I lost count, but among them are Jimmy Stewart, playing a comic suitor named "Rowdy", and handsome, dashing Robert Taylor as "Bow" Timberlake, a naval officer in a tight, fancy uniform.
I'll give you an example of how historical events are related to romance.We see President Andrew Jackson, Lionel Barrymore, looking less like Andrew Jackson than anyone possibly could.
The gossip about Joan Crawford comes to a head and Uncle Andy saves her from being shunned by the stuffy old ladies of Washington.
1952's "The President's Lady" cast Charleton Heston and Susan Hayward as Andrew and Rachel Jackson, the very controversial couple that once faced charges of bigamy when her first marriage wasn't actually final upon their union.
In "The Gorgeous Hussey", it is the quite different Lionel Barrymore and Beaulah Bondi who play this couple, already aging, with him about to be elected president and her ailing as a result of both the affects of smoking a pipe and the sadness by how her reputation as a supposed fallen woman has affected his public image.
The women of Washington are all resentful of a pipe-smoking first lady (who sadly never makes it into the White House) and their resentments and extremely petty jealousies move on to his surrogate daughter, Peggy Eaton, whom they consider beneath high society in a still infant nation.The film shows these women (among them Alison Skipworth and "The Wizard of Oz's" Clara Blandick) gossiping non-stop, so viciously that you wish the president could pass a law against it that would put each of them into solitary confinement.
The hysterically funny Zeffie Tilbury has a great moment telling off the hags in this social circle and gets a good wink in later when the wives of the president's cabinet meet with Barrymore who is revealing some changes.Peggy is played by Joan Crawford, the only historical character she ever portrayed, the widow of a Naval hero (Robert Taylor) and now wife of the Secretary of War (Franchot Tone) whose love for one of Barrymore's rivals (Melvyn Douglas) was cause of scandal of its own and lead to murder.
James Stewart, still a rising young star, has a small role as one of Crawford's confidantes, and Louis Calhern plays a political villain.
A lot of real-life American heroes of this time (the 1830's and 1840's) appear in the story, so in spite of its somewhat inappropriate title, this is a fairly good history lesson of the early years of our country, then only 24 states and even then faced with trouble.This is a film also about rising above ridicule and the importance of understanding why gossip is a vile evil which needs to be continuously smashed.
It is obvious as to why these petty women hate both Rachel and Peggy; They are ladies who remained free from the temptations of the tongue and were true to themselves, their men and their ideals.
The society women are more concerned with status, power and a misused sense of respectability which makes them keep their husbands prisoners and is ultimately the disease which destroys them.Powerfully acted, especially by Crawford and Bondi, it is extremely well directed by Clarence Brown who directed many of MGM's most lavish epics of the time.
Lionel Barrymore gives his all to the powerful role of Andrew Jackson and in spite of bellowing many of his lines is riveting. |
tt0094321 | Who's That Girl | Nikki Finn is a carefree young woman, who is always dressed in a leather jacket and skirt, with fire-red lips, platinum bob hair and speaking in a high-pitched voice. One day, her boyfriend Johnny uncovers two men stealing money out of a trust fund and takes pictures of the theft. Johnny puts the pictures in a safety deposit box and gives Nikki the key for safekeeping. The thieves catch Johnny and murder him, then frame Nikki by putting his body into the trunk of her car. Nikki is sentenced to seven years in prison. This is seen during the animated opening credits of the film.
After four years, the story presents tax attorney Loudon Trott (Griffin Dunne) on a busy day. He is getting married to the daughter of one of the richest men in New York, Simon Worthington. Loudon's bride Wendy Worthington (Haviland Morris) is a selfish woman who is more consumed in her wedding plans than in the well-being of her fiancé. Loudon, on the other hand, has a number of duties entrusted to him by his boss (and future father-in-law), Mr. Worthington (John McMartin). First he has to pick up a cougar for an exotic animal activist named Montgomery Bell (John Mills), then to pick up Nikki, and lastly he has to make sure that Nikki catches the next bus to her hometown of Philadelphia.
Nikki, meanwhile, is determined to catch the actual thieves and bring forth the truth. After meeting Loudon, Nikki cons him into taking her shopping. After taking a Rolls Royce into Harlem to buy a gun – and nearly being arrested during a police raid – she explains her story to Loudon who believes that she is innocent, and decides to help her. She's also on the run from a pimp named Raoul (Coati Mundi) and his lackey Benny (Dennis Burkley), the people who killed Johnny. Only after dangling off a car smashed through the top floor of a parking garage, does he tell her the bank and the box number of Nikki's slain boyfriend.
Afterward Nikki vanishes with the cougar (whom she names "Murray"). Loudon visits Mr. Bell to apologize for losing the animal, to find Nikki had delivered Murray and was waiting for him at Mr. Bell's home. He has created a Brazilian rainforest filled with animals on top of his roof. There Nikki and Loudon — who had become close with each other on their journey — express their love for each other, and Murray finds a partner. Loudon delivers Nikki to the bus station the next morning, but Nikki becomes broken-hearted, realizing that she has to go back to Philadelphia, leaving Loudon, who is about to get married. While on the bus, she opens an envelope in the security box and finds the photographs that prove that Mr. Worthington is an embezzler and he was the mastermind behind the theft. Nikki gate-crashes the wedding, gets Mr. Worthington arrested and proclaims her love for Loudon. The film ends with Nikki and Loudon riding off into the sunset on a bus to Philadelphia, with Murray and his partner chasing after them. | revenge, cult, comedy, romantic | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0322918 | Seinto Seiya: Kamigami no atsuki tatakai | The story focuses on an orphan named Seiya who was forced to go to the Sanctuary in Greece to obtain the Bronze Cloth of the Pegasus constellation, a protective armor worn by the Greek goddess Athena's 88 warriors known as Saints. Upon awakening his Cosmos, the power of the Saints which is an inner spiritual essence originated in the Big Bang, Seiya quickly becomes the Pegasus Saint and returns to Japan to find his older sister. Because his sister disappeared the same day Seiya went to the Sanctuary, Saori Kido, the granddaughter of Mitsumasa Kido (the person who sent all the orphans to train) makes a deal with him to go to fight in a tournament called the Galaxian Wars. In this tournament, all the orphans who survived and became Bronze Saints must fight to win the most powerful Cloth: The Sagittarius Gold Cloth. If Seiya goes to compete there and wins, Saori would start a search to find Seiya's sister.
The tournament is interrupted by the revengeful Phoenix Bronze Saint, Ikki, who wishes to eliminate track from the people who forced him undergo his training. He steals parts from the Sagittarius Cloth and eventually fights against the remaining Bronze Saints: Seiya, Shun (Ikki's brother), Shiryū, and Hyōga, to complete it. Upon Ikki's defeat, the Bronze Saints are attacked by the Silver Saints sent by the Sanctuary's Pope to eliminate them. When they remain victorious, the Bronze Saints learn that Saori is Athena's reincarnation and that the Pope once tried to kill her as a baby. The Sagittarius Gold Saint Aiolos saved Saori but was killed shortly afterwards and gave Saori to her adopted grandfather, Mitsumasa Kido. Deciding to join forces with Saori, the Bronze Saints go to the Sanctuary to defeat the Pope, but upon their arrival, Saori is severely wounded by a gold arrow from a Silver Saint. Believing the Pope may be able to heal her, the Bronze Saints go to find him. To do so, they have to go through 12 temples, each one guarded by one Gold Saint (the most powerful Saints of Athena). Following several battles, Seiya gets to the Pope's temple and learns that he is the Gold Saint Gemini Saga, who in his madness killed the real Pope to obtain more power. With help from his friends' Cosmos, Seiya is able to knock out Saga and use the shield from Athena's statue to heal Saori. Shortly afterwards, Saga, having come to his senses, commits suicide as a self-punishment.
In the second story arc, the Greek god Poseidon reincarnates within the body of Julian Solo, the heir to a rich and powerful family, who follows his will of flooding the Earth. Saori goes to his Temple, where Julian offers her to reduce the flooding by absorbing the water inside the Oceans' Central Pillar. Following Saori, Seiya, Hyōga, Shun and Shiryū go to Poseidon's underwater Temple and are confronted by his underlings, the Marines. As Seiya, Hyōga, and Shiryū make their way to Julian, Ikki learns that the mastermind behind this war is Saga's twin, Gemini Kanon, who is manipulating Poseidon. During the final battle, Poseidon's spirit awakes within Julian and manages to defeat his opponents. Saved by the Saints from the Pillar, Saori seals Poseidon's soul within her amphora.
The third and last arc follows how Hades, the Underworld god, is freed from his seal and revives the deceased Gold Saints and the Pope Aries Shion, and alongside some of his 108 Specters, sends them to the Sanctuary to kill Athena. The remaining Gold Saints serving Athena are able to subdue the enemies, but Saori then commits suicide. This act is instead meant to directly send her to the Underworld to face Hades, and the Bronze Saints follow her. Shion reveals that the revived Gold Saints' true intentions were of giving Saori her own Cloth, and gives it to Seiya's group before dying once again. In the Underworld, as the Saints fight Hades' Specters, Shun is possessed by Hades. Saori reaches Hades and expels his soul from Shun's body. Hades then takes Saori to Elysium, and the five Bronze Saints follow them. In the final fight against Hades and his two followers, Hypnos and Thanatos, the Saints gain the strongest God Cloths and use them to aid Saori in defeating Hades. However, Seiya also sacrifices himself by receiving one of Hades' attacks, and the Saints return to Earth with his body. | violence | train | wikipedia | aka as Knigths of the zodiac. Hello this appears to be and ova a pretty common thing in japan where when some anime is skyrocketing in popularity with the fans and O.V.A might be made which it means that its not an series episode nor a full feature film with usually with about 90mim or so its just some sort of special treat for the fans sold in VHS or DVD nowadays its like a Micheal Scofield side adventure in DVD. Which in my opinion its pretty good so they don't have to rush the movie to be some summer blockbuster the is usually lame anyways- So don't be disappointed by the last opinion. If you are willing to see this you must be either a fan or someone interested in any way so i do recommend you have a go!I am from Brazil and we had the "knights of zodiac" as it is called over there and i think that the reason that the last user was upset is the way they show the series in TV in a manner that can only describe as abusive to the viewer making me wait for months on end while they repeated half a season over and over.So have fun but i recommend you see the series 1st otherwise will wont understand much this is not some batman movie that the origins of batman are explained every movie i used to watch this as a kid but this is most definitely not made for kids but fro teenagers and adults. I'm really disappointed!. I'm a Saint Seiya (or as we know the series in Mexico "Knights of the Zodiac") fan, but this has gone too far.I have yet to see the first Sain Seiya feature film (Saint Seiya Gekijoban, or The Legend of the Golden Apple, 1987), but regarding this movie, I hate to say that it's just plain old more of the same stuff! This movie is not only really, really short: 45 minutes (about the length of just two episodes of the series), but it also clearly non-canonical.Anything that happens in this movie, although it includes the characters of Saori, Seiya, Shiryu, Hyoga, Shun & Ikki, has nothing to do with the series's continuity.Besides those two diminishing factors (its lack of real length and association with the canon), the base for the saints' conflict with the Kingdom of Asegard (sic) is barely something worth of suspense.There are no strong supporting characters, and the battles are short (really short) and meaningless. There's no reason behind the evil portrayed here.Now, I know how the Saint Seiya universe works, but this has gone too far. I REALLY hope the other Saint Seiya movie productions are better than this.Almost 20 years later, and not even nostalgia can save it from obligatory oblivion.. So much wasted potential!. First of all, I'm going to say that I'm big fan of Saint Seiya. I grew up watching this series, and even today it is one of my favorite Japanese animations.Sadly, this movie shares the same problems that other anime movies based on television shows have: It is not only necessary to have seen the original series to understand the plot and the personality of the characters, but also, the plot of this short movie isn't very good anyway, following a repetitive pattern that became almost a routine in the other Saint Seiya movies (With the sole exception of fifth one, that was released in the 2004)Basically, the plot of this movie is pilot of what would be the Asgard sage in the anime series (One of my favorite parts) Since this is just a pilot, many things concept that later appeared in that part of the series feel here relatively undeveloped: For example, the new enemies and characters that were introduced in this movie are mostly "experimental" version of their series counterparts, being mostly one-dimensional villains (Instead of the complex and troubled antagonists of the Asgard saga in the series) The new setting, influenced by Norse mythology had many possibilities to explore, but instead of that we have a clichéd succession of battles that are well animated, but which take place in a shallow context of a uninspired good vs. evil battle.There is a very interesting element introduced here: In this short movie, Hyoga, one of the good guys, plays the role of a temporal enemy. This is completely unexpected, and could have been the chance for a great character exploration. Instead of that, it just serves as an excuse to make him another one of the good guys. It is never explained why Hyoga turned on "the dark side" (Was he hypnotized? This movie doesn't bother to answer that question. There are not even any kind of suggestion about what happened to him...It just happen.) Then, at the end, he turns good again (This doesn't have any explanation, either: Another missed opportunity to add some complex character development)The saddest part is that it could have been something really great and epic...But instead of that, this prefers to follow exactly the same formula used in the previous movie (The one where the goddess Eris was the villain) At least thanks to this we had the excellent Asgard saga.The good points: The great atmosphere, the voice acting, the superb music (Composed by Seiji Yokoyama),the beautiful and stylish designs by Shingo Araki, some very good action scenes. And also, the nostalgic value. |
tt3787590 | We Are Your Friends | Cole Carter (Zac Efron), a former track star and struggling 23-year-old DJ in the electronic dance music (EDM) scene, dreams of becoming a major record producer. He constantly reminds himself that his plan to rise to the top consists of three things: a laptop, some talent, and one track. Cole lives with his friend, Mason (Jonny Weston), and they would usually hang out along with their friends, Ollie (Shiloh Fernandez) and Squirrel (Alex Shaffer), around their native San Fernando Valley. With Mason's help and his friends heavily promoting at college campuses, Cole finally books a gig to DJ at a local nightclub, where he meets the headliner, a once-innovative DJ, James Reed (Wes Bentley). After their gigs, Cole finally comes face-to-face with James, sharing a joint together. James invites Cole to tag along at a party where Cole starts to hallucinate because the joint they shared contained Phencyclidine (PCP). The morning after, Cole wakes up at James' house where he is introduced to Sophie (Emily Ratajkowski), James' girlfriend and personal assistant, who voluntarily drives him home.
After their earnings from the event do not meet their satisfaction, they turn to their friend, Paige (Jon Bernthal), who runs a real estate solutions firm, to which the four are employed. Later, James calls Cole to serve as a DJ at his house party, a paid gig. After explaining to Sophie the key mechanics of DJ-ing, James sees the potential in Cole, who is then interrupted by his three friends arriving at the party. After a fight between Mason and one of James' guests breaks out, James forgives Cole for his friend's actions. From there, James takes Cole as his student. After listening to Cole's original song, James criticizes Cole for imitating other well-known producers, like Skrillex, and he openly suggests to use organic sounds for an original vibe. The two then co-create a song together using that technique, along with vocals from Sophie, which is met with success at the local nightclub. One night, James suggests that Cole would escort Sophie to a soirée hosted by her college classmates, where he learns more of her past, which causes a fight. Sophie later thanks him for standing up for her. Cole and his friends head to Las Vegas for a music festival, where he strays away from his group to meet up with Sophie, who James ditched. Sophie then gives Cole MDMA, and they quickly fall for each other, and they run away together to the Las Vegas Strip, riding the High Roller, and checking into the Paris Las Vegas where they dance and end up having passionate sex.
Back in San Fernando, James invites Cole over to watch an MMA fight with him and Sophie. An awkward moment ends up with Sophie telling Cole to accept what happened and to leave it alone, and James gives Cole a new MacBook Pro and the opportunity to open for him at Summer Fest, a popular music festival. One day, Cole and Paige meet up with Tanya Romero (Alicia Coppola), whose house is undergoing foreclosure. During the negotiation, Paige buys her house and rents it back to her, with the intention to sell it quickly for a substantial price, which angers Cole. While James' alcoholism begins to affect Sophie, he and Cole go to a strip club for his birthday. Cole falls ill and James finds out about Cole's relationship with Sophie, severing ties with him. Returning to his three friends, it is revealed that Squirrel has been looking for better jobs due to his intellect and Mason has rented a house for all of them. After intense partying with drugs and alcohol, Squirrel is found unconscious that morning, and later dies from an overdose. After the funeral, the remaining friends begin to question their future, ending up going their separate ways when Mason blames Ollie for the drugs that Squirrel overdosed on. Cole visits James, whose alcoholism completely consumed him, to let him know of Squirrel's death and it could have possibly have been his fault, to which James consoles him and also tells him that Sophie moved to the San Fernando Valley and works at a local coffee shop, where he later visits her.
While taking a run, the battery of Cole's phone goes dead, causing his music to stop playing. Upon closer observation, he listens to his surroundings which inspires him to record samples and integrate it into his long-awaited track. Cole then calls and tells James that he has something for Summer Fest, which he gives him another chance. The festival is set outside the American Apparel building in Los Angeles. Cole releases his track, which contains snippets of his conversations with Sophie and Squirrel, and he later uses Squirrel's quote "Are We Ever Going To Be Better Than This?" as a hook before the beat drop. When the song ends, Cole is met with enthusiastic acclaim from the audience and James. The film concludes with Sophie going back to college, Ollie reading for an audition, Mason handling the nightclub, and Cole remaining positive about his future and creating a proper relationship with Sophie.
In the Mid-credits scene, Tanya opens her front door to an Adidas box that Cole has been saving all of his earnings in throughout the film. | flashback | train | wikipedia | null |
tt1727816 | Screwed | Willard (Norm Macdonald) is an overworked, underpaid chauffeur who works for a mean-spirited pie heiress named Mrs. Crock (Elaine Stritch), just as his father did before him. All Willard wants for Christmas is a new uniform, as the one he currently wears is the one his father was buried in, but Crock gives him a cheap pair of cuff links and a pie instead, while lavishing expensive gifts on her business partner Chip Oswald (Sherman Hemsley) and her prized dog Muffin. Finally fed up with being mistreated, Willard and his best friend, local chicken restaurant owner Rusty (Dave Chappelle), concoct a scheme to kidnap the dog and hold it for a $1,000,000 ransom. Muffin attacks him, leaving a great deal of destruction and Willard's blood at the scene, and the plan fails when the dog later escapes.
However, Crock and the Pittsburgh police misinterpret the hastily scrawled ransom note and believe that Willard himself has been kidnapped. Crock refuses to pay up initially until met with public protests led by Willard's on-again off-again girlfriend Hillary (Sarah Silverman). Willard and Rusty come up with a new scheme, in which Willard films a fake ransom video and releases it to the media, putting pressure on Crock to come up with the money to preserve her public image as a kindly old grandmother. The plan calls for Willard to mug his boss as she goes to drop off the ransom money, and to have a dead body left behind dressed as Willard to throw off the police. They enlist the services of a creepy morgue employee named Grover Cleaver (Danny DeVito) to find an appropriate corpse and schedule a meeting at night in the park.
This plan also goes wrong, however, when Willard succeeds in getting the money, only to lose it to two small children who attack him with a taser and a shiv and steal the suitcase. Willard is found by the police and sent to a hospital, as the children have soundly brutalized him. The police then find the dead body that was supposed to take the place of Willard as he made his getaway, and Willard claims that it was his captor. The police are suspicious, as Grover used the body of an old homeless dwarf, but Willard claims he was "more ferocious when he was alive". Willard dejectedly returns to work for Mrs. Crock (who claims that he now owes her the ransom as well) until the mother of one of his attackers shows up and returns the briefcase. Overjoyed, Willard and Rusty plan to go on a long vacation only to find that the briefcase was filled with newspaper and cabbage.
After interrogating Willard and Rusty (during which Rusty reveals his habit of striking people with desk lamps when nervous), the police go after Grover, who goes on a rampage, kidnapping Mrs. Crock while waiting for the share of money Willard promised him. Willard goes to Grover and confronts his employer, finding out that the money was actually in the briefcase but was stolen by Chip Oswald, who planned to double-cross them all and make off with his boyfriend. He also discovers to everyone's disgust that his father was also Mrs. Crock's lover as well as manservant. After the police converge on Grover's place, Crock convinces them that the trio are actually her rescuers.
In the end, Willard leads the police to Chip's apartment, where the ransom money is discovered. When Chip pulls a gun, Rusty panics and knocks him unconscious by hitting him in the head with a lava lamp. Mrs. Crock expresses her gratitude by paying for Willard to attend college at the University of Southern California and buying him a new Armani suit, and paying for Rusty to open a new Chicken Hole on the beach. Willard finally reconciles with Hillary, while Crock herself ends up in a romantic relationship with Grover. | murder, flashback | train | wikipedia | Yes, it's very British.
Our homemade 'Brit-flicks' do try to do their best to be labelled as 'gritty.' Seeing as we haven't got the budget, the stars or the special effects of Hollywood, we have to try and be a bit more true to life in order to stand out.
Screwed does its best to achieve this.An ex serviceman takes on a job as a prison warden in order to make ends meet in civilian life.
That's the basic plot.
You probably know what to expect - prison beatings, dodgy dealings and plenty of back-stabbing.
It might be as cheeky as a Guy Richie film or as deep and dark as the more recent 'Tyrannosaur,' but to be fair, Screwed delivers on all of this.Its gritty and grim and it does its best, however it does suffer from a few one-dimensional characters, spouting clichéd lines that you could probably write yourself.Is it worth watching?
Yes, if you like prison dramas.
Its major plus point is the menacing Noel Clarke, playing a (yet nastier) version of his Kidulthood former character.Give it a chance.
It's not bad.
But I do wonder how long Ronnie Barker and his Porridge inmates would have lasted here (and they thought Mr Mackay was bad!)..
Good and believable prison flick.
An Irak veteran takes job as prison guard after returning from the war, still bothered with memories from the war traumas.
The veteran, Sam Norwood, knows his stuff, but are soon realizing that the prison is not run the way it should.
It seems that it's not easy to please all ways.
Does he have the backing needed by his superiors?The film is great played, very real and believable, like most British films.
You could hold Against it that the film is Being more than an action flick.
It's also loaded with realism back home.
There's also an excitement lingering and true enough, you never can be sure what you get into at this station.
Being based upon real events, making base of a novel, and with this film following, I can't say anything else that I really enjoyed the flick.This film is better than it's rating here at the moment, and is well worth a watch..
The substance is there, but the execution fails to give this prison flick it's dues.
STAR RATING: ***** Saturday Night **** Friday Night *** Friday Morning ** Sunday Night * Monday Morning Sam Norwood (James D'Arcy), a former soldier, takes up a new job at a local prison to make ends meet.
Already anxious at having to work among the undesirables he knows he'll come across, Sam is unprepared for the guards, headed by the burly Deano (Frank Harper) to emerge as just as corrupt, if not worse, than the convicts, as a drug dealing network emerges, while he also has to contend with a warden who seems to take the side of the inmates more and head con Truman (Noel Clarke) steps up the pressure to make Sam snap.Based on a novel by former prison guard Ronnie Thompson, Screwed attempts to bring the grim horrors of prison life to the screen, as if it's a feat that hasn't been attempted before, taking in hostage situations, scaldings and pretty much everything bar gang rape.
Somehow, this adaptation of his work has all the right ingredients in the pot, from the cast to the gritty, drained style.
Somehow, though, the end impression really isn't as impressive as it could have been.Somehow, an impressive cast, including D'Arcy, Clarke and Harper, and a supporting cast including Jamie Forman and Andrew Shim fail to shift a low key tone from the film, which comes off as an amateurish, messy, misguided effort.
Better use of the cast probably could have raised it up a bar or two, but D' Arcy can't let his character rise above the typical raging ex soldier sort, while Harper and Forman are also stuck with cardboard prison officer roles.
Clarke is impressive as ever, but takes too long to make his presence known and come alive, as well as the vicious villain he's portrayed suffering an ill judged, nonsensical ending that is at odds with everything we've seen through-out.It's a bit of a let down, but it's not a complete failure.
It remains an unflinchingly brutal depiction of the prison world, how the drama plays out remains intriguing and it retains a sense of style and atmosphere that is some compensation.
But sadly not quite enough.
Caged animals?
Unleash the narrative beast please!.
If ever there was a wasted opportunity to add another Great British prison movie to the roster headed by Alan Clarke's incendiary Scum, then Screwed is it.
The credentials were promising.
Based on the real life memoirs of Ronnie Thompson, an ex squaddie who post a tough tour of duty joined the prison service and apparently found another kind of war on the inside, and the adaptation to screen is headed by Brit thespian bad boys Noel Clarke, Frankie Harper and James D'Arcy.
Yet what unfolds for the duration of the pic is the standard raft of clichés we movie fans have seen time and time again.There's some early promise that maybe this will have something to say as regards a returning war veteran, hints that the screenplay will have caustic asides on the British penal system – and the problems inherent within our prisons, but it never delivers, instead choosing to macho everything up in such a fanciful fashion you have to wonder exactly what is actually based on facts?
There's also the small matter of the fact the whole picture plays as very similar to Phil Davis' excellent 1995 football hooligan movie, i.d. Only there it was an undercover policeman getting in feral with his work, here it's a prison officer doing likewise.
There's even a sex scene that is lifted straight from Davis' movie.Having not read Thompson's book, "Screwed: The Truth About Life As A Prison officer", something which I intend to correct in the immediate future, I can't vouch for the veracity of this adaptation to screen.
However, the film feels empty, like it's following a guide book written by the British press on how they "think" our prisons operate, fuelling the horror fire of what filmic adaptations over the decades have led us to believe are regular occurrences.
Only Thompson knows the truth, both of his experiences and of how his book has been translated on screen, but all things considered it's a lazy same old same old film.
Very watchable, riveting narrative and utterly believable drama.
What a powerful insight into a World behind bars.
D'Arcy, Clark & Harper were superb in portraying the realism of life on the wrong and right side of the law.
Although this film was rated as an 18 due to it's language and violence, Travis shows the brutality, but cleverly leaves the outcome to our imaginations without ramming it down our throats.
Very watchable, the way the narrative switches between D'Arcy's character Sam and his home/work relationships is riveting, drawing the audience in, making us ask ourselves what we would do in a time where money doesn't come easy and more people are turning to drugs hoping to lose themselves in the darkness.
A nice film to high light the dangers of crime and how easily people can get trapped and enticed, but good prevails in the end. |
tt0045592 | Call Me Madam | A wealthy Washington, D.C., socialite, Sally Adams (Ethel Merman), has political connections and is appointed U.S. ambassador to the tiny country of Lichtenburg, even though nothing in her background qualifies her for the job. A young journalist, Kenneth Gibson (Donald O'Connor), persuades her to let him tag along as her press attache.
In the duchy of Lichtenburg, the arrival of Ambassador Adams does not sit well with some, particularly charge d'affairs Pemberton Maxwell (Billy De Wolfe), who is annoyed by many things, including her insistence on being addressed by him as "Madam." A pressing issue in Lichtenburg is that Princess Maria (Vera-Ellen), niece of Grand Duke Otto (Ludwig Stössel) and Grand Duchess Sophie (Lilia Skala), is about to have an arranged marriage to a neighboring land's Prince Hugo (Helmut Dantine), but lacks a sufficient dowry to make their union a fair bargain for both parties.
Knowing her republic's penchant for foreign aid, Sally is approached by Prime Minister Sebastian (Steven Geray) about asking her friend President Truman for a loan of $100 million, to the consternation of Lichtenburg's foreign minister, General Constantine (George Sanders), who wants his country to be independent and self-reliant. Sally finds herself attracted to Constantine, while after a chance meeting in a hat shop, Kenneth has developed a very impractical romantic interest in Princess Maria, who finds him charming as well.
In time, Sally returns home to Washington, where she belongs. At one of her social events, she is pleased to hear Constantine is among the guests, then disheartened at learning he has brought along a female companion. A happy ending for all ensues, however, when his date turns out to be Maria, who is willing to marry Kenneth and abdicate her royal title. Sally's future with Constantine seems assured, too. | romantic, satire | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0250690 | Refugee | Bihar-based Manzur Ahmad and his family was migrated to East Pakistan after the partitioning of India in 1947. However, after the formation of the state of Bangladesh in 1971, he and several other people were forced to relocate to the western part of Pakistan. To do this by land, they will have to cross India. The route from Dhaka leads to Guwahati in India then to Delhi then to Ajmer then to Bhuj, and then on to Haji Peer in Pakistan.
They get as far as Bhuj, but afterward they are assisted by an agent known only as "Refugee", who helps them trek their way across the Great Rann of Kutch to Pakistan. Refugee considers his clients as mere items of luggage and refuses to be emotionally involved with them and their stories. Then he meets Nazneen Ahmed, the daughter of Manzur Ahmed: He forgets this rule and falls in love with her.
Police on both sides of the border are aware of the illegal refugee traffic and the Indian police regularly questions Refugee and his old father Jan Muhammad. One day, Refugee helps four men enter the Indian side of the border. These men enlist the help of Mr. Muhammad's other son to get to Delhi. Shortly thereafter, explosions take place in trains, buses, and buildings in the Indian capital.
Refugee crosses the border once again to visit Nazneen. She asks him to take her with him since her father wants to marry her to Mohammad Ashraf, a Pakistani border security officer. While crossing the border through Rann they are captured by Pakistanis rangers. Refugee is beaten up and sent to India on a camel. The Indian BSF captures him and treats him in hospital. The Indians informs him that he unknowingly helped terrorists cross into India and caused several deaths. Refugee joins the BSF and fights the terrorists who laid siege to his village.
The film ends with Nazneen giving birth to Refugee's child at the border between the two nations. Indian BSF and Pakistani Rangers personnel discuss the child's nationality in a lighter vein. | romantic, cruelty | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0396690 | Kisna: The Warrior Poet | Lady Catherine, a wealthy British woman, arrives in India to donate Rs 3500 Crores to charity as part of India's Republic Day Celebrations. Before she can hand over the money, she requests a visit to Devprayag, where India's 2 great rivers Bhagirithi and Alaknanda meet to form the mighty Ganges River. At Devprayag, Lady Catherine remembers her childhood and narrates her story to the small crowd, which includes a journalist.
Catherine was born in India in 1930, to British citizens living in the country. She had a privileged and peaceful upbringing. In 1935, a young Catherine befriends Kisna, a local village boy, and the two share a joyous friendship. Upon learning of this, Catherine's father forcefully sends her back to England.
In 1947, during the Independence Struggle, Catherine comes back to India on holidays and again meets Kisna. Their childhood friendship is rekindled and over time the feelings slowly develop into love. Their relationship is tested by the fact that they seemingly belong to the opposite sides of India's struggle for freedom. Kisna also reveals that he is engaged to be married to Lakshmi.
There is growing resentment against colonialism and Catherine finds herself being targeted by an enraged mob of Indian nationalists. She is protected by Kisna, who faces backlash from his family and community, who were part of the mob. Kisna is torn between his friendship and love for Catherine, and his duty to his country and the hatred of the British Raj. Kisna takes it upon himself to escort Catherine to the British High Commission, where safe passage back to England can be arranged for her. The trip reaffirms their love for each other but Kisna is ultimately forced to choose between his feelings for Catherine and his duty to his country. He chooses the latter and the pair bid an emotional farewell to each other.
In the present, it is revealed that Kisna married Lakshmi, and fulfilled his duties to his wife and country, but always loved Catherine till his death. His last wish was for his ashes to be spread at Devprayag, the place where first love blossomed between him and Catherine. Catherine's last wish is also for her ashes to be spread at Devprayag, so that, even though they both married different people, she and Kisna can be together forever. | romantic, murder, melodrama | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0026868 | The Phantom Light | Sam Higgins alights at the train station for the Welsh village of Tan-Y-Bwlch to take over the North Stack lighthouse, which is believed by the locals to be haunted. There, he meets Alice Bright. She asks him to take her along to the lighthouse, explaining that she belongs to a "psychic society" and wants to investigate the "legend of the phantom lighthouse". He turns her down.
Sam reports to Harbour Master David Owen, who informs him that Jack Davis, Sam's predecessor, "just disappeared", as did the chief lighthouse keeper before him. Owen confirms there was a major shipwreck a year ago, caused, so he believes, by the phantom light. Jim Pearce tries to bribe Sam to take him to the lighthouse; Sam guesses he is a reporter. Alice later overhears Jim ask about hiring a boat, so she tries her charms on him, but again fails.
When Owen, Dr. Carey and others take Sam by boat to the lighthouse, Carey examines Tom Evans, a mentally disturbed member of the resident staff. Evans tries to strangle the doctor, who decides he cannot be moved in his present state, to Sam's discomfort. Just to be safe, Sam ties Tom up. Sam's remaining assistants are Claff Owen (David's brother and Tom's uncle) and Bob Peters.
Then Jim shows up in a boat that is conveniently out of petrol. To Jim's surprise, he has a stowaway: Alice. Sam starts questioning his unwanted guests. Alice now tells him she is "an actress hiding from the police" because two admirers fought over her with knives.
Strange things start occurring. First a fire breaks out near Tom's bed. Then, Sam overhears Jim plotting something with Alice and admitting he is not a reporter. He fears they may be communist saboteurs. Jim has Alice hang a radio aerial out the window of the bunk room, but Tom (whom Claff has untied) sees her do it and sneaks up behind her. Fortunately, he hears Jim returning, so he hastily retreats to his bunk. When Sam shows up, Jim tells him he is a naval officer after wreckers out to sink the Mary Fern for the insurance, most of the shares being held by the locals. Then Alice informs him that she is a detective from Scotland Yard.
Jim starts to transmit a warning to the approaching ship, but Bob and Claff are rendered unconscious, the light is sabotaged, and a decoy light is turned on. After Jim sends Alice to fetch Sam, Tom knocks Jim out and disables his radio. When Alice and Sam return, Tom locks them all in. Jim, however, climbs down the side of the lighthouse and swims to the village to alert the coast guard. Claff wakes up and unlocks the door, allowing Sam to set about repairing the light. They overhear Carey talking to Tom and learn that the doctor is the mastermind. The Mary Fern is saved just in time. Then, trapped at the top of the lighthouse, Carey decides to jump. | haunting | train | wikipedia | In '30's British films I've always liked the mix of pithy Music Hall humour, mild ghostliness, a frisson of sex, and manly London chaps saving the day, all displayed perfectly in the Phantom Light.
Director Michael Powell's best stuff was yet to come of course, but this can be seen as him still learning his craft practising with more inconsequential trifles.Gordon Harker here shines with some cracking comedy lines handed to him, as the new lighthouse-keeper at a rather ...
insular Welsh coastal village, apparently 200 years behind the times with Wrecking ships on the rocks still big business.
Ian Hunter is the manly Londoner with all the brains ...
er, I think this was his last British film until after the War ended.
He was the best King Richard Hollywood ever had!
Until the last reel Binnie Hale has no brains but admirably compensates with long legs.
Herbert Lomas perfects the character he particularly re-used later in Ask a Policeman and The Ghost Train - he was even back in Powell & Pressburger's I Know Where I'm Going!
But the film that borrowed the most from this was Arthur Askey's Back Room Boy from '42, it even looked the same inside the lighthouse!A pleasant 75 minutes spent in the company of familiar faces and story..
and a blonde on the rocks, if you please.
Very funny British Gainsborough Picture from 1935 with plenty of No-code 'damn' 'ruddy' and 'cor-blimey' -ies along with Binnie Hale's long legs and keen 'how about it' frankness, THE PHANTOM LIGHT is a bookend GHOST TRAIN fog bound mystery set on the shrouded eerie Welsh coast.
The photography and settings particularly in the quaint railway scenes in reel one and the village scenes near the end offer the viewer genuine storybook pleasure in that they look completely fake but are not at all.
It just happens to naturally all look like some plaster model.
Lead actor, music hall star Gordon Harker has some hilarious lines - particularly the closing one: "Lummy!
what a night" which would have rocked any Odeon theatre with gales of laughter.
Binnie Hale is the Brit Joan Blondell, all perky and silly and ready to cut up her trousers all ready to gad about the lighthouse stairways in hotpants and high heels.
Local Welsh eccentricness is on full display with plenty of Popeye style gnarling and eyeball flexing.
I thought it was hilarious as (later famous) Director Michael Powell was clearly getting his actors to have fun with their roles.
The local policeman is exactly like Constable Plod from the Noddy kids books..all tubby and bug eyed.
It is all silly and very funny.
THE OCTOPUS of 1935 is a good counterpart from the USA..
Ghostly goings on in the gloaming..
There's a nice undercurrent of comedy running through this otherwise standard mystery story.
Set in a "haunted" lighthouse on the supposedly lonely Welsh coast, there seems to be a remarkable crowd of characters bumping into each other at every turn.
The plot starts out promisingly with much talk of ghostly terror, but settles into a rather lame and predictable conclusion.The local Welsh villagers are mercilessly satirized as dim-witted, inbred provincials, in contrast with the smarty pants Londoners who've dropped in to sort out this here ghostly nonsense.
An apparently nymphomanic young blonde with no relevance to the story other than removing various items of clothing as things progress, adds to the sly humour.There's lots of excellent location cinematography of craggy Welsh rocks and crashing waves to provide a suitably moody background.
Taking all these elements together, I came away mildly entertained, although not mentally stimulated.
Good late night fun..
The Phantom Light is directed by Michael Powell and adapted from the Joan Roy Byford and Evadne Price play The Haunted Light.
It stars Gordon Harker, Binnie Hale, Donald Calthrop, Milton Rosmer, Ian Hunter and Herbert Lomas.
Cinematography is by Roy Kellino and music by Louis Levy.Harker stars as lighthouse keeper Sam Higgins, who gets more than he bargained for when he takes up employment at the North Stack Lighthouse out on the foggy Welsh coast.Some time before he formed half of the classic film making partnership with Emeric Pressburger, Michael Powell was a 1930s purveyor of the "quota-quickie" British movie.
Not many of those films remain in print, thankfully this delightful blend of comedy and suspense is now in home format circulation.
Out of Gainsborough Pictures, The Phantom Light harks back to a wonderful time of sincerity in film making, the acting mannerisms are as correct as the dialect (it's so nice to hear the term Michaelmas used), the locale is beautifully realised and maximum dramatic impact is garnered from the minimalist settings (three parts of the film is set in the lighthouse itself).
Powell proves to be adept at eking out eerie atmospherics from the story, aided superbly by Roy Kellino's photography, while it's no small triumph to actually blend the comedy with the drama and not hurt the flow of the film.Tan-y-Bwlch and lummee, what a night!It's not perfect by any stretch of the imagination, Hale is annoyingly high pitched and shoe-horned into the fray, though her beautiful legs go up to her armpits and distract the red blooded amongst us, and the actual turn into the suspense realm comes, considering the running time, a bit too late in the story.
But the faults are actually minor ones and they don't ultimately affect the enjoyment on offer for the classic film fan.
It very much can be seen as a precursor and influence to the great Will Hay pictures, Ask A Policeman & Oh!
Mr. Porter, and if you want links away from the thematics and plotting?
Which are joyously similar, then Herbert Lomas was in Ask A Policeman and Louis Levy scored both.
It doesn't have the slapstick that dominated the Hay movies, here the wit is dry and neatly pitched as polar opposites are thrust together under one lighted roof, but this is more a light hearted thriller than a comedy drama.
With excellent locations used (Devon/Wales), and a director taking his early tentative steps to greatness (yes you read right), it's a film that has enough reasons to check it out regardless of story.
As it is, it's pretty darn good anyway.
And I'll be back to say the same thing after my next viewing at Michaelmas.
Superficially, this is just another of the many British comedy/dramas from the era.
It has a characteristic manner: a fellow with a humorous take on life, a pretty girl, some intrigue and danger.What sets this apart are two things.
The first is the setting in Wales, or more precisely among the Welsh.
Its an odd sort or layering for me since I think the 30's era English are as different, strange, quaint to me as the Welsh are shown here from the English.
The language is emphasized in the setup, first half of the movie.
At the end, there's a clear balance between evil Welsh and noble ones that come to the rescue.
That Imperial undercurrent!The second interesting thing is that the action, about 3/5s of the movie, takes place in an actual lighthouse, most at night.
There's lots of movement across different levels, as there must be, and some clever (from a staging point of view) movement from inside to outside.
I suppose the director made up much of how this appears as he went along.Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements..
Average Pre-War Entertainment.
There is certainly more humour than horror in this rather slow moving offering from Michael Powell.
The acting is, in general, on the wooden side, although Gordon Harker as Sam Higgins does his best to lift the pace.
The plot is predictable after the first 15 minutes, although there are enough twists to keep the interest.
I was surprised at the number of people required to run a lighthouse only half a mile offshore, and the apparent number of hiding places on a bare rock, but this is just a detail.
Overall, nothing special, but pleasant enough not to be considered a waste of time..
good banter but too much banter not enough spooky lighthouse.
First off there is a very nice DVD of this mixed with some other British Thrillers.
Looks and sounds good.
That's great because the movie isn't too gripping and would dissolve with any distractions.
The movie is an odd mix of "silent" movie acting and a long set up that takes up way too much time.
The welsh village is fun and interesting--there are other later British films that have this same kind of small village opener with a stranger appearing and a mystery being resolved.
It's a formula that works more often than not.
But the movie fails to really evoke much spookiness of the lighthouse itself.
It's never interested in generating any suspense for very long.
Usually there is some very brief suspense moment, and it's just to set up more comedy.
The comedy is fairly funny but no real sense of danger is generated.
No sense of the story moving forward.
There are also touches from (then trend setting) Russian montage editing that seem kind of comical in an unintended way.
As you'd expect from director Powell there are a few nice camera moves and some good location photography.
A music score would have helped this film there is none at all, perhaps a cost saving element?
There are things to enjoy here but you have to get over the 30's cliché elements of "flapper girl" and "spunky-male-reporter" and these are pretty creaky indeed.
A movie that, perhaps in a very director Michael Powell way, flirts around with various quirky and occasionally unexpected ideas but doesn't commit to any of them enough to become a whole anything.
Other reviews of it being an OK time killer are valid..
In this 1935 Michael Powell quota quickie "the place is haunted and what's more blokes go mad and kill theirselves.".
Michael Powell made about 15 quota quickies in seven years during the Thirties.
These quota quickies meant two things: First, a lot of second-rate British movies were made.
Second, a lot of British filmmakers, like Michael Powell, learned their craft making these things.
Poor Sam Higgins (Gordon Harker, a fine, funny character actor who specialized in blokes).
He arrives in the tiny Welsh coastal village of Tan-y-bwlch to take charge of the North Stack lighthouse.
He gets more than he wanted.
Harker learns from the villagers that two previous light keepers disappeared and the man he's going to replace at the lighthouse is still out there, gone barmy.
Sam also hears about the ships that have gone up on the rocks
when the light goes out
and a phantom light on the cliffs goes on.
By the time Sam gets out to the lighthouse it's pitch black with heavy fog.
The mad man he replaced has had to stay put because he's too sick to be moved.
It's not long before there are more people in the lighthouse than Sam wants, and not all of them he knows about.
The Phantom Light is funny, dark and dangerous, with a wonderful performance by Gordon Harker, all working class shrewdness and exasperation.
The movie is stuffed full of the things Michael Powell loved in a movie
a wild countryside with beautifully photographed cliffs, rocky shores and heavy waves; the mysteries of mechanisms; extra time spent with quirkiness; lilting speech; and characters he makes amusing without looking down on them.
If you admire Powell & Pressburger's mature films, you might enjoy having this example of Powell's earlier steps.
Said Powell much later, "'I said 'yes' to this one right away, and never regretted it.
I enjoyed every minute." I did, too..
Never theatrically released and never broadcast in the U.S.A. U.K. release through Gaumont British: February-March 1935.
Australian release through Gaumont British: 26 June 1935.
75 minutes.SYNOPSIS: A new lighthouse keeper has to contend with wreckers, zombies, superstitious locals, a pushy girl and a mysterious yet overly persistent "reporter".COMMENT: Binnie Hale's performance may be a bit over the top so far as theatricality goes - as some critics have complained - but you must admit she's a most fetching heroine just the same.
And she isn't in the movie all that much anyway.
Gordon Harker has the star part, and a sterling job he makes of it, delivering his sharp Cockney lines with his usual witty relish and amusingly expletive exasperation.
Yet he can be seriously practical when the going gets rough.
It's a tailor-made role which will delight his fans.
The fine support cast includes Herbert Lomas (a "must" for this sort of spooky affair), Donald Calthrop, Milton Rosmer, many others, and last and certainly least Ian Hunter - though even he is bearable.A lighthouse of course is an ideal setting for murder, mystery and mayhem.
Director Powell not only makes the most of his setting, but he has done more.
The background not only becomes an integral part of the action, not only an atmospheric adjunct, but a fascinating vista in itself.
Powell's eye for the pictorial effectiveness of his real locations and the dramatic possibilities of real people employed as background extras, is constantly apparent.
In fact it's not going too far to say that the movie is often semi-documentary in approach, effectively anticipating this 20th Century-Fox style of the middle and late 40s.
Aided by superlative camerawork, The Phantom Light is a most entertaining comedy-chiller, limited only by a few obvious budgetary constraints during its action climax.
Light's Out. After being extremely enchanted by the brilliant films that I have seen of Michael Powells highly acclaimed work with Errnest Pressburger,I was thrilled to find out that one of the few surviving films that Michael Powell made before joining forces with Pressburger,had come out on DVD in France.Using Google to check that the DVD had an English soundtrack,I began to really look forward,at seeing how Michael Powell was,in his early,solo work.
Whilst I feel that the films pre-..."And Then There Were None" style lighthouse-mystery plot was done in a much stronger way,in the surprisingly thrilling 1942 film Back Room Boy,the early, energetic,directing and editing from Michael Powell and D.N. Twist always the films small settings a good amount of energy.The plot:Discovering that a secret attack is being planned for a cargo ship,undercover Police Officer David Owen,decides that he has to do everything possible to get aboard a near by lighthouse,which is meant to help guide the ships to the near by shore.When Owen arrives to a small village in Wales to meet the new main leader of the lighthouse crew (Sam Higgins),he is stupidly told by Higgins that he is banned from ever setting foot on the lighthouse,due to Higgins suspecting that Owen is trying to hide something (which,unknowingly to Higgins,is that he is an undercover cop)Feeling terrified at the risk of the ship being attacked,Owen is surprised,when a woman called Alice Bright offers him the chance to come along with her to the lighthouse,on her boat.When they have eventually get onto the lighthouse,Bright and Owen find out that Higgins is now scared half to death,due to his crew disappearing into thin air one by one.Whilst Higgins believes that this is being caused by a ghost on the lighthouse,Owen and Bright suspect that it is someone who wants to make sure that the oncoming cargo ship disappears,into the ocean forever.
View on the film: Although it takes a bit too much time for the mystery side of the movie's plot to really kick in,Michael Powell and editor D.N. Twist give the film a very snap pace,which most film makers would have struggled to build into the films gradual mystery.Whilst his directing is not as smooth and elegant as it would be in his later work,the rough edges to Michael Powell's very early style,actually helps the film massively,with the use of jump-cuts by Powell and Twist allowing a eerie sense of terror to enter the film,as each person on the lighthouse starts to fear that they will be the next one to "disappear".As well as the movie having a fun performance from Gordon Harker as the crusty old sea dog Sam Higgins,and Binnie Hale putting some extra excitement into the film as Alice Bright,who whilst fighting back in a very entertaining way,is also able to wear a very a head of its time short short skirt.Along with his fast-paced directing and fun cast,Powell also uses some brilliant real locations for the film,with the first half of the film showing a small country side area of Wales,and the second half of the film having a great claustrophobic fearful feel,with Michael Powell cleverly using a real lighthouse for each of his characters to disappear from,one by one.
Final view on the film: A slightly disappointing slow screenplay is saved by some terrific locations,a fun cast and interestingly rough-edged speedy directing,from the great Michael Powell..
"The Phantom Light" is a pretty ordinary British thriller.
It starts off very slowly but the second half works very well and the film was quite interesting.
The story involves a supposed phantom lighthouse.
After all, a false lighthouse light MIGHT prove beneficial if you want to make an insurance claim.
So, disguised like ordinary folks, Ian Hunter (working for the Royal Navy) and the rather annoying Binnie Hale (working for Scotland Yard) row out to the old lighthouse.
The problem is that IF someone there is involved in some conspiracy, which one of the people working at the lighthouse is responsible and how do they force ships onto the rocks?
If this film had been made in the States, I might think it was a B-movie--a relatively cheaply made film made as a second film in a double-feature.
This isn't necessarily a complaint--more just a comment about the style of film--breezy and entertaining though not especially deep or fancy.
Worth seeing as a time-passer. |
tt0176422 | Alice et Martin | At age ten, Martin is living in Cahors with Jeanine, his hairdresser mother and her taxi-driver lover, Said. Martin is the illegitimate child of a successful business man, Victor Sauvagnac. Against the child’s wishes his mother sends Martin to live with his father, who until then he does not know. Victor is married and has three sons older than Martin. The move is not a happy one and quickly Martin finds himself in conflict with his brash, cold father.
Ten years later, just after his twentieth birthday, Martin flees his home following his father's death. He disappears wandering across the country side and tries unsuccessfully to drown himself. Martin emerges weeks later at his half-brother Benjamin’s apartment in Paris. Benjamin is a struggling actor sharing living arrangements with his best friend Alice, a violinist in a local quintet that specializes in tango music. More outgoing that his younger brother, Benjamin, who is gay, has a close platonic relationship with Alice. Martin finds success quickly–within weeks he is a highly sought-after model. Alice is nervous and brittle, harboring her own private grief, the tragic death at age eleven of her gifted sister. At first Alice resents Martin's presence in the apartment and she is cold towards him. Though Alice does not like the brooding Martin much, he becomes obsessed with her and starts surreptitiously following her. Alice discovers it and confronts him. She is gradually captivated by his attentions, and the two begin a passionate love affair.
Leaving Benjamin behind, Alice accompanies Martin to Granada, Spain, on a modeling shoot. Their happiness is brief. During the trip Martin's behavior becomes erratic and he becomes more and more self-obsessed. When Alice reveals she is pregnant, his decline continues. Martin suffers a nervous breakdown and falls into coma. The doctors determine that his condition is psychosomatic. In an effort to restore his health, Alice rents a cabin by the sea in Spain’s south coast. Martin swims for hours each night, but remains withdrawn. He is haunted by his father’s death.
A flash back recounts the period preceding Victor Sauvagnac’s death. His relationship with his sons was problematic: the aimless and withdrawn Martin failed to please him; Benjamin irritated him and a reunion about the prospects of the family's business ended up in a fist fight between Francois and Frédéric, the two eldest siblings. Martin celebrates his 20th birthday with Benjamin, who comes from Paris for the occasion. Their reunion is interrupted by a phone call from Francois who commits suicide hanging himself in the family's factory. When Martin decides to leave for Paris an argument erupts and Martin pushes his father downs the stairs killing him. Unable to deal with what he has just done, Martin runs away.
After Martin reveals that he caused his father's death, unable to bear the guilt and pain any longer, he commits himself to a mental institution. Alice, following Martin’s wishes, travels to Cahors to talk to the Sauvagnac family. She befriends Martin's mother, but Lucie, Victor’s widow, is unsympathetic. Frédéric Sauvagnac, who is the town's major, is openly hostile. Benjamin comes to town in an effort to stop Alice interfering in his family affairs. However they two reconcile. Eventually Lucie decides to tell the authorities about Martin’s culpability in her husband’s death. Martin confesses his crime, surrender to the authorities and goes to prison. Alice decides to have her baby. She appears playing her violin in a wedding. Martin is in prison but, in a letter to Alice, he seems to be finally at peace with himself. | flashback | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0075669 | Amar Akbar Anthony | A chaffeur named Kishanlal (Pran) takes the blame for a fatal hit-and-run accident committed by his employer, the notorious mob boss Robert (Jeevan), on the assurance that his family's income will be tripled and their welfare looked after. He returns from prison to find his wife Bharati (Nirupa Roy) suffering from tuberculosis and his three sons starving. Seeking help from Robert for the sake of his family, he is ridiculed, humiliated and repudiated, until he turns on Robert and tries to kill him. Making his escape, Kishanlal inadvertently takes a car containing a shipment of gold bullion. Robert's goons give chase as Robert wants the gold back.
Kishanlal goes home to rescue his family – only to find his wife's suicide note. Unknown to him, she fails and is struck blind. Kishanlal leaves his sons in a public park (at the foot of a statue of Gandhi) in order to draw off the pursuing goons to keep the boys away from harm. In the car chase that follows, he crashes and is presumed dead by the witnessing police, but is revealed to have survived. But by the time he returns to the park with the gold, his three sons have vanished. Amar (the middle son) has been nearly ran over by Robert's goons and rescued by a Hindu policeman; a Muslim tailor finds Raju (the youngest) and adopts him, naming him Akbar; and a Catholic priest (Nazir Hussain) finds Anthony (the oldest) asleep on the steps of his church and took him under his care.
After 22 years, Amar (Vinod Khanna) becomes a policeman; Akbar (Rishi Kapoor) becomes a singer, and Anthony (Amitabh Bachchan) becomes a likeable, socially conscious scamp who runs quasi-legal operations and makes God his 'partner' by donating half his income to charity. The three meet when they donate blood for a hit-and-run victim, unaware that they are related and that the recipient is their biological mother Bharati, who is currently selling flowers.
In the meantime, Kishanlal used his gold to create his own criminal syndicate, destroying Robert's business and forcing a penniless Robert to work for him at a nearby dock. He also took in Robert's daughter Jenny as his niece before sending her to school in Europe. Robert becomes delighted to hear from Kishanlal that Jenny will return, but is distraught that Kishanlal won't let him see her, as he's still angry at Robert for making him lose his family. Eventually, the police arrives near Kishanlal's dock, forcing Kishanlal and his gang to disperse away from the scene. This allows Robert to escape away with another shipment of gold bullion, regaining his former place as mob boss and becoming Kishanlal's rival, determined to retrieve Jenny for himself and get back at Kishanlal for ruining his criminal empire.
During the tide, each of the sons fell in love with the women they find: Akbar falls in love with his neighbor doctor Salma Ali, much to disapproval of Salma's father Tayyaib Ali, who later gives his blessings after Akbar saves him and Selma from a house fire. Amar falls in love with a one-time crook named Laxmi, taking her and her grandmother to his home after arresting her abusive stepmother. Also, Anthony falls in love with Jenny after meeting her in church. Around the same time, Bharati regains her sight at a Diwali festival in honor of Sai Baba hosted by Akbar, whom she recognized as her youngest son Raju.
However, things get out of hand when Kishanlal is double-crossed by one of his bodyguards named Zubesko, who betrays Jenny to Robert in exchange for getting her hand in marriage, resulting Anthony's adoptive father to be murdered by Robert when he tries to stop them. Also, while witnessing Jenny's kidnapping, Laxmi ends up being kidnapped by her abusive brother Ranjeet, who is working for Robert. In their pursuit of justice against Robert, the brothers soon discover their mutual heritage with each other along with Kishanlal and Bharati, reuniting the family once again.
Working together, the three brothers form a plan to bring Robert and his gang to justice. Posing as an elderly tailor, a one-man band, and a priest, the three brothers and Salma infiltrate into Robert's mansion, where Salma helps Jenny and Laxmi escape while the brothers finally reveal themselves and defeat Robert and the mobsters before sending them to jail for good.
Despite justice being served for Robert and his gang, Kishanlal is sent back to prison for his past crimes, much to Bharati's dismay. However, Kishanlal comforts Bharati by telling her that their sons are reunited and have grown up, which is the only thing that matters to him the most. Kishanlal is then briefly released from his cell to share a heartfelt hug with his sons. The film ends with the three brothers and their loved ones happily riding into the sunset.
The film was inspired by Pakistani diamond jubilee film Talash released in 1976 starring Shabnam, Nadeem and Babra Sharif. | revenge, murder, romantic | train | wikipedia | Amar, Akbar and Anthony are separated from their family and from each other as small children, and each is raised separately and in a different faith.
Amar is raised a Hindu and grows up to become a police officer, Akbar is raised a Muslim and grows up to become a Qawaali singer whilst Anthony is raised Christian and grows up to be a small time hoodlum.Most of the movie is focussed on the character of Anthony, which is fine by me since he is played by Amitabh Bachchan - surely the most charismatic actor India has ever produced.As adults, none of the brothers have any idea of their familial origins, but believe their parents to be dead.
To make matters worse, each parent thinks the other is dead and both think their children are dead.
It must be said that they didn't go to great lengths to discover this, but the film would hardly have worked if they had so that's one piece of disbelief that has to be suspended.
It's not the last one, as the film is wholly guided by a series of coincidences that gradually has the various members of the family crossing each others paths.
I suppose one is encouraged to believe that these coincidences are orchestrated by the fates or a higher power, but putting it down to dramatic convenience worked just as well for me.Also brought into the plot are the loves of the three brothers, for the requisite romance and feminine wisdom.
The boys are lucky enough to have secured the affections of a bevy of beauties, and the actresses add a nice touch of glamour and colour to the film.
In addition to and intersecting with these we have the evil villain of the piece, carrying the terribly intimidating name of "Robert".At 175 minutes, Amar Akbar Anthony has plenty of time to flesh out its characters and develop the plot in a well paced fashion.
The movie goes through many different moods and emotions, but after the first 15 minutes of melodrama the tone is generally kept light and pleasant.As well as the romance and drama, the movie has a few moments where it shifts into action territory - Anthony especially has a knack for getting into a scuffle.
The fights are very imaginatively choreographed but terribly executed, looking very staged and faked.
This all adds to the fun of them though.
There's also the songs of course, though not too many - especially in the first half of the film.
Some of these are very catchy and the dance choreography cheerfully engaging.Although it has something of an ensemble cast, there is no question that the movie belongs to Amitabh.
His character is the most complicated and interesting, and his performance the most subtle and engaging.
He gets all the best lines, too.
He won the "best actor" award for this role, and it is largely for his performance that the movie is considered an Indian classic.Like many Indian movies that run in the three hour range, there's something in AAA for everybody, and Amitabh's charisma especially means that it never grows wearisome.
Although the first half an hour didn't have me terribly engaged, the film does just keep getting better and better (and more imaginative) as it progresses.
I had to constantly keep upgrading my rating for the film as I watched.
By the time the movie reaches its climax, it has managed to weave everything together so well that I was thoroughly delighted to be watching it.Recommended!.
A true classic.
This film is a true Bollywood classic.
The story is wonderful and quick moving.
The acting, brilliant.
It is a must see for anyone interested in Bollywood.
The film follows a standard Bollywood format,i.e. family tragedy and the ability to overcome.
Add that splash of romance and this movie has it all..
They don't make movies like this anymore.
Amar , Akbar, Anthony whenever I hear any of those three names I think of one of the greatest movies I've seen.
I'm 15 minutes into the movie and I'm already in tears, I couldn't believe a movie like this had so much impact at the first 15-20 minutes.
This movie was all around a good movie and is a must see.
It starts out with a poor male & female who have three children and the poor man is in trouble seeking out some way to get money for his wife's sickness plus food for his children.
When he goes to Robert he begs and the emotion he put into that movie was so heavy you could feel the pain the poor man was going trough.
Robert was actual one of those guys that made me say "Just kill this guy already".
Usually I like negative rolls and support the negative rolls but Robert was doing a amazing job.
The poor man escapes from the sharp claws from Robert he leaves with a car which was filled with gold.
He stops by his house to find a "sucide" letter from his wife so he takes his kids and drives off to somewhere then put's his kids in some random park.
The bad guys start chasing him so Robert tries to lose em but get's tied up in a car accident which he survived I must say that was a very fake part in the movie but every movie has a flaw eh?
Oh well anyways he finds the gold which surprisingly isn't burned and runs around the street with it trying to avoid the cops.
He goes to the park to see that his kids are nowhere to be found he starts yelling Aman..?
He dosen't yell the other two names so it's him screaming AMAN!
Akbar was raised by a Muslim by the time he found the child he was going to drive home but to see Akbar's mom in the street then the Muslim guy takes her to her home but she's blind!
She has no idea she is in present with one of her kids.
Anthony faints at a local church and Amar was found by a police officer.
All three of them grew up with pride of there religion so here we are somewhat 20 years later.The mom loses bunch of blood then is rushed to her hospital but what the kids don't know is that they are brothers and they really don't know there real mother nor does the mother know her kids due to her being blind.
So Amar, Akbar , and Anthony all end up at the same place in the hospital because they have the same blood type of there mother(NO DUH!!!) so they donate blood all to there mom then here comes the opening cerdits with a very touching song.
We get to the journey of the three young men and we find out that Akbar & Anthony are very close(Well at least in the first half) so anyways Anthony always refers to the old woman as his mother and so do the other two I think.
Anthony also calls Akbar & Amar as his brothers but let's get back to there real dad it seems his the evil guy now LMFAO!
But Robert get's away with bunch of gold and Anthony somehow helps him out for a little bit in the movie but what happens?
Will Robert regain control of money and power again?
Will Amar, Akbar, Anthony find the truth?
Will the mom ever be able to see her children again?
Watch the blockbuster to find out.Also the girl who fell in love with Amar did horrible acting at first she said she stole money because there family was poor but she looked like she was giving false information(worst crying in a movie I've seen) I wouldn't believe her no matter what but it turns out she told the truth.
An all time great.
This is a perfect hindi masala movie - it has everything - love, action, comedy, good songs and a great story.
Amar, Akbar and Anthony are all brothers separated when they are very young.
However fate has them crossing paths and eventually a big family re-union at the end.You walk out of the film, however, only remembering Amitabh as Anthony.
He is at his hilarious best.
There are places when he becomes the Angry Young Man he is famous for - but his comedy scenes are what set him apart in this movie.
The song "My name is Anthony Gonsalves" is an absolute classic and himself talking into the mirror after being beaten up is another great scene.All in all if you want a movie to entertain you for 3 hours this is it..
*** A perfect "Timepass" movie ***.
A true Manmohan Desai film tot he hilt...This was one of the late '70s movies whose mega success defied the logic of all movie pundits.
A typical lost-and-found formula of three brothers (brought up in three different religions); the movie stands out for brilliant individual performances and "seeti"(whistle) comedy and dialogues.
Besides the All-Time Amitabh in his memorable role as 'Anthony' and star-studded cast, it is the crispy one-liners and dialogues that lifted this movie above all.
Practically every song in this movie was big hit e.g.
'Anhonee ko Honee' 'My name is Anthony...', 'Tayab Ali', to name a few.
Don't miss to catch all the patented dialogues by the Villains - Pran, Jeevan.Back in my school, I remember my classmates reeling out dialogues at the back of their mind.A must have "Timepass" collection.
excellent and fantastic.
Amar akbar anthony is brilliant cinema and full of entertainment.
Directed by Manmohan Desai who has made films like coolie, mard and naseeb.
Once again Manmohan directs a fabulous movie with action, comesy and family drama.
Vinod plays Amar a hindu character and gives a good performance.
Rishi plays Akbar and gives a lovable performance.
Amitabh plays Anthony and gives an outstanding performance.
Amitabh received a Best actor award for his role of Anthony.
Shabana Azmi gives a decent performance, Neetu Singh is alright.
Parveen babi is lovely, Pran and Nirupa Roy are supporting roles in this movie and give good performances.
The movie has loads of great songs, my favorite is My name is Anthony Gonsalves..
Amar, Akbar, Anthony is about 3 brothers who are left by their Mum with their Dad and they all get separated while they are children and at the end the family find each other..
Amitabh Bachchan is a fantastic actor.
Him and Sharukh Khan are known as the Bollywood kings.
Nearly every film that Amitabh Bachchan comes in I give it either 9 out of 10, or 10 out of 10 like Naseeb, Coolie, Amar, Akbar, Anthony, Mard and a lot of other films.
Amar, Akbar, Anthony is about 3 brothers who are left by their Mum with their Dad and they all get separated while they are children.
Amar is found by a Indian and is grown to be an Indian.Akbar is found by a Muslim and is grown to be a Muslim.Anthony is found by a Christian and is grown to be a Christian and at the end the family including the mother all find each other.I loved the storyline and the fighting too..
Amitabh Rules.
Amar Akbar Anthony (AAA) cannot be rated AAA for the movie it is but anybody can rate AAA for Amitabh Bachchan's acting abilities.
When Amitabh plays he can put all the cast of any movie aside & he alone reign it.
This was evident for the umpteenth time by the supreme star he is.
His comedy was superb, his command over Hindi & English are so effortlessly shown.
His tapori Hindi of a Bombaiyya Christian suited him so well, no other actor including Rajesh Khanna (another superb star) could not have played so effortlessly.
The movie is considered a classic because it was the trendsetter of those times, then a lot of movies like AAA came with different casts, none had the quality of AAA and the versatility of Amitabh Bachchan.
Cheap imitations make this movie a deja vu feeling for many, as so many came & failed.
The audience those days had a fresh feel with this story which was based on deceit, thrill, comedy, drama, chase & good songs.
When you finish watching the movie you will only be appreciating Amitabh's acting ability.
Without him or a lesser hero this movie would surely have failed.
Love it totally.
This really was a great movie to watch, my mum really loves this film too, it;s the story about 3 brothers Amar (Vinod Khanna who played his part so well in the film,this guy is such a great actor and i hope he makes more great films like this one) Akbar (Rishi Kapoor, who is such a legend, he played his part so well and make me laugh in the film) and Anthony( played by Big B he was so funny and i just love the ending of this film too.
Shabana Azmi is in this film too, she looked so beautiful and elegant, and she too along with the other female leads acted really well.
and i really loved the music especially the title song, the film really is a classic and worth watching, it's a nice family movie.
A Bollywood masterpiece.
Probably the best example of Bollywood cinema from the early 80's, AAA is eye catching and wonderfully acted with a brilliant score.
Amitabh Bachchan truly steals the show with his over the top "My name is Anthony Gonsalves" sequence.
Shabana Azmi is fantastic in a supporting role.
The real dealmakers for the film, however, are Pran and Jeevan who respectively are devilishly fiendish as Kishenlal (reborn of course -- who can forget the brilliant "Sewer ka putter ..." sequence after spotting Robert on his return) and Robert, the antagonist to all.
Sure the ending is over the top, but hey, this was the heyday of Bollywood.
And isn't Taiyyab Ali one of the most comically genius roles of all time.Exceptionally done and a must-see..
Amar Akbar Anthony- A true gem.
This is a movie close to my heart as this was one of the movies I used to watch when I used to go to my Grandma's house.
This movie is absolutely perfect.
What makes it so perfect is that so much is packed into one film, there is action, comedy,drama and so much more.
The plot was not original but how it is packaged is extraordinary.The story, for those who don't already know is about three brothers who get separated from their parents and how their lives intertwine.
One is brought up by a Hindu, one by a Christian and the other by a Muslim.
Years later they meet when they give blood to their real mother (they don't know that yet).
Their Father(Kishenlal) is seeking vengeance on Robert, who he blames for separating his family.
Coincidentally he is also bringing up Jenny, Robert's daughter who he stole from him.
Cues heaps of fun for all ages.
The songs also deserves a special mention, all of them are perfect.
My personal favourite was the title song.
This was a huge hit when released and it my opinion remains of Manmohan Desai's best films.
All the three heroes performed well, however on the downside there was not much scope on the heroines.
Another downside was Jeevan,in my opinion he is not good as the main villain.
Pran and Nirupa Roy were superb as the parents.
Coincidentally 4 years later Manmohan Desai made Naseeb, another one of my favourite movies.
Wonderfully done, well done Manmohan Desai..
Entertaining film.
Manmohan Desai never mixed logic in his films but made good entertainers especially in 1970s, AAA was the first film with Amitabh Bachchan.
The film is another film on long lost and found theme The film is treated more on a lighthearted note, Amitabh's character called Anthony who is a rogue and runs illegal liqour business, however he is brought up by a priest.
while Vinod Khanna playing Amar is brought up by A Policeman and he becomes a tailor while Rishi gets brought up by a Muslim tailor.
The first half is more on the romance of all 3 characters, and some funny scenes between Vinod Khanna and Amitabh.
Strangely all three hardly interact much, while AB and Rishi have a cordial friendship, AB and Vinod Khanna have 2-3 scenes,There is also a scene where all 3 give blood to the mother(watch it to believe).
The film also has villain Jeevan with a big gang, and also Hercules There are several scenes to remember, like AB-Vinod fight, AB drunk act(which was shot without the director just by AB and Kader Khan who was dialogue writer), The first scene of AB and Pran.
There are many songs however, in fact 2 songs My Name and Humo Tumse come within a short gap yet the film is entertaining and keeps you entertained throughout It does get lengthy but those days films were made mostly which were 3 hours.
Direction by MDK is good Music by LP is memorable, be it Kishore's My Name is Anthony, Mohammad Rafi's duets Parda and Sai Baba, the combo song Humko Tumse which for the first time brought Mukesh, Rafi and Kishore in one song, The title song too is good.Amitabh Bachchan is simply terrific in his role, it seems second skin, In the same year he starred in Parvarish with MDk where he had a cop role, This film also won him his first best actor award.
Rishi Kapoor is good too in his act Vinod Khanna is good in a serious role, in the same year he and Amitabh worked in Parvarish where they played diverse roles.
Amongst heroines, Shabana Azmi is okay, Neetu Singh is fun loving while Parveen Babi is good Pran is good as usual, Jeevan is good in his own style, Ranjeet, Yusuf Khan, Nazir Hussain are all good, Nirupa Roy is as usual |
tt0038990 | The Strange Woman | In Bangor, Maine in 1824, a cruel young girl named Jenny Hager (Hedy Lamarr) pushes a terrified Ephraim Poster (Louis Hayward) into a river knowing he cannot swim. She is prepared to let him drown until Judge Saladine (Alan Napier) happens by, at which point Jenny jumps into the water and takes credit for saving the boy's life.
About ten years later, Jenny has grown up to be a beautiful but equally heartless and manipulative young woman. Her father, a drunken widower, whips Jenny after learning of her flirtation with a sailor. She secretly schemes to wed the richest man in town, the much older timber baron Isaiah Poster (Gene Lockhart), while his son Ephraim is away to college at Cambridge.
Poster is unkind to his mild-mannered son upon Ephraim's return. He is unaware that the boy and Jenny were once sweethearts and that Jenny is again flirting with Ephraim behind her husband's back. Poster is more concerned about the lawlessness in town, lumberjacks drunkenly pillaging the town, manhandling the women and killing the judge, confirming Poster's long-held belief that Bangor must organize a police force.
Jenny secretly hopes that her husband will die after he falls ill. When he recovers, Poster must make a trip to his lumber camps. Jenny appeals to Ephraim to arrange his father's death, saying, "I want you to return alone." In the rapids, both men fall from an overturned canoe and Poster drowns. His son, still deathly afraid of water, is unable or unwilling to save him.
To his shock, Ephraim returns to Jenny telling him, "You can't come into this house, you wretched coward...You've killed your father." He becomes a hopeless drunk, hating her and speaking freely about her deceitful ways. Poster's superintendent in the timber business, John Evered (George Sanders), goes to confront Ephraim but isn't sure whether to believe the harsh words he hears about Jenny.
Jenny proceeds to seduce Evered, who is engaged to marry her best friend, Meg Saladine (Hillary Brooke), the judge's daughter. Lust overtakes them during a thunderstorm. After their wedding, Evered is eager to have children, but Jenny learns she cannot bear any.
A traveling evangelist, Lincoln Pettridge (Edward Biby), preaches fire and brimstone that results in Jenny's confession to her husband that everything Ephraim said about her was true. Evered goes off to be by himself at a lumber camp, where Meg comes to persuade Evered to go back to his wife. Jenny, however, discovers them together, violently whips her horse and tries to run them down with her carriage. It careers off a cliff and she is killed. | melodrama | train | wikipedia | With a rich and older husband with a weak and easily led son, you can see where this is going, and with people like George Sanders and Louis Hayward supporting her in the cast, Hedy shines in the title role.A beautifully shot, tightly written film which may have been low budget but has a definite sheen of polish..
She gets the son and throws him over (a bit improbably) for Gweorge Sanders, wearing mutton chop sideburns here.It's not Ulmer'best -- that might be his "Hamlet"pdate "Strange Illusion." But it is very good and it is one of the best performances ever given by Ms. Lamarr..
An obscure film which, because of surprising creative touches in directing, acting and editing, should be shown more often: more than a potboiler, more than a "women's picture" that did not happen to star Bette Davis or Joan Crawford, it offers an engaging story, characters of substance and - except for a convenient and contrived ending - an honest portrayal of people caught in a web of circumstances and emotions they cannot control.
Strange woman, indeed.Leave it to B-movie genius, Edgar Ulmar, to wring every ounce of perversion and sleaze from a drama given by definition to plenty of inherent heat.The set up is a familiar one to film noir fans a very pretty girl (Hedy Lamarr), given some tough knocks by life (in this case a drunken, violent father), grows into a stunning sexual predator reaping men like a scythe through summer corn.
But in Ulmer's hands, this injured woman, and this film, is something else again.First and foremost, this is a great performance by Hedy Lamarr.
Perhaps it took a director like Ulmar, a man completely unimpressed with simple beauty, to bring out the artist in Lamarr.Favorite scenes: Lamarr being beaten by her father as a young woman.
She is, in fact, twisted and perverse, somehow horribly self-aware of her own evil.One more little tidbit.In a fit of conscience, Jenny Hagar, now married to a rich man, donates $1,000 to the church.
It stars Hedy Lamarr, George Sanders, Louis Hayward, Gene Lockhart, Hilary Brooke, Rhys Williams and June Storey.
Story deals with Jenny Hagar (Lamarr), a strong and scheming woman who in 1840s Bangor in Maine, uses men for her own gains whilst exuding a double persona that shunts her into the upper echelons of the town's standings.
But, as we become privy to Jenny's back story and psychological make-up, you can feel that cloud of pessimism closing in.There will always be arguments put forward about if the likes of The Strange Woman should be classed as noir or not, but with Ulmer and Andriot cloaking the tale with claustrophobic shadows and low lights, the blacks and whites atmospherically used, thus the visuals are in place to marry up with the story, and what a story.
Propelled by powerful performances, a good script and strong cinematography, The Strange Woman explores the life of a beautiful, headstrong, passive aggressive femme fatale in Bangor, Maine, during the early 19th century.
Throughout her life before and after this marriage, she quietly and subtly plotted and schemed to get where, what and who she wanted, while keeping up the appearance of a good, honest country lady.The film focuses almost exclusively on Jenny and her romantic entanglements, but is also satisfying as a rather odd example of an anachronistic film noir.
The Strange Woman may be the best piece of directing accomplished by the very prolific B film-maker Edgar Ulmer (Detour).
Theirs was a contentious partnership but the result was one of Hedy's best performances.If you can put aside the fact that the lead character has a Viennese accent and her father an Irish one when they are both lifelong natives of Bangor, Maine then there is much to enjoy.
Hedy, stunningly beautiful as always, plays a deeply conflicted woman well and though the film veers wildly from morality tale to lurid melodrama it is certainly more fun than a lot of more highly thought of films..
Between the three played by Hedy Lamar, Gene Lockhart, and Louis Hayward, I'd say best actor award would go to Lockhart, the husband, whose part gets tougher as the film goes on.
Having George Sanders enter later seems a bit much, as the story was piping along with Hayward eyeing Lamar and Lamar playing him along while the town's economy goes along with the loggers who come in a make a mess every pay day.
Whenever I see a 1940s film which shows characters breaking the 10 commandments, I say "Here we go again, the villain(ess) will get their comeuppance before the film's end.It may seem perverse but I sometimes wish they could succeed with their aims, particularly when there is good in the character like here.A case in point is the character of Jenny Hager (Hedy Lamarr) who has a drunken father who beats her.Modern psychologists would have a field day with that one to explain adult motivation and her mental/sexual relationships with men.The transition from a young Jenny's face reflected in the local pond to a mature woman was effective.Unfortunately there is no getting away with her Bangor Maine accent and I was surprised Hedy got the lead role.She was obviously not a recently arrived immigrant from Austria as her father feigned a Scottish accent.I much prefer Hedy naturally playing herself in films with a believable cover story.One of my favourites is "Come Live With Me" (1941) co-starring with James Stewart where she plays a Viennese visitor who has overstayed on her passport.George Sanders is likewise too sophisticated to play a man who we are told prefers to work in a logging camp.He was likewise better cast in "Rebecca" and "The Portrait of Dorian Gray".On the plus side, Hedy is given a chance to act instead of standing still and looking stupid.Gene Lockhart acts with his British born wife Kathleen, playing Hedy's first husband.These two appeared together in Hedy's first U.S. film "Algiers" (1938) in which she co-starred with Charles Boyer.In the latter film Gene played an informer who gets shot but in "Strange Woman" is given a slightly more sympathetic role as the town's richest man.On balance I did not think Hedy deserved her cruel, fatal accident but she was trying to run down her new husband George Sanders and his ex-fiancé!!If you like costume drama (1820s), you will enjoy this DVD which can be easily purchased..
A tedious but interesting tale of a beautiful woman (Hedy Lamar) stalking man after man in the lumber country of Bangor, Maine circa 1820.
Always enjoyed the great acting of Hedy Lamarr, (Jenny Hager) who plays a woman who has a very cruel and mean streak in her mind and soul.
As Jenny grew older and turned into a pretty young girl, she decided to marry a man named Isiah Poster, (Gene Lockhart) much older than she was only because he had lots of money and that was what she really wanted out of life.
George Sanders and Louis Hayward gave great supporting roles in this story that deals with a very evil woman..
The film was one which stayed with me for several days because of the 'strangeness' of Jenny, the beauty of Hedy LaMarr, and the ending.
Jenny stated: "I gave the money because I hate grog shops and what they do to people", obviously thinking of her alcoholic father.My interest in catching this movie was spurred by the fact the book of the same title, by Ben Ames Williams (which answers Gearhart of Iowa's question, which is probably no longer a question) has been on my bookshelf for 50 years.
She doesn't appear to be too affected and irritating, but I don't think she was going to get an Oscar.At the beginning of the film, young Jenny Hager (Kay from "Mildred Pierce") says that when she is older, she will have whatever she wants because she's going to be beautiful.
1840s Bangor, Maine is the setting for THE STRANGE WOMAN, by the author Ben Ames Williams, who also set his modern story of a jealous woman in the same sort of Maine setting for "Leave Her To Heaven".This one does not have the production values of the Fox film, is directed by a less distinguished director, Edgar G.Ulmer, but gives HEDY LAMARR a stronger role than usual while at the same time permitting her to be her beautiful self.
As Jenny, she's really the stock heroine of the sort of novels Williams wrote, centering around jealous women who destroy the men in their lives by their shallow nature.Hedy first marries a wealthy man (GENE LOCKHART) for his money, then latches onto his weak son (LOUIS HAYWARD) whom she convinces to kill her husband during a boating accident, then sets her cap for a man she puts in charge of her husband's business (GEORGE SANDERS), never minding that he's already got a sweetheart (HILLARY BROOKE), and eventually coming between them in a less than subtle way.In fact, all of Hedy's machinations are less than subtle, accompanied by some dramatic background music by Carmen Dragon, and enhanced by close-ups of the star flaring her nostrils and posing provocatively in shadow or light, never once looking less than rapturously beautiful.
GEORGE SANDERS has a rather nondescript role for an actor of his brittle charm, obviously so enamored of Jenny that he overlooks all the puzzling elements that go into making her "a strange woman".DENNIS HOEY is excellent as Jenny's drunken father in the early scenes and ALAN NAPIER is effective in a brief supporting role.
Production values are less than luxurious despite the detailed sets and the B&W photography suffers from the under-lit lighting, not helped by the fact that the print itself being shown on TCM is not high quality and sometimes gives the film a harsh look rather than Gothic grandeur.For Lamarr's fans, it's one of her better vehicles at a time when she was free-lancing away from MGM.
It is a good old Victorian melodrama in the tradition of "Maria of the Red Barn" and, with its stirring scenes of passion and thrilling action sequences, still excellent fare for those who love a good tale well told.Hedy Lamarr plays a woman who can be extremely wicked and devilishly devious, but she is not thoroughly evil like the entirely despicable female played by Margaret Lockwood in the "Wicked Lady", but rather a mixture of good and evil like all of us.
Gene Lockhart's kind of Irish/Canadian is quite plausible in that location (Bangor, Maine), and even Dennis Hooey's broad drunken Scots is credible especially so close to Nova Scotia, but both George Sander's and Louis Hayward's (close friend of plum-in-the-mouth Noel Coward) dulcet tones would be more likely to be heard in an Oxbridge tutorial than a logging town.
Furthermore, and above all, there is the incongruity of the main character Jenny's accent, which mutates from standard girl-next-door American when young (played by Jo Marlowe), to the Viennese English of Sigmund Freud when Hedy takes over the rôle.
Anyway, it is an interesting cast, down to Hayward as the weakling Ephraim and little Jo Ann Marlowe as the meanest girl since Patty McCormack's Bad Seed (1956).I don't know if the film resulted in the kind of career break Lamarr was likely looking for, but it remains an entertaining morality tale, despite a spotty script and stage-bound settings..
Heddy Lamarr plays a young woman who people think is sweet and innocent, but it's mostly a conniving act in order to get what she wants out of life.
She plots his downfall, his son Ephraim's (Louis Hayward) downfall and that of her friend Meg (Hillary Brooke) by stealing her boyfriend John (George Sanders).
However, she is good in the lead role and is both funny and convincing as a wicked woman, eg, the scene where she arrives at Isaiah's house after getting a beating from her father which she seems to have enjoyed.
Watch how she pulls down the back of her dress to reveal her bruising to the housekeeper whilst looking seductively over her bare shoulder at Isaiah in order to gain his interest sexually.The film has some stand-out funny moments that centre around Jenny's behaviour but I felt let-down by the ending.
The title comes from the bible (see the incredible scene of the preacher) and is no misnomer since the heroine is some kind of female Tartuffe :she is a great pretender ,she gives money to extend the church,she cares for the others ,she seems to do everything out of the goodness of her heart.A hypocrite femme fatale.But we know she is evil from the start:when she was a nasty little girl who grew into a go-getter ,in search of a rich man.In its second part,the movie becomes a Phaedra situation: the heroine is married to his former whipping boy's dad and thus has become his stepmother .This story lacks focus ,coherence,and the riot scenes in Bangor town come at the most awkward moment.Even for a melodrama,sometimes,enough is enough.Stahl's "leave her to Heaven" or Vidor's "beyond the forest" ,which dealt with similar subjects had stronger screenplays.Hedy Lamarr is eye candy:she resembles Vivien Leigh but she is not as talented as her as an actress..
This is one pretty girl who later becomes a beautiful woman, but is as ruthless and evil in getting what she wants.What she wants is to get out of Hoey's home and influence so she sets her cap for rich logging merchant Gene Lockhart.
That man could and did play all kinds of roles and was never afraid of being a villain.Except for an incredibly contrived cop out ending which ruined the film, The Strange Woman will make for some interesting viewing..
The main character of this melodrama is Jenny Hager, a beautiful but heartless young woman living in the New England of the 1830s or 40s.
The film follows Jenny's tangled relationships with the three men who fall in love with her- Isaiah, his son Ephraim and Isaiah's foreman John Evered.
Evered is the man whom Jenny really wants, even though he is originally engaged to her best friend Meg.Modern period dramas are normally given the full "heritage cinema" treatment with opulent sets and costumes, but in the forties films like this tended to be made on a more modest scale; like "Dragonwyck", another Victorian melodrama set in the American North-East from the same year, "The Strange Woman" was not even made in colour.
There is, however, nothing in the script which would rule out the possibility of Evered being a recent immigrant from Britain, whereas we know that Jenny was born and bred in Bangor, Maine, not Vienna.Despite her unexplained foreign accent, however, Hedy is actually quite good here, certainly better than she was in some films from this period such as "Samson and Delilah".
At the same time, Hedy's looks were so stunning that it becomes quite understandable why so many men should fall for such an unpleasant woman.This film can be seen as an American equivalent of the Gainsborough melodramas being made in Britain at around the same time.
Hedy Lamarr stars as the town beauty from the wrong side of the tracks in this classic noir from the, some would say, under rated and very talented director Edgar G.
She is the equivalent to 'the raven haired temptress from below stairs' in period dramas, but instead lives in a shack but knows she wants riches, and will do anything to get them and that she can get men to do anything for her.It is a classic tale as she scurrilously lures the richest man in town, he is loaded, but she also has a thing for his young and sensitive son.
What I find most fascinating about Jenny Hager (Hedy Lamarr's character) in THE STRANGE WOMAN, is the sympathy with which she is portrayed.
Hedy Lamarr's performance was brilliant; in her hands, the character is not completely evil, but possesses a humanity and vulnerability which makes her a puzzle of complexities, contradictions, and (as another reviewer described her) fickleness.Jenny Hager is an extremely fascinating character.
Jenny was sorry for her actions, felt remorse about them, and yet her death was her own doing; again propelled to commit evil beyond her control, which ended in her own demise.Hedy Lamarr was magnificent.
Set in 1820's Bangor, Maine; The Strange Woman is the tale of beautiful Jenny Hager.
And before long, when she meets Ephraim Poster (Louis Hayward), Isaiah's son who is her age, you can see Jenny knows that money with youth will be more fun than money with age.
The hypocrisy that oozes like spoiled milk from this movie makes only one point: A woman who uses her sexuality and her smarts must be up to no good, even if the men in her life are drunks, boors, weaklings and prigs.
Harvey Korman portrays a character in that film named Hedley Lamarr, and spends a good portion of his time correcting virtually everyone who calls him Hedy.
While this is a pretty good Ulmer melodrama, they simply could not film the original novel which includes sociopath Jenny's deliberately seductive behavior toward her own father from early childhood, her sadomasochism, her pleasure in manipulation and cruelty toward men and her own sons.
Ulmer -- the giant of Poverty Row best known for his ability to write, produce, and direct a full-fledged movie on a budget of two cents -- has Hedy Lamarr as a scheming, poor, young wanton in 19th-century Bangor, Maine.
Taking on the type of role that the equally exotic Margaret Lockwood played in exciting melodramas such as "The Wicked Lady" and "The Man in Grey", Hedy Lamarr gives one of her more interesting performances.
Dull Boring Film - Nothing Strange About Her. Hedy Lamarr is fine, she a beautiful woman with talent. |
tt0083500 | Voyagers! | Phineas Bogg (Jon-Erik Hexum) was one of a society of time travelers called Voyagers who, with the help of a young boy named Jeffrey Jones (played by Meeno Peluce) from 1982, used a hand-held device called an Omni (which looked much like a large pocket watch) to travel in time and ensured that history unfolded as we know it.
Bogg and Jeffrey first met when Bogg's Omni malfunctioned and took him to 1982 (the device was not supposed to reach any later than 1970), landing him in the skyscraper apartment of Jeffrey's aunt and uncle, who were caring for him after his parents' deaths. Bogg's Guidebook, which contained a detailed description of how history was supposed to unfold, was grabbed by Jeffrey's dog Ralph, and in the struggle to retrieve it Jeffrey accidentally fell out his bedroom window and Bogg jumped out to rescue him by activating the Omni. With his Guidebook stuck in 1982, Bogg (who, being more interested in girls than in history, apparently never paid much attention in his Voyager training/history classes) had to rely on Jeffrey, whose father had been a history professor, to help him. Jeffrey's knowledge proved invaluable; for example, in the first episode Jeffrey ensured that baby Moses's basket traveled down the Nile where it was met by the Pharaoh's daughter.
Phineas was timeless in his machismo, and managed to fall for a beautiful woman in almost every episode. Whenever Jeffrey's wisdom was paired up against Bogg's stubbornness, Jeffrey usually won out, to which Bogg would always mutter, "Smart kids give me a pain!" However, they developed a strong relationship and became a formidable team. In the course of their adventures together, they sometimes encountered other Voyagers whose missions happened to overlap with theirs.
It was revealed later in the series that despite Jeffrey's age, and the accidental circumstances of his first encounter with Phineas, he was always destined to become a Voyager.
Over the closing credits of each episode, regular cast member Meeno Peluce said in voice over: "If you want to learn more about [historical element from the episode], take a voyage down to your public library. It's all in books!" | psychedelic, historical fiction | train | wikipedia | was a time travel series that aired Sunday nights on NBC from 1982-'83.
The lighthearted fantasy concept involved a kid, a pirate and cool watch like time machine (the Omni) that was worn on the belt.
The show was about a recently orphaned 12 year old named Jeffrey Jones (Meeno Pulce).
Jeff is living a dreary life in his Manhattan high rise with his aunt and uncle, who don't like the idea of suddenly raising a kid themselves.
One night a time traveler named Phineas Bogg (Jon-Erik Hexum) crashes into Jeff's bedroom.
Bogg is a ruggedly handsome man that's dressed like a pirate from the 1700s, who happens to be a member of a mysterious organization called "Voyagers".
Voyagers are people that are trained to "travel through the ages" to keep history on track and make sure it's always on the right path.
They don't get into the philosophical aspects of what is the right or wrong history, and there is no need to in a fun show like this.
The Voyagers seems to exist out of our linear time, they appear to be from the past but use technology from the future.
Through a series of mishaps Jeff winds up as Bogg's time traveling companion, and Bogg is unable to take Jeff back to 1982 because his Omni would only go up to 1970.
Bogg doesn't know much about history so Jeff proves valuable to Bogg, as Bogg left his Guidebook back in Jeff's 1982 bedroom (remember they can't go back).
Jeff basically becomes Bogg's new Guidebook and the two improvise their way through solving problems the best they can.This was created as an educational series for children, and it worked.
I probably learned more about history from Voyagers!
There was always a main plot and then a secondary story line where Jeff and Bogg visited another time line.
Other great episodes were "Worlds Apart" (Thomas Edison and Lawerence of Arabia), "The Travels of Marco Polo", "Barriers of Sound" (Alexander Graham Bell), "Voyagers of the Titanic", "The Trial of Phineas Bogg" (we get to see the Voyager school) and "Jack's Back" (Jack the Ripper).I have acquired all the episodes in recent years, complete with the NBC bumpers ("Voyagers will be back after these messages").
A few of my episodes even have some of the old NBC ads from the time, with Meeno and Jon-Erik dressed in costume and telling us "Sundays are the place to be on NBC!", which was a precursor to the "NBC Let's All Be There!" ads a couple years later.
Sure there are a couple of forgettable episodes and yes there are some corny moments here and there where you can tell this was a children's series, but it's damn entertaining one.
This was a series aimed at children but written with older audiences in mind, so I can still watch this one as an adult and not feel guilty.
That other great time travel series Quantum Leap would be there later to deal with the more regular folk.
At the end of each episode Meeno Pulce would give a quick narration over the closing credits, telling you that you could learn more about the historic figures visited in this episode through reading, "Take a voyage down to your local library, it's all in books".
It's a shame that back in the 80s moron shows like The Dukes of Hazzard lasted for six years and Voyagers!
Then I thought about Voyagers and how I hadn't seen it in almost 30 years.
I was so wrong; I was thrust back to a simpler time, it really was a great way to learn, if we had more educational shows like that today maybe the United States children wouldn't be so "dumbed-down"..
The teaming of late actor Jon-Erik Hexum and Meeno Peluce was wonderful, they had great chemistry and timing in their roles as Voyagers Phineas Bogg and Jeffrey Jones.
Most of the plot lines were so fun to watch and follow, you really did learn some interesting facts along the way.
This show is a great addition to the time travel genre and it even inspired another excellent show, 'Quantum Leap.' Jon-Erik was strikingly handsome, funny and charming as the confused pirate/Voyager and Meeno Peluce had a rare natural talent that only children could have, the ability to be lovable and a pain all at once!
I highly recommend finding and watching this show to any sci-fi/time travel buffs!.
Underrated Time Travel Series.
"Voyagers!" was one of the best time travel shows I have ever seen.
The show centered around the adventures of 12 year old Jeffery Jones and his dimwitted 20 something adult companion Phineas Bogg.
Bogg is a Voyager but is ill equiped for time travel, Jeff being a history whiz(and every other type whiz) is able to help Bogg out.
Like "The Greatest American Hero", "Voyagers!" features a hook with a lost instruction book.
Tragically Hexum accidently killed himself a year after Voyagers!
However, I recently found out this show exists (I love time travelling shows) and it's still a great pleasure to watch it.
Phineas Bogg - although he's a hopeless womanizer and knows practically nothing about history - repeatedly claims he doesn't drink alcohol and he doesn't want Jeffrey to play with weapons.
There are several things to note about "Voyagers!" The first is that this was a part of a master plan by NBC Program chief Brandon Tartikoff to merge entertainment with education, and to provide kids with intelligent programming, not the usual dreck that seemed so prevalent in the 1980s.The concept of the show was deceptively simple.
There are a team of men and women who keep track of "history." These "voyagers" each have a hand-held device called an "Omni" which gives them their location, the date and a signal if history is "wrong." They all go back and forward through time to correct any "mistakes" that may have occurred in time and keep the world on track.One voyager is named Phineas Bogg (an obvious play on Jules Verne's Phileas Fogg from "Around The World In 80 Days").
However this particular voyager didn't pass his history exam and landed on the windowsill of Jeffrey, who just happened to be a whiz kid in history.
The voyagers traveled back in time and discovered that famed flying ace Eddie Rickenbacher had nothing to do.
Looking at the series now, it would have made for a brilliant "Harry Potter" style string of films, since there really aren't enough historic events to have made it to the famed 100 episode level..
I was an ardent fan and viewer of this show (I was 11 years old at the time) and was so disappointed when it failed to show up on my TV screen.
I didn't know at the time that it had been cancelled...all I knew was a show I loved had just disappeared.I haven't seen this since I was 11 so all my memories of it are from childhood.
No other show I remember from childhood taught and entertained the way Voyagers did.
There has been so much rubbish pumped out on our TV sets for years and it's sad that fun, educational TV like Voyagers just fall by the wayside.
Released by Scholastic Books, this series is clean, fun, and full of historical tidbits and settings.
Voyagers are time travelers who basically give historical figures a nudge in the right direction so they fulfill their destinies, and history goes right.In each episode there are 2-3 different places/events covered that relate to a main story (i.e. Slavery with Harriet Tubman/Spartacus with a message we are "all created equal").
You see presidents, Lawrence of Arabia, Titanic, Salem witch hunts, Thomas Edison, Harry Houdini, World War I and II, Marco Polo, Mona Lisa, etc., along with brief cameos of famous figures for added historical fun, like Francis Scott Key (Star-Spangled Banner) and baby Moses.This series is great for kids and everyone interested in history.
Even my 71-year-old father enjoyed Voyagers (and remembers it when it aired in 1982 when I was young).
It has action, adventure, amusing situations, and the characters never stay in one setting too long so there is no time for boredom.I see many people not know simple historical facts like who is the first U.S. President.
It let you walk through that era while actually captivating a young mind whose attention span would be hard to grasp on such great historical episodes.
I recorded a bunch of episodes of Voyagers on the Scfi channel so I could watch them when ever I want.
I loved Voyagers when it was on TV and I still love it now- I just bought the DVD set off ebay and I've been watching it every night since.
I'm on maybe my third or fourth time through already but I never tire of seeing how great Jon-Erik Hexum was with Meeno Peluce.
People have criticized the acting but you really have to keep in mind that it was a show for kids.I loved that Phineas Bogg was setting a good example for children to watch- he did not swear and there were several instances in the show where he declined alcohol and said right out that he didn't drink, plus he was a gentleman and never hit a woman.I have seen several fan fiction stories on the web written by fellow Voyager enthusiasts and I enjoy reading most of them.
I heartily wish that someone would develop a series of books like was done with Dr. Who.
The best time travel show ever!
This was the pioneer of all time travel shows.
Not only did "Voyagers!" open up the world of time travel in movies/shows before it became common in such movies as "Back to the Future" and "Star Trek", but it made learning history fun..
Jon Erik Hexum and Meeno Peluce starred in this series about two "time travelers" who go throughout history and set it straight.
This show was loads of fun for a history lover like me.
Jon Erik Hexum was a fine young actor who had amazing chemisty and charisma that marked him for further and greater things.
I used to watch this show all the time, it's really too bad that the shows producers or the network that produced it, doesn't revive the series, it had a great concept that encouraged kids to read and learn about history, as well as entertain them at the same time.Many fans of the show wish that they could travel through time and "Make things right", too bad they couldn't have stopped the show from being cancelled in the first place!I even got an Omni a while ago and it really takes-me-back to the 80's!.
"Voyagers!" is still my favorite show after almost 16 years.
It made learning history fun for everyone (even adults).
I loved Jon-Erik Hexum, and will remember him forever..
tragedy that the freak death of Jon-Erik Hexum a couple of years later precluded
In this case that was the hunky Jon-Erik Hexum who time travels with
Peluce was a 12 year ol history genius.
better than a reference book that walks and is charming in youthful innocence.The two made a great team for 20 episodes righting all the things that go
We follow them to meet one historical figure after another throughout history.The limitations are of course that we don't go to really exotic locations like the great wall of China in medieval Cathay, nor equally India, Burma or the ancient Ethiopian Empire.
This show is no exception and unlike The A-Team and Knight Rider this show actually teaches kids history and literature in a fun and exciting way.Sometimes the pro-American sentiment lays a bit too thick on it but we've to remember that this was the early 80s.
Time Travel is in theory very sensitive to the butterfly effect but that is often skimmed over, which keeps it possible to focus on the story.I do really love the little of the cuff facts as for example: Jeffery sees a German soldier barely older than him.
He exclaims the fact and his co-star explains that the Germans uses everyone in this stage of the war, young or old.Kids these days have a very poor and black and white understanding of history.
I love watching old episodes and picking out actors that are now famous, like Gregg Henry played Teddy Roosevelt in the 2nd one.
I watched this show with my kids back in the 80's, it came to a very sad end when John Erik Hexum was killed on set.
Have you watched the Voyagers on VHS or DVD?.
I have always been fascinated with any shows or movies pertaining to time travel.
I would be interested in hearing from anyone that may have watched these episodes on VHS or DVD or any information as to when the series may surface for commercial purchase.
I also was not aware Phineas -- the time traveler who didn't quite study enough (he had this big book to help him out, but lost it along the way, so needed the help of a boy he accidentally took back in time) -- was so young.
The idea behind the show was nifty and as a fan of history and time travel stories, I enjoyed it.
Still, the pair -- putting things right in the time continuum, sorta like in "Quantum Leap" -- had some fune adventures.
And, it is a good way to get hooked on history, though the show was not exactly totally historically accurate.
Years later I wanted to share the show, so I posted on youtube.com all 20 episodes (just type in litlbit2001)for anybody who doesn't own the show on DVD.
I often wonder what a second season would of been like and if we could see Jeffrey experiencing a few things teenagers do while traveling through time with Bogg.
there was another show that was similar that we watched in elementary school called " read all about it " that had kids travelling through time to learn about history.
I love historical books and movies about all kinds of different time frames, events and figures, but would love to put my hands on the voyagers.
I don't know about you, but I would LOVE to see this old gem of a series come out on DVD.
Much like the previous review, I remember the show when I was just a kid, and it would be great to be able to relive the episodes again.
It mirrored another movie about a little boy from the U.K. who gets caught up with thieving time travelers and famous people in history called, 'Time Bandits' (which was much "darker"}.
Bogg was clueless about history but Jeffrey was a genius at it.
It touched on good issues like Jeffrey glamorizing criminals (Billy the Kid) and Bogg falling in love with the deaf future 'wife to be' of Alexander G.
Bogg mentions to Jeffrey their job is not changing history but making sure it happens as it is known and the ship sinks.
In the final episode 'Jack the Ripper' was just an evil Voyager named, Drake attempting to "destroy history" by killing Nelly Bly but he wasn't the real Jack.
Hexum was new to Hollywood with Voyagers and years later accidentally shot himself on the set of 'Cover Up' but it was not a suicide..
In that movie people traveling through time end up passing through a boys bedroom also,so the connection is quite obvious.
Phinaes (fin-ay-us) Bogg s hurtling through time one night and accidentally lands in Manhattan circa 1982 and accidentally into Jeffrey Jones' (Meeno Peluce) bedroom!
He and others like him must time travel to make sure all goes right or else history is changed for the worse!
He also has a pocket-watch like Omni which when when the light is red,history is wrong and green when all is right again.
Jeffrey makes up for his dog's lack of manners by agreeing to go on missions with Bogg (as long as he's back home at the same time and never missed).
If it comes out (or is out)on DVD,buy it!I couldn't understand at the time why it was canceled either but that's the way things go in TV.
I do like to think had it been renewed John Erik-Hexum might still be around.
I remember this show before Jon Erik Hexum's death from the show "Cover Up" a year later in 1984.
Along with the handsomeness and beefcake to add to him.He plays not too bright "Voyager" Phineas Bogg who is more brawn than brains.
As his small omni, shaped like a pocket watch, goes back to only 1970, which accidentally malfunctions to go to 1982.
Phineas forms a fatherly and big brother bond with Jeffrey despite their differences and Phineas falling in love with different women during the series run about.Too bad that the show was up against "60 Minutes." And that no show about time travel then and now, has not been a hit.
As it mainly was a hit with kids.But still Hexum and Peluce have great chemistry and acting.
Do you people use your brains or your feet, Incredible Hulk episode 1, season 2 Married Meeno Peluce plays the boy, where do you think casting directors got their first look at his acting talents to cast him in his first recurring role as Daniel in Best Of The West?
Do you people use your brains, or your feet, Incredible Hulk episode 1, season 2: Married, Meeno Peluce played the boy, where do you think casting directors got their first look at his alleged acting talents to later cast him in his first role as Daniel in sitcom Best Of The West.
Do you people use your brains, or your feet, Incredible Hulk, episode 1, season 2: Meeno Peluce played the boy, where do you think casting directors got their first look at his alleged acting talents. |
tt0088255 | They're Playing with Fire | Beautiful English professor, Diane Stevens (Sybil Danning) relaxes on her yacht, the Lillian, before heading off to the Ocean View College. She gives a lesson on Macbeth and his murder for ambition. After the lesson she asks Jay Richard (Eric Brown) if he's looking for work to which Jay confirms. Later that day, Jay varnishes the exterior woodwork on the Lillian. Diane invites him in for a drink then asks him about the interior which Jay says would take him at least a day. When Jay withdraws his hand from Diane's when they go to get two chairs up on deck so he can varnish them, Diane voices the possibility that Jay doesn't like her but Jay states that he does. Diane then persuades Jay to prove that he likes her by kissing her to which he complies. This soon then escalates into an act of sexual intercourse. Jay questions about Michael, Diane's husband, (Andrew Prine) finding out but Diane promises that she won't tell him. As she drives Jay to the gas station where he works Diane asks Jay to do her a favor.
At their house Diane and Michael discuss plans to use Jay in order to get a large inheritance from Lillian and Lettie Stevens, Michael's mother and grandmother, who want rid of the pair. Michael says that they should wait, however Diane admits her boredom and warns Michael that come summer she's leaving. The next day at college Diane and Michael convince Jay to scare Lillian and Lettie out of the house so they can put them in a retirement home. Jay agrees. At the house Lillian asks George the gardener if he is going to see Martin that night to which he says no. Lillian tells George about how they've got to talk as "it's" getting out of control. Lillian explains to Lettie how that they've got to solve "our problem". Jay's attempt at scaring the couple out of the house is thwarted when the family dog starts barking and Lillian chases him away by shooting at him with a rifle. Shortly after, Lillian and Lettie are killed by an unknown assailant. Jay runs to the boatyard and explains what happened to Diane and Michael. Michael grows suspicious of Jay when he phones home but gets no answer. The trio head to the house where they discover the two were murdered. Michael accuses Jay while Jay in turn accuses Michael of wanting to frame him. Jay promises he won't go to the police but vows to find out who committed the murder.
The next day Michael uses a lesson on abnormal psychology to torment Jay who goes to Diane telling her to get Michael off his case and voices that he knows she was just using him. He also lets her know of the billions of dollars in inheritance money which is why they're not going to the cops. Later, Cynthia, a girl in Jay's class, tries to blackmail him by threatening to show pictures of him and Diane on the yacht together to Michael and everyone on campus. Jay blows her off. Cynthia goes round to Michael's house to show him the photos but reconsiders. George inquires the whereabouts of Lillian and Lettie to which Michael lies saying they've gone to Hawaii. After Diane visits him at the gas station Jay investigates the cabin of the yacht. Diane comes round and he shows her he found a fragment of television screen glass and blood on a pair of trainers as well as a gun and bills of thousands of dollars paid to a children's psychiatric hospital in Switzerland. Diane tells Jay not to go to the police as he will be suspected instead of Michael and warns him that Michael is capable of violence. This convinces Jay and the two reconcile in a passionate session of cuddling.
Later, a drunk Michael confronts Diane and accuses her of having sex with Jay. Diane tells him that Jay has found evidence against him including his gun and is spying on them. Angered, Michael goes to Jay who's on campus and tells him he can't go to the police as he's got no alibi. Jay goes to Lillian and Lettie's house to try and get rid of his fingerprints but is chased away by the same assailant who murdered them. The next day Jay tells Diane about what happened, Diane informs Jay that the gardener is Lillian's cousin. Cynthia revisits Michael's house to show him the photos of Jay and Diane but is killed by the assailant dressed as Santa Claus. On campus, Diane sees Michael paying off George. Michael tells Diane that she killed Lillian and Lettie, plans on killing Jay as he's the only witness and is conspiring against him to get the entire inheritance for herself. Michael also states that he and her are through as he knows Diane and Jay are intimate. Diane calls Jay and informs him of their fight. She asks if he wants her to come over to which Jay says yes. Diane comes over and tells Jay that she is divorcing Michael. She states that Michael blames Jay for their breaking up but their relationship was over before she met Jay as Lillian saw to that. Diane and Jay then make love.
Michael comes around but Diane manages to elude him and, after convincing him she was never there, Jay follows suit. Michael then sees Diane's car and comes back but by this time Diane and Jay are on the yacht. Diane admits she needs Jay who, in turn, confesses his love for her. Michael tracks them down and prepares to shoot Jay but relents. The unknown assailant appears and then kills Michael. Diane and Jay chase him to the mansion. There, George confronts him revealing his name to be Martin. Martin tells him that his doctor said that his disease is terminal and reveals that he killed his mother and grandmother. George tells him that it was he who convinced them to fly him from Switzerland so he could inherit the fortune instead of Michael and Diane. An angry and disillusioned Martin kills George believing he only cares about the money. Diane and Jay look around and find Martin's photo album and medical records. They realize that George and Lillian had an illegitimate child and if he's still alive he'll inherit the fortune then find a diagnostic medical record paper from Martin's doctor in Switzerland and discover that Martin has a hereditary disease for which he is terminal.
The two go to the attic where Martin locks them in. They find the bodies of Lillian and Lettie and are then told by Martin that he killed Michael because if they found out about him they'd get rid of him and he now plans to kill Diane. Jay and Diane try to escape via the attic window but Martin comes up from behind to kill them. Jay shoots him with a rifle he armed himself with earlier. As Diane is about to unmask Martin he tries to choke her. Jay shoots him again this time killing him. Diane unmasks Martin revealing him to be Bird, a college contemporary with whom Jay has shared his dormitory and rent.
Summer rolls around and Diane visits Jay at work. She tells him she's leaving town for a while on a vacation. Diane asks Jay to drive her to the airport and gives him her car as a form of gratitude and because she needs his help as if it weren't for him she wouldn't be around to enjoy the large inheritance. She then invites Jay to come with her to Hawaii. Jay ecstatically accepts. As Jay's boss, Jimbo, threatens to fire him again, the two drive off to the airport to enjoy their holiday together. | murder | train | wikipedia | Since her start in the late 1960's, Sybil Danning has been called upon to use her sensuality and statuesque physique to bail out many a "B" movie.
No exception here, as the stunning Danning plays a college professor/seductress.
The victim is gullible Eric Brown (who's acting abilities resemble those of a 4th grader).
The highlight of this movie is the seduction of Brown by Danning in the yacht.
Great camerawork and Danning's sensuality in her strip give a scorching rating to a scene that will be relived in the minds of red-blooded males.
Her other sex scenes were Brown are equally erotic but that is as good as it gets with this movie.
A must for all Danning fans though, so you can drool at the sensual charms of this erotic goddess who seems to have saved the face of many an aspiring "B" movie director with her presence..
This film plays like a B-Film Noir from the 1950s coupled with the steamy erotica of the late night cable channels with some Dr. Giggles thrown in the mix.
Needless to say, it was entertaining but in a cheesy, not too high-brow kind of way.Sybil Danning plays a sexy college professor married to another professor (Andrew Prine)who stands to inherit a sizable sum of money from his mother once she kicks off.
The two espousers decide they can't wait for the dough so Sybil urges her obsessed student Eric Brown to assist them in gaining their inheritance.
To persuade the young student, Sybil offers him two famous vices: sex and money.Their plans backfire when mommy proves too much for Eric and chases him off the family estate with a shotgun.
Eric feels that he is being setup for murder when Prine accuses him of foul deeds, but he can't separate himself from the case due to his attachment to the buxom Miss Danning.
The film, which begins as an erotic thriller, then descends into the slasher genre as Eric and Sybil track a masked killer who just might be Sybil's hubby.STORY: $$$ (Nothing special here--just middle-of-the-road.
There are plenty plot devices that just don't make any sense, like their initial plan to have Eric scare mommy by breaking into her house.
Eric Brown seemed out of place in his scenes with Sybil.
Prine does a fine job as Sybil's odious husband while Miss Danning is in good form as the femme fatale).NUDITY: $$$$$ (This is really the main draw for this film, since it is Sybil at her most obliging.
Had there been a better check and balance between the story and Sybil's breast exposure, this could have been a better erotic thriller)..
Seeing this movie and the bikini and seduction scenes is enough to make any man throw away his viagra.
In this movie, Danning conspicuously displays what she's best-known for, and it sure ain't her thespian skills, buddy.Her three sex scenes in the movie are unbelievably enthusiastic and should send most slobbering males to the fast-forward button to find the next such scene.
The rest of the movie is a dreary slasher thriller that, most incredulously, even manages a happy ending.
You know what level the movie's at when the student whom Danning is deflowering tries to carry on a mundane conversation while this busty vixen is on top.
A clever plot a cat and mouse game of drama, and suspense yet the eye candy treat is the knockout Sybil Danning!.
This film "They're Playing with Fire" is really a pretty decent B movie as it does have a story and plot twist that's filled with drama and suspense and it's topped off with eye candy and cake icing with erotic scenes from the sexy Sybil!
The story is that of two college professors the female being(Sybil)and she seduces one of her young innocent students(Eric Brown)as part of a plot to frame him for the murders of her well to do in-laws.
Yet this plan and plot doesn't go as planned it's now a tangled web of deceit, nothing and no one is who they appear.Along the way despite the blood and violence the screen is spiced up with plenty of skin and sexy nude scenes and love making bed encounters with the sexy B queen goddess miss Sybil(also she's stunning in a black bra!).
Overall well done film that's carried by Sybil so if it's your thing give this a watch..
First, he gets de-flowered by Sylvia Kristel (Emmannuelle herself) in "Private Lessons", and then is floored by the charms of Sybil Danning in this movie.
And they're right: as predatory as ever, Danning exudes sex and sensuality as a college professor (only in Hollywood) who tricks student Brown into killing a relative so she and he can run off with her inheritance.
Maybe even think about how lucky that Eric Brown guy is.One star.
Anyone who is a Sybil Danning fan will tell you: fast-forward through everything else but her in "They're Playing with Fire".
Sybil Danning in one of her best roles.
The statuesque Sybil Danning dominates this rather poor film of murder and intrigue.Who could not be impressed at the skilful way she manipulates one of her students, played by Eric Brown onto her luxury cruiser in order to overwhelm him in a way only she can manage.Ultimately, Miss Danning is the only good thing in this film as the poorly scripted plot spirals out of control.
That's part mystery thriller, part slasher movie.
The plot is quite interesting we get a student named Jay Richards who has an affair with his teacher Diana Stevens (Sybil Danning), but that's not all she and her husband want him to break into his elderly mothers house to scare them and of course that goes wrong when grandma pulls out a rifle and the young student runs away, and no sooner a masked stranger is already in the house ready to kill.Okay this movie lacks logic and the storyline doesn't really make much sense, but the who dunnit angle does actually work, and I was geniually surprised when the killer is unmasked at the end.
And the chemistry between Eric Brown and Sybil Danning was actually believable and spot on, and the sex scenes were probably the best thing about this movie.
But there are several bad points to this movie, like for a start the pacing is quick enough and I did find myself getting bored at times and a lot of the performances were awful and the death scenes simply weren't up to scratch, they lacked imagination like the scene where the girl gets hit with a baseball bat, was just painful and not for the right reasons.But there are a few small blessings in this movie, like Sybil Danning is just simply beautiful and has a gorgeous body, and one of the only cast members to make an actual effort and Eric Brown was okay he had the innocence wide boy routine rather well, despite some rubbish dialogue.All in all "They're Playing With Fire" is not a terrible movie, in fact I found it quite fun and stupid at the same time, but I couldn't help that feel that if this movie was in more capable hands, then this could have been a hell of a lot better..
Well simply who would want to knock back the advancements of the Austrian born blonde buxom Sybil Danning.
The highly attractive English professor Diane Stevens seduces her gullible student Jay in a plan crafted by her husband Michael to inherit his family's fortune.
However things turn pear shape when murder becomes apart of it.In the 80s Eric Red was living every teenage boy's wet dream, as only years before he was getting it on with another European goddess Sylvia Kristel in "Private Lessons".
But while the two films share some similarities, "They're Playing with Fire" is less light-headed being a lot more sleazy and spiteful in mixing elements of popular teenage sex comedies and jarring slasher traits.
The voluptuous Sybil Danning is apparently considered to be the chief attraction of this film for most viewers, but the plot also holds some inherent interest as a murder mystery.
Sybil Danning is an extremely stunning sight to behold when she's wearing just a smile, sure, but there's only so much so can do when saddled with an abysmal script (and that's 90% of her career's work).
a teacher who wants her husband's parents money, but that won't happen until his mom and aunt are either dead or declared incompetent (the latter is kinda like the makers of this film).
Enter Private Lessons' Eric Brown as Jay, a college student who's more gullible than a fifth grader (if that) and plans to scare the old women, but there's a 'mystery' serial killer at work.
As I said before Danning is the ONLY reason for someone to watch this (and even then only when it's on cable, as it's not worth renting).
Also the powers that be seemed to openly want to sabotage the film as with the amount of chances to get Sybil fully nude, they go to great lengths to not show her fourth acting talent, her tits and ass being the first three, so you know where I'm going with that one.
Stick with a better Sybil film such as Chained Heat or Malibu Express instead Eye Candy: Sybil Danning shows T&A multiple times, Suzanne Kennedy'shows her right breast briefly My Grade: D.
That Eric Brown, what a lucky dude.
First in Private Lessons with Sylvia Kristel and then in They're Playing With Fire with Sybil Danning the boy is doing well with the cougars.However other than those titillating sex scenes there's not much to recommend either film.
Danning seduces Brown but that's at the behest of her husband Andrew Prine.
They want Brown to break in and just scare the two women so they might sell the old mansion and give them some of the loot.But then some hooded individual comes along and murders the two women and hides the bodies.
If it weren't for Sybil Danning's body and those two weapons of mass destruction she has interest would be minimal here.
I have what I call "The Adrienne Barbeau Theorem," which is as follows: Big breasts, in and of themselves, are not enough reason to watch a terrible movie.
Ironically, there are two movies that strongly test my theorem, and one of them is Adrienne Barbeau's "Swamp Thing." The other is an abysmal '80s slasher flick titled "They're Playing with Fire." Sybil Danning plays an English professor (so much for realism) who seduces one of her young students (Eric Brown) in order to make him a patsy in a murder plot in which she's involved.
In fact, the movie's slasher motif is so sordid, even for this genre, that it's painful to watch.
The movie would be deservedly forgotten, were it not for Danning's astounding sex scenes.These scenes, particularly the first one, are as jaw-dropping as anything you're likely to see in a mainstream, R-rated movie.
Obviously, the kid needs an education in more than English.Other than the all-too-brief scenes in which Danning demonstrates why a date with her would fetch a small fortune on an auction block, the movie's only element of interest is in seeing Alvy Moore, who played Hooterville county agent Hank Kimball on TV's "Green Acres," hitting a career low as a gas-station manager who's dumb enough to hire and re-hire the kid as an attendant even after he's dumped the job on the promise of some loot from Danning's English professor.
The only thing that could have made this movie more bad-memorable would be to pair Danning with fluttery Hank Kimball: "Welcome to Hootersville, I mean Hooterville!
The cover of this movie gives the impression this is one of those 1980s student gets seduced by teacher movies, you know the ones they made before teachers were jailed predatory behaviour?
The story starts off with what the cover implies, a teacher student seduction which takes place on a huge yatch, these college lecturers must be getting overpaid.
What is so strange about this is that there is very little lead up and the student doesn't question why this middle aged married woman wants sex and acts like there are no strings attached.
We have the seductress and her husband plotting to exploit the student, however their plan ends in disaster and its unclear just who is pulling the strings.
The main attraction of this movie seems to be the actress who does the seduction, and for her fans she strips off at every opportunity.
This is quite a boring movie with annoying actors for leads and will only really appeal to guys who are fans of Sybil whoever she used to be.
I watch bad movies so you don't have to..
Sybil Danning's bod; everything else bad.
Sybil Danning's bod; everything else bad.
Sybil Danning's bod; everything else bad.
I have what I call "The Adrienne Barbeau Theorem," which is asfollows: Big breasts, in and of themselves, are not enough reason towatch a terrible movie.
Ironically, there are two movies that stronglytest my theorem, and one of them is Adrienne Barbeau's Swamp Thing (seemy Epinions review).
The other is an abysmal '80s slasher flick titledThey're Playing with Fire.Sybil Danning plays an English professor (so much for realism) whoseduces one of her young students (Eric Brown) in order to make him apatsy in a murder plot in which she's involved.
The movie would be deservedly forgotten, were it not forDanning's astounding sex scenes.These scenes, particularly the first one, are as jaw-dropping asanything you're likely to see in a mainstream, R-rated movie.
Obviously, the kid needs an educationin more than English.Other than the all-too-brief scenes in which Danning demonstrates why adate with her would fetch a small fortune on an auction block, themovie's only element of interest is in seeing Alvy Moore, who playedHooterville county agent Hank Kimball on TV's "Green Acres,"hitting a career low as a gas-station manager who's dumb enough to hireand re-hire the kid as an attendant even after he's dumped the job onthe promise of some loot from Danning's English professor.
The onlything that could have made this movie more bad-memorable would be topair Danning with fluttery Hank Kimball: "Welcome to Hootersville,I mean Hooterville!
Eric Brown will forever be remembered synonymously with fear and killing!.
Awful But So Weird You Must See It. They're Playing with Fire (1984) * (out of 4)Married college professor Diane Stevens (Sybil Danning) seduces her student Jay (Eric Brown) and then asks him to do a favor for her and her husband Michael (Andrew Prine).
Before long the husband's rich mother and grandmother are dead and Jay feels that they set him up.THEY'RE PLAYING FOR FIRE is one of those movies that you should start around one thirty in the morning.
You know, just when you're starting to get tired but you want to watch something.
This is without question one of the strangest movies I've seen from this era and especially since it really doesn't know what it wants to do.
I became aware of the movie thanks to a review by Roger Ebert where he pretty much went off on the picture and it's easy to see why he would.The film starts off like a teen sex comedy where the sexy teachers seduces the boy.
As the movie plays out there's a hooded killer going around killing people in some rather graphic ways so out of nowhere this film turns into a slasher and you'll be surprised at how much blood the film got pass the MPAA.
Danning appears naked throughout 40% of the movie and that alone makes it worth watching.
Just look at how nervous and awkward he appears to be during the sex scenes!THEY'RE PLAYING WITH FIRE really is a lousy movie but it has enough nudity and enough blood to make it worth viewing..
Eric Brown became famous for about a week and half back in the 80s thanks to an appearance in the Sylvia Kristel comedy Private Lessons, where he plays a student who gets involved with his much older French tutor.
Here he plays a student who gets involved with the much older wife of his English professor.
Anyway, the two of them sneak around behind the prof's back for the first third of the movie and then the producers must have realized that there was no plot going on, and so bodies start showing up for no reason and the cops focus on the kid, also for no reason.
The performances are just as bad as the script, with Eric Brown looking lost and amateurish, movie veteran Andrew Prine (who plays the prof) looking embarrassed, and Sybil Danning looking once again like a great chest with no acting talent attached, which continued to be true over her long and stinky career.
Sybil Danning sizzles in this deliciously cheesy slasher murder thriller item.
Cunning and enticing college English professor Diane Stevens (the ever luscious Sybil Danning at her all-time hottest) seduces gawky, naive student Jay Richard (the hopelessly geeky Eric Brown of "Private Lessons" fame) so she can use him as a patsy for an intricate scheme to inherit a sizable sum of money from her wealthy in-laws.
Director/co-writer Howard Avedis concocts a really strange and sordid blend of your standard silly teen sexploitation romp (the sleazy soft-core sex scenes are genuinely steamy stuff) and more mean-spirited slasher horror schlock (the scene where the psycho dressed as Santa beats a luckless lady's head in with a baseball bat is truly jolting).
The cool supporting cast includes Andrew Prine as Diane's jerky husband Michael, Paul ("The Beast Within") Clemens as Jay's amiable college roommate Martin "Bird" Johnson, Alvy ("Green Acres") Moore as cranky gas station owner Jimbo, and K.T. Stevens as Michael's bitchy mother Linda.
Moreover, this picture deserves extra kudos for getting right to the point: a mere eight minutes into the film Sybil removes her top and bares her beautiful bountiful breasts. |
tt0246937 | Something to Sing About | "Terry Rooney" (James Cagney) is the stage name of Thaddeus McGillicuddy, a popular New York band leader and hoofer with a radio show, who gets an offer to go to Hollywood to make movies. He leaves behind his fiancee, the band's singer, Rita Wyatt (Evelyn Daw), and finds himself in the hands of studio boss B.O. Regan (Gene Lockhart), who sets a team of studio professionals to mold Rooney into a star. Regan, after struggling with another new talent who quickly developed an uncontrollable ego, also secretly insists that no one praise Rooney's work, on pain of being fired.
While shooting a bar fight for his first film, a stunt man who is supposed to throw a fake punch at Rooney hits him deliberately instead. Rooney retaliates, and a full-out fistfight breaks out. Disgusted with Hollywood, Rooney leaves to marry Wyatt, and for a honeymoon takes her on a tramp steamer for a cruise to the South Seas, ending up in San Francisco.
While they are away, the film is completed and premiered, and becomes a huge hit – but, to Regan's dismay, nobody in the studio knows where Rooney is. When he is finally spotted in San Francisco, Regan flies out immediately with a contract, a clause of which requires Rooney to remain single for its seven-year duration. Rooney and Wyatt agree to keep their relationship quiet, with Wyatt posing as Rooney's secretary.
Another film is begun, with Rooney acting alongside Stephanie Hajos (Mona Barrie), and to promote it, studio publicist Hank Meyers (William Frawley) plants news stories saying that Rooney and Hajos are love interests off-screen. The combined stress of having their marriage remain a secret, while Rooney has less and less time for her, eventually drives Wyatt back to New York. Hajos finds out that Rooney is not only not interested in her but is married; the story breaks to the papers, and Rooney returns to Wyatt and their band in New York with a front-page article declaring his relationship with Hojas a hoax. | christian film | train | wikipedia | I love this movie!!
It has a great cast & shows the need for forgiveness & love.
I really like the older woman character!
This movie really makes you look over your life.
Love makes the world go around.
:) I recommend this movie to everyone!.
Excellent, feel good movie!.
This movie was wonderful!!
I encourage all people whether Christian or not to view this movie, it might just change your life.
I really enjoyed the cast, especially Darius McCrary!!
Who knew he could sing like that!!
It's a great family movie that will draw everyone closer to Christ.
I recommend it to all!.
Sing it Again.
I recorded this movie on a video when it came on TV for the second time.
The characters endeared themselves to me(especially "Tommy" and "G Smooth") and after wearing out the video I went and purchased the DVD.
And, so as not to wear out the DVD (just trying to listen to the great sound track) I bought the CD as well.
As a Christian, this movie really appealed to me.
It has drama, romance, comedy, and spirituality without all the foul language, blood and guts, nudity, and sexual references from beginning to end that overshadow a lot of secular films with good plots.
Unfortunately, these negative aspects are the things many viewers have become conditioned to and even a standard by which they tend to judge other movies.
Perhaps "Sing" doesn't have the best dialogue, direction, or editing but I had no problem overlooking these things because basically it was a good story that an entire family could watch.
I'd definitely recommend this movie to the newly saved and no doubt to those so-called "tough" young men who find themselves being touched by the love of God in ways they never expected.
This movie had a lot of heart...something the Bible says God looks at.
I give "Something To Sing About" five stars.
Very good Christian Movie.
I saw this on a Christian channel and thought wow I didn't know that Carl's Son from Family Matters could sing so well!
lol.
The acting in this movie is decent and the plot moves along nicely, with a few twists and turns.
Someone wrote: "This is a somewhat hokey religious movie..." and then wrote "...Highlighting it all, however, is the sparkling Tamera Mowry....She is not just attractive, but there is a glow emanating from her that one feels she is not acting, that she is genuinely this bubbly, charming, loving person." Hello!!!
It's that hokey religion you were talking about that makes her like that.
All theology aside, it's a great story about love, but not just any love, God's love.
Watch it!
Great story, great singing!.
Truly Something to Sing About!.
This is a great movie!
This is a great movie!
It may not have shown the realities of the street and two people falling in love, but it does show how God's love changes people!!
I liked how it showed Darius McCrary go from one extreme to another.
It is a true inspiration to those who don't think that they have something to sing about!.
Wonderful.
Great movie It really touched me it brings you closer to Jesus and teaches you about his acceptance of you no matter what you have done, it teaches you about his love and care.
It brings you close to home and makes you think if Jesus can forgive me for my sins, I can forgive others about what they have done!
It's a happy and joyous film full of faith growth and love!!!!!!!
it also contains many talented gifted stars such as Tamara mowary and darius mccury and kirk franklin!
and it's about God's plans for you!
it teaches you not to live for self if Jesus has a plan for you than it will come around a 2nd time if he wants you to have it!
it teaches you to let God's will for your life be known for you not you tell God your will for your life!
it's a film everyone should see and more people should support and make more films like these!!!
for all to see and enjoy May God bless and Keep you all- HarleyQuinn1.
Worth watching if only to see Tamera Mowry.
This is a somewhat hokey religious movie, with generally excellent production values and very good acting.
Highlighting it all, however, is the sparkling Tamera Mowry.
That young woman is so luminous, she alone makes this movie worth watching, more than once.
She is not just attractive, but there is a glow emanating from her that makes one feel she is not acting, that she is genuinely this bubbly, charming, loving person.
She is the centerpiece around which everything and everybody else revolves.
She is a marvelously talented performer, and I hope all the producers realize it so she will be around for many decades to come.Added in June of 2016: This movie is available at YouTube.
I hope you watch it..
Good message regardless of artistic "faux pas".
I agree that some Christian films are seriously lacking in artistic excellence.
I also agree that some can be preaching to the choir, as someone on this board previously mentioned.
"Something to Sing About" may be viewed by certain individuals as "Nothing to Write Home About." But...I wonder...MUST every Christian film be made solely for the purpose of reaching its viewers with a life-changing message?
I am the first person to advocate reaching out to people, and I happen to know that "Something to Sing About" was shown in a public setting during an outreach in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, several years ago.
I also happen to own the film and, in spite of what some may say, I believe this movie has "stepped it up" in Christian film-making compared to the quality of some I've seen in the past.
Using well-known actors such as Irma Hall, Tamara Mowry, and Darius McCrary gave, I believe, a higher level of credibility to the film, compared to some others that have used unknown actors.
The quality of the music by Anointed and others, also showed excellence in my book.
I'd never be ashamed - rather, I'd be proud - to show this film to various guests in my home.
Furthermore, if we want to call this "poor film-making" - I suggest you take a look at some of the "made for TV" movies on Lifetime and other channels.
Do you really think some of their "happily ever after" endings supersede the quality of reality given on "Something to Sing About"?
I beg to differ.
What about some of the holiday movies recently released?
I can tell you, for example, "Christmas With the Cranks" was not exactly Hollywood's finest quality!
How many ways can you try to create a fresh Christmas idea for a movie?
Yet people still watch and enjoy them simply because, whether we want to admit it or not, we tend to LIKE some things that are corny!
Simply because we tie them to nostalgic moments in our lives, or give them any meaning we want..
Something to Forget About.
Man, is this one a turkey.
Before I go any further, I suppose I'd better explain that I am a practicing Christian, and the people I watched this with were all Christians in good faith.
Therefore, as refreshing as it may be to see a movie teaching about Christ, this movie doesn't cut it.This movie seems to have been pieced together from various unfinished scenes.
Things just happen for no real reason, with little or no explanation.
In particular, the romance of the two lead characters never seems to do anything.
They are simply declared "in love" and that's that.
You will probably start laughing when two guys both well into old age have a "rumble" (That's what they called it!).
I guess they were going to throw their dentures at each other or something.
Oh, and of course, since this is a movie about "the mean streets," you also have to have the Evil Drug Dealer, who looks more like he's ready to DJ at a night club than bust caps into people.
He's there because the script requires a villain.The cast isn't too bad, though it's interesting to see one of the Mowrey twins in a movie without the other.
I liked the actress who played Memaw, but what a waste-she was supposed to be the spirited grandmotherly character, but never really seemed to do much except preach.The preaching is what gets to me.
Now, I'm assuming anyone sitting here is fairly familiar with the Bible and knows about how Jesus told parables to get his big points across.
Why do you think he did that?
Why do you think he did that?
Because he knew that most people wouldn't listen if he just stood there and preached to them.
Thus, Jesus' teachings stil exist even today.
People who make movies like this would do well to remember that.
This movie only gets a 5 out of 10 because I liked Memaw..
Great example of how Christians don't get film or art..
A very sad attempt at filmmaking.
I've always been amazed at how little quality there is in any "Christian" film productions.
In a way, it's insulting.
Scripts poorly written with very little intelligence, poorly acted, terrible production values and shot as if by a student filmmaker.
I know, I've made some bad student films.Director Charlie Jordan ( I ), is new at this.
Everybody has a turkey now and then, even Mr. Hitchcock, so Mr. Jordan is in good company.This film, like so many other "Christian" films, seems to be saying, our message is so heavenly minded we don't have to try and be any earthly good.
If this film is trying to hold an audience, that audience is already Christian.
This is just preaching to the choir, and poorly.If you want to look at a film with a Christian message, I highly recommend: "Places In The Heart", 1984 starring Sally Field, who took home the Oscar for her performance.
"Tender Mercies", 1983, starring Robert Duvall, who also won an Oscar for his work.Bottom line, Christians need to grow up before they start making movies.
They need to remember that the church was the standard for art..
a long time ago.
Bach, Mozart, Handel, Michelangelo...
not a bad bunch.
It was all about the work.
Just because you're doing something for God, (spreading the Gospel), does NOT mean you can take short cuts on quality.
On the contrary...
you should at least try to stand on the shoulders of giants.I'm a Christian.
I've worked in the film industry for 15 years..
Worth Watching even without Tamera.
I thought this was a really good movie.
It's true that it was a little corny, but it was a nice story and for a small production and good acting and excellent production, filming, etc.
Tamera Mowery, Irma Hall and Darius McCrary were great.
Their characters were believable and their portrayal was excellent.
I even noticed and a familiar face from "Eight is Engough." I wish more studios would take the time to make movies like this rather than the garbage that's usually out there.
If you're in the mood for a good story without a lot of sex and bad language, you should check this movie out.
It is a good movie for families and gives you a lot of things to discuss. |
tt0053815 | Fastest with the Mostest | Wile E. Coyote (Carnivorous - Slobbius) lights a firework, hoping for it to explode when Road Runner (Velocitus - Incalcublii) passes over it, but it explodes instantly. Wile catches up to Road Runner and passes him, but fails to spot the end of the cliff and falls off. Wile climbs the cliff in sections and pulls himself barely up onto the end of the cliff, but Road Runner then scares him off the cliff.
Wile then plans to drop a bomb on Road Runner from a hot air balloon. However, while inflating the balloon, the balloon inflates the coyote instead; Wile floats through the air and bounces on the ground, desperately holding onto the bomb before he deflates and flies through the sky. When all the air leaves him, Wile lets go of the bomb, but falls through the sky. Wile hides to avoid the bomb, but the bomb lands near him. When the bomb starts ticking, Wile unscrews the bomb's head and removes the explosive. The bomb stops ticking, but a relieved Wile is blown up when it abruptly starts ticking again.
This time, Wile posts several white signs along Road Runner's path in an effort to get Road Runner to stop. When Road Runner obligingly munches, Wile prepares to go down in a bucket to trap him, only to struggle getting in the bucket. When Wile finally gets in, he unties the rope to lower himself, only for the rope to detach from the bucket, sending Wile falling. The bucket gets hung up on a tree branch, much to Wile's relief, but he then falls out of the bucket when relaxing. Road Runner lays down a spring, which bounces Wile (who holds a sign saying THANKS in a rare act of gratitude) directly into the first branch, where he is hung up by the spring.
Wile then plants a detour sign in the road, directing Road Runner to go down an outcropping. Road Runner stops at the very edge, and Wile follows, only for the outcropping to break up and send Wile falling to the ground. Wile's knife scrapes the skin off his back, and his fork lands in his tail, sending Wile flying upwards, where is hung up on another branch by his napkin. The tree then falls down and pounds Wile through the ground and into a waterfall. Wile is swept downstream through a network of pipes before twisting himself out of a spigot. Wile then stares at Road Runner, still standing on the floating piece of rock, much to Wile's confusion. He pulls out a sign that says, I WOULDN'T MIND, EXCEPT THAT HE DEFIES THE LAW OF GRAVITY, but the Road Runner holds a sign that says, SURE, BUT I NEVER STUDIED LAW, as he speeds away. | psychedelic | train | wikipedia | Very solid Roadrunner and Wile E Coyote cartoon.
While not one of Roadrunner and Wile E Coyote's best cartoons, with a quite basic and routine story and slightly too overpowering sound effects, 'Fastest with the Mostest' is still very entertaining and nowhere near one of the worst.The animation is bright, colourful and smooth, with Roadrunner and Wile nicely and fluidly drawn and the backgrounds never too simplistic.
Milt Franklyn's music characteristically is lively and lushly orchestrated, not quite as action enhancing as Carl Stalling but far more preference to Bill Lava.
The gags all hit their mark and are well-timed, never too repetitive or tired.
The hot air balloon and signs and bucket gags are particularly hilarious.Roadrunner is amusing and not annoying like he is in the later cartoons, though Wile is the funnier and more interesting character.
He is cunning and is a comic joy with cleverly drawn facial expressions, though he is also easy to pity.In conclusion, very solid and entertaining.
8/10 Bethany Cox. Carnivorous Slobbius.
The first Road Runner and Coyote short of the 1960s is another enjoyable one.
It's not one of their best but it is fun.
Some of the great gags in this one include a hot air balloon bomb drop gone wrong and a hilarious routine involving signs and a bucket.
Lively music from Milt Franklyn.
The animation is nice; no complaints there really.
One thing I will nitpick about is that the sound effects seem a little louder than usual here.
It's perhaps something you would only notice if you have watched a lot of these old cartoons over and over, but....well, I have, so it sticks out to me.
Anyway, it's a solid effort from Chuck Jones and company that I'm sure most fans will enjoy..
Very nice cartoon.
The Road Runner, or Velocitus Incalcublii, is chased by the Coyote (Carnivorous Slobbius) and this time the Coyote actually runs faster.
The problem is that the Road Runner stops before a cliff and of course the Coyote does not.
We see the Coyote climb up for a change, just to fall down again.
Other gags involve a bomb he wants to drop from a balloon, bird seed that must slow the Road Runner down and a detour that makes you actually think the Coyote might pull it off.
Of course he does not.This is a very nice cartoon.
The balloon gag and the final moments where the Road Runner is cornered are very funny sequences.
Other gags had me smiling.
Especially the timing with some of them is terrific..
I've always found the title amusing..
This is a fairly good Roadrunner cartoon, but I suspect it holds a distinction few people have noticed: it may well be the only cartoon with a (probably imaginary) quote from a Confederate American Civil War General as its title.
Nathan Bedford Forrest is supposed to have replied, when asked which side would win a particular battle, "The one that gets there the fastest with the mostest".Good visual gags here and all in all a good example of the series and a favorite of mine.
An interesting series as a whole.
Well worth watching.
Recommended..
Very good!.
I have watched a few Wile Coyote v Roadrunner cartoons, but so far this is definitely my favourite!
By no means is it my new favourite Looney Tunes cartoons, but I certainly enjoyed watching it.
The plot-line is the same basic plot line of all the Wile Coyote v Roadrunner cartoons: WC trying to catch R and eat him.
In each episode, Wile Coyote tries and fails and even though he should not eat Roadrunner (because he is so cute) you do feel sorry for Wile Coyote.The reason this is my favourite so far is because some of the slapstick was more unexpected than it usually is in these cartoons and there was a funny ending with words in the form of boards.
When I watch Looney Tunes, I generally prefer the ones with Daffy Duck or Bugs Bunny, where there is much witty dialogue involved, but I enjoyed this just as much as many of those sort of episodes.
:-) This episode is highly recommended to people who already like Wile Coyote and Roadrunner and to people who like "witty" slapstick, as there was here.
Enjoy "Fastest with the Mostest"!
:-) 8 and a half out of ten..
live fast, not die young (in fact, not die at all).
Once again, Wile E.
"Carnivorous Slobbius" Coyote sets up a series of traps for Road "Velocitus Incalcublii" Runner, and they always backfire.
In one instance, RR turns into sort of a jerk (or at least that was how I interpreted it).
The overall point is that even though we always know what sorts of things are going to happen, it's a total pleasure to watch them play.
Those signs encouraging RR to slow down reminded me of the expression "live fast, die young" (often used to describe Elvis Presley).But anyway, "Fastest with the Mostest" is just great, even though the end was clearly lifted from the Bugs Bunny vehicle "High-Diving Hare".
On that subject, I have studied law some, so I'd better be careful on ledges!.
This one also has a good beat to it!.
As with most other Looney Tunes shorts with the Road Runner, there is no dialogue in this one (especially that I could recite verbatim, like "Daffy Duck Hunt," "Napoleon Bunny-Part," or "Foxy By Proxy," for example).However, this particular Looney Tune is unique to me in that I remember about 95% of its musical score, and that (as was the case with "Easy Peckin's") whenever I saw this short and heard the music again, I would be slapping my knees to the music's rhythm, much to the chagrin of the rest of my family, who got extremely p.o.'d.I especially found myself slapping my knees to the rhythm of: (1) the fast music over the opening credits; (2) the sequence where the Coyote gets vertigo while hanging from a protruding branch from a cliff (accented by trombones); (3) the scene where the Coyote rhythmically pounds the "detour" sign into the ground; (4) the clarinet cascade heard after the Coyote corners the Road Runner and ties on a bib; (5) the lead-in to the final scenes where the Coyote is hammered into a raging current by a large branch hanging over the river; and (6) the final screeches heard when the Coyote hits the corners of the water pipe he's traveling through before opening the faucet to let himself out.
(As I'm typing this, I can still hear the squeaks of the bucket the Coyote hides in, the twang of the large spring he gets caught in, and the rhythmic taps of that branch hammering the Coyote into the raging river!) There are also three funny observations I have regarding "Fastest With the Mostest:" (1) as the knife and fork slice downward through the sky before the fork pierces the Coyote's tail and sends him skyward, the way the knife is falling made me think of the old Screen Gems "S from Hell" logo as the S is being formed from the top half of the screen; (2) this particular Looney Tune must have been a favorite of the program director at WOOD-TV (a.k.a. WOTV), Channel 8, in Grand Rapids, Michigan (which we received when I lived in Lansing, Michigan in the 70's); not only did Channel 8 air this one during their weekday airings of the Looney Tunes, but they also used it as a short subject frequently whenever a movie ended ahead of time (on one occasion, WOOD-TV ran the Bugs Bunny short "Hare Splitter" before one of those low-budget Sun Classic Pictures travelogues - "Alaskan Safari," to be exact - and followed said feature with "Fastest With the Mostest" to recreate the feel of a Sunday afternoon matinée at a theater); and (3) I especially remember on another occasion my dad and younger sister were watching this with me and I began slapping my knees; my dad started roaring at me and ordered me to stop.
Even though I was 12 at that time, I should have told him, "All right, I'll make a deal with you.
You stop subjecting me to that hillbilly music, and I'll stop slapping my knees!" (My father subjected us to him playing hillbilly songs on his electric guitar practically day in and day out; how I wanted to do like those punk rockers did and smash his guitar into pieces or like John Goodman did to Tiny Tim's ukelele at the end of an episode of "Roseanne," but that's another story.
Rock and pop music rule!) In any event, for its humor, rhythmic musical score, and funny pre-teen memories it holds, "Fastest With the Mostest" gets an 8.
But, it ranks 6th in my Top 10 all-time favorite Looney Tunes; "Daffy Duck Hunt" is STILL #1 in my book.Warner Home Video, will you ever put "Fastest With the Mostest" on a Looney Tunes DVD compilation soon?
I sure hope so!.
Everybody connected with the Classic Looney Tunes .
. (falsely) contend that these Roadrunner shorts are very formulaic, governed by their own set of "iron-clad laws." For instance, the Roadrunner has to stay on the road.
(This troublemaking bird is shown off-road AT LEAST four times during FASTEST WITH THE MOSTEST).
The most supposedly rigid rule for the Roadrunner is that he NEVER physically attacks Wile E.
Coyote, or even overtly causes any of this "Carnivorous Slobbius'" many downfalls.
However, you can watch the incident occurring about 1:55 into FASTEST WITH THE MOSTEST once or a billion times, and upon each and every viewing anyone with eyes in their head will witness the dirty bird butting Wile into the Abyss.
At the end of this Roadrunner episode, the fleet trickster even confesses to his crimes, holding up a sign stating "Sure (I'm guilty of defying the Laws of Decency)--but I never studied law.".
Cartoon brilliance!.
This episode starts off with a bang!
-- right in the poor coyote's face -- and ends with one of the most disastrous "epic fails" of Wile E's career.In between, there's enough action going on to keep you laughing throughout.
Director Chuck Jones once wrote that one of his major rules in this series was to, wherever possible, make gravity the coyote's greatest enemy -- and it certainly is here.
The poor hungry canine spends virtually the entire cartoon falling off one of those two-mile-high precipices -- and even over a waterfall -- in fact, it gets so bad for him that Road Runner actually seems to take pity on him at one point and provide a giant coil spring to break his fall (not that it completely saves him from pain).
Mind you, maybe Roadrunner owed him that after earlier "meepmeep"ing him off the edge of one after he'd just completed a long, painful climb up the darn thing.
It's a scene very similar to one in the earlier "Zoom and Bored" -- but even funnier this time in that it shows more of Wile E's horrified expression after the bird zings him yet again.
But the best scene by far is the long-drawn-out ending, in which Coyote finally seems to have trapped Road Runner at the edge of a cliff, only to have Cruel Fate intervene once again, sending our hapless predator onto a series of calamities, ending with him thoroughly defeated and wondering why gravity only works on him, and not on that frustrating bird!
A couple of trivia notes: this cartoon was released in January 1960, thus becoming the first WB cartoon released in the 60's.
And it's also the first Road Runner cartoon not to credit Michael Maltese as the story writer.
In fact, there is no "Story" credit at all, making me suspect Maltese really did write it, but his name was removed because by this time, he had defected to Hanna-Barbera.
Besides, his touch seems to be all over the pacing of this hilarious cartoon.
He was one of the best! |
tt0110759 | PCU | Preppy pre-freshman (pre-frosh) Tom Lawrence (Chris Young) visits PCU (Port Chester University), a college where fraternities have been outlawed and political correctness is rampant on campus. During his visit, accident-prone Tom manages to make enemies with nearly every group of students, and thus spends much of his visit evading the growing mob upset with him.
During his visit, Tom also finds himself in the middle of a war between "The Pit" and "Balls and Shaft", two rival groups. Among the members of the latter is Rand McPherson (David Spade), who, with the other Balls and Shaft members, want the outlawed Greek system to return. Meanwhile, "The Pit", an unofficial group, runs the former "Balls and Shaft" frat house in a highly disorganized manner. Currently inhabited by seniors Gutter (Jon Favreau) and Mullaney (Alex Désert), mid-year Freshman co-ed Katy (Megan Ward), and led by multi-year senior James "Droz" Andrews (Jeremy Piven), The Pit is a party-centric house that rebels against the politically correct protests; their counter-protests and parties are a frequent source of complaint forms.
Other factions on campus include a commune-style house of pot users called Jerrytown that Gutter often frequents, a radical feminist group known as the Womynists, an Afrocentrist group suspecting the Pit of conspiring against them, and the college president, Ms. Garcia-Thompson (Jessica Walter), who is obsessed with enforcing "sensitivity awareness" and multiculturalism to an extreme. She proposes that Bisexual Asian Studies should have its own building, as well as a plan to change the campus mascot to a Whooping Crane instead of an offensive Native American character during their Bicentennial Anniversary. Garcia-Thompson conspires behind closed doors with Balls and Shaft to get the established residents of The Pit kicked off campus and give Rand control of the house. She provokes the Pit residents with a damage bill from their past semester. Left unpaid, the campus would seize their house, leaving them homeless and unable to continue attendance at PCU without getting jobs.
The Pit responds by throwing a party to raise the funds needed. The Womynists take offense to The Pit's flyers advertising the party, and hold a protest outside as the house residents conspire to steal alcohol and convince students to attend. The party at first appears to be a failure. However, a series of unlikely events results in George Clinton and Parliament-Funkadelic performing at the party. Students begin streaming in (initially to seize Tom for his prior mistakes) and the party successfully raises the funds to keep the house. Garcia-Thompson (after being locked in a room by Droz with the song "Afternoon Delight" playing on repeat), deciding to act on the many complaints against The Pit, shuts down the party and expels the residents of The Pit in spite of their fundraising efforts. Tom then informs Droz about an overheard conversation with the Board of Trustees: the President's politically correct changes are negatively affecting both their past legacy and media publicity.
At the bicentennial ceremony the following morning, Droz and former Pit residents succeed in liberating the Whooping Crane and provoking the other students into an impromptu protest against protesting (chanting "We're not gonna protest!"). The demonstration establishes that even with The Pit shut down, the President cannot control the student population, resulting in the Board of Trustees summarily firing her. Meanwhile, Rand complains about all the other student groups, unaware that Droz has surreptitiously used the podium microphone to broadcast his rant to the entire campus.
Later, Tom heads home having decided to commit to PCU as the Pit has moved back into their house. As he sits on the bus, he sees Rand, who is now in Tom's position at the beginning of the film: being chased by the students across campus. | satire | train | wikipedia | The appearance of George Clinton makes the movie worth watching if only for the party scene.
David Spade should not be overlooked in his role as a preppy frat boy wanna-be and his rant about all of the PC sects at the end of the movie is completely priceless.
The unfortunate thing about a movie like "PCU" is that the "Animal House" comparisons are inevitable.
"Animal House" is one take on college fraternities and "PCU" is another.
The characters and plot in this movie are in no way derivative of "Animal House." Jeremy Piven was a great choice for the lead.
He doesn't exactly provide the film's funniest moments, but he plays a moderately small role and doesn't get much of a chance to do any annoying shtick.In the DVD commentary, Jeremy Piven mentioned that the actors weren't allowed to improvise, and he was very disapproving of director Hart Bochner's choice to follow the script verbatim.
I liked the "Rush Hour" movies, but at times it's so evident that Chris Tucker was stepping out of character to make the audience laugh that there were parts where I was taken out of the movie.
The most memorable gag, in my opinion, is the one involving the sign language interpreter, who has to translate phrases like "butt pirate" and "pillow biter." No one can deny that gag was classic.Another way cool thing about this movie: the gorgeous Megan Ward.
The songs played over the opening and closing credits are both way cool, and plus you're treated to the great sounds of George Clinton during the film.
This is a movie that I can watch every year and always fully enjoy it.The George Clinton song at the end truly rocks and may be the first true foray into GC's funk that most suburban under 21's see and hear.
Funny college comedy in the "Animal House" vein, with Piven out to save his dorm from being turned over to the young Republican legion led by David Spade.
Above average laughs and sincerity for this kind of fare.I liked seeing George Clinton in the film, too; I'm a big fan so I'm sort of biased, but I thought he and the guys and gals of P-Funk brought a lot to the film.
While I find it very cool that the Wesleyan College people take credit for the film (in the same way that Dartmouth folk take pride in their own "Animal House"), I don't think you needed to have attended that school to identify with this one.
Very funny movie.But this film is much more than a spoof commentary on today's PCUs.
prefer smaller budgets and original acting?So....This is PCU, a college film unlike Road Trip or American Pie 1,2,3,126,5002, whatever...
I think Animal house is better overall, but I gave it a worse score because PCU just clicks with me.
If you are going to college these days you MUST see this movie, I think you will laugh even more then you do at Animal House!
A MOVIE TO WATCH IF YOU WANT TO LAUGHGutter and Droz will make you laugh and it doesn't need raunchy scenes to do it.
I only believe that there has been one college movie released before or after PCU that compares to it and that is Old School.As far as Animal House goes don't get me wrong, awesome movie.
So if you have seen it and love it vote and help up the rank so more people have more of an incentive to watch this great movie.-ding ding ding, Gutter tell her what she's won :).
The actors are sort of a mixed bag, but Jeremy Piven owns the movie with a charismatic performance as the token rebel.
The movie features an incredible cast with Jeremy Piven anchoring the lead role, and featuring David Spade in a usual tie-wearing, brown nosing politician egocentric.The movie from beginning to the end was fun and funny, yet doing their part to point out the vast political correctness and sensitivity society is in these days.
The fraternity on campus that causes problems for the university...the dean trying to run them out of the school...the alcohol...the parties and the dean's personal student monkey.But for those that could care less about originality...this movie is a must-see..
And that kind of restraint is admirable/refreshing, considering how many movies we're surrounded with now that are box office obsessed."PCU," much like "Dead Man On Campus" a few years later, was content to entertain.
I must have watched PCU over two dozen times back in the late 90s when Comedy Central was running it to death.
Absolutely the kind of film I would NEVER EVER think I'd like, but I watch it every time it's on.
As my friend from Boston said, this may be dismissed as only appealing to frat-boys, but I'm a 30 year old, vegetarian, English woman - and it made me laugh (hey you know what - good for them chucking a load of meat out the window - now no-one can eat it!) Oh, and please, who posted this comment "I'm afraid that only those of us who attended Wesleyan University at the very start of the 90's are going to get it" Get over yourselves.
PCU is a hilarious college comedy starring Jeremy Piven.
A pretty normal looking preppy dude goes to Port Chester University to decide if he wants to go there and ends up befriending the people who live at "The Pit", who are at odds with some of the PC groups on campus and a thorn in the side of the administration.
Jeremy Piven is a great and charismatic lead and even if he is pushing 40, he still is going to college.
Its pacing is acceptable, its running time brief (81 minutes in total), and its spirit irresistible.Marking a rare directorial effort by actor Hart Bochner (who's best known as weaselly executive Ellis in the action classic "Die Hard"), "PCU" features Chris Young as Tom Lawrence, a clean cut, wide eyed "normal" sort of guy who is checking out Port Chester University to see if he'd like to go there in the fall.
He gets caught up in the fervor of various "politically correct" activists, as well as the activities of the wacky guys and gals of The Pit, a student group known for their nonconformity.As you may guess from that running time, there's really not that much story here, but there are enough laughs to keep the movie watchable.
The climactic party shows how sometimes people just need to lighten up and enjoy life a little more.With its well defined protagonists and antagonists, the end is appropriately satisfying, and overall "PCU" provides solid entertainment to those just looking to have a good time.Seven out of 10..
Basically, PCU is Animal House updated for the very Politically Correct University of the 1990's.
Awesome Jeremy Piven, David Spade movie, great early 90's comedy, if you like Animal House check this out.
I'd just like to say that this isn't a direct comparison of Animal House but lets be honest there is only so much to do on a college campus film except pranks, drinking, party's, and all around obnoxious fun behavior.
This is definitely a must see for all fans of screwball college movies such as: Animal House, Revenge of the Nerds, Back to School and so on.
Jeremy Piven, David Spade, and George Clinton- what more could any movie need?
Bringing in the Nineties Politically Correct atmosphere, PCU delivers a humorous portrayal of college life amongst all the angst of the down-trodden minority groups.
Comedic actor Jeremy Piven as 'Droz' leads a great cast including an early appearance by a then-chunky Jon Favreau (star of Swingers) as 'Gutter'.
This movie was great fun, but I'm afraid that only those of us who attended Wesleyan University at the very start of the 90's are going to get it.
When my classmate and I saw it during the week or so it was in the theaters, we were the only ones in the room laughing (but we were rolling, that's for sure!).Wesleyan certainly didn't have a lock on the "P.C." movement that permeated college campuses all over the country, but several bits of the movie are based on actual events, so you'll miss most of the nuances if you weren't there.The film was shot at McGill University in Montreal, but pay attention to the opening sequence, which was shot on the Wesleyan campus in Middletown, Connecticut..
I am a huge fan of both Jeremy Piven and Jon Favreau, so I figured this would be a pretty good movie.
I myself was too young to be attending college in the 90's, so the whole satire on political correctness wasn't as poignant for me, leaving the movie to stand on the strength of its comedy and acting and whatnot.
And of course even worse the tradition of the hostile faculty and administration of the modern American University--they need a good kegger to clean out the uptight.But the movie can't bring itself to follow through, and in fact, actually caves in at the end and becomes PC itself.
The bad guys end up being the demonic frat boys in Blue Blazers and Khakis led by nerd extraordinaire David Spade--the absolute least PC group on campus, and hilariously exiled to a hideout basement, like the underground during the Nazi regime.Too bad--Animal House was unsparing in it's seventies skewering of stodgy tradition minded academics (though it takes place in the early sixties).
A lot of people call this movie a third rate Animal House.
It's a movie which wants to be Animal House in the 90's or maybe Revenge of the Nerds, except with slacker idiots instead, but really...
There is just not a funny line in the entire movie - but they try so hard, and that just makes it annoying.
I my opinion PCU is the coolest college movie.
It comments on our culture in a very clever way and it is just one of those movies that you can have fun while watching.When I first saw this movie I really thought that college was like the made-up Portchester University and I was a little disappointed to discover it wasn't.
College is, however , about having a great time with your friends and trying to discover who you are and what you stand for.
Jeremy Piven is one of my favorite actors and I do not think he gets enough work or credit.
The story does lack a lot of character development, but I would not watch this movie hoping to see the most amazing film ever made.
He was just one of those Preppy little punks no one likes, like in Droz's Memory, "Go Back to Bed, Go Back to Bed. This movie was great, it was realistic to what college life is really like.
They organize a party to pay the bill but Tom discovers that it's all a plot by a elite fraternity led by Rand McPherson to get their building back.This is an attempt to get an Animal House style film for the 90's.
There are some funny bits (like the various PC groups that are on campus, or the scene where Gutter imagines himself at a Clinton style congressional hearing into allegations of drug taking - `Yes, but I didn't exhale') but the majority is quite juvenile stuff.
Piven is far too old to be on campus and just plays the Belushi role - however he is actually quite cool and he seems to be enjoying himself, which makes him more enjoyable to watch.
Go watch Animal House instead - or better still, study for those end of term papers!.
I bought this movie at a discount store for several reasons: 1) The IMDb reviews give it nearly a "7"(???); 2) I LOVE Jeremy Piven, David Spade, Chris Young, et al; 3) I was NOT expecting a high budget, true "Animal House" experience for an indie film; and, 4) I genuinely love college comedies/spoofs if they are done well and have a heart/direction.
Nothing will touch "Animal House" on the originality scale but I appreciate people trying to put out a quality movie.
Honestly, for all the people who watched this movie (and I understand the story was over ONE weekend), were these based on any real students?
Jeremy Piven, Jon Favreau, Jake Busey, Alex Désert ( I loved this guy in the sitcom "Becker") and David Spade ( ditto for "Just Shoot Me") Boy, this was a huge disappointment.
Good college and high school movies are rare.
The main message in P.C.U ( telling young people they should enjoy their youth more instead of protesting for everything ) was worth a try but not good enough to build a whole movie on.
There are a few funny moments present in this film, but they are not worth sitting the whole movie through.
But then again, I've never seen a film like PCU before.
This may be one of the best comedies ever made.My dad attended college in the late 1960s, a few years after the film "Animal House" was supposedly set.
(Sometimes, I found some of the students turn the place into a kindergarten.) (EQ vs IQ) Anyway, this movie is a protest to the PC establishment, and is funny.
The problem with the last quarter, unlike Animal House, the movie wimps out, instead of having one very big prank at the ending.
Jeremy Piven is an extremely charismatic actor and if it wasn't for him, this movie would be a bomb.
This is a bit of a third-rate Animal House that panders to its hoped-for audience and almost gets there amid the usual party school antics and misadventures.However Jessica Walter is memorable as PCU's fascist president.There are some yucks and diversions for relatively youthful viewers.
This Movie has got your Basic: Beer, Jeremy Piven, George Clinton and the Paraliment Funk-adelic, David Spade, and Chris Young.
PCU was an attempt to make the Animal House of the 90's.
Not a great film, but it definitely struck a chord with me the first time I watched it.As someone who hates all of the political correctness that's infected this country and the ridiculous lengths people take to make everything so PC, that was the primary reason why I loved the film.
I was rolling on the floor laughing the first time I saw the scene where the raw meat was being dumped on the animal rights protest.Of course, what's unfortunate is that the very thing that this film is poking fun at is so true nowadays on every college campus and our society today.
Like many other users, I thought this movie was the "Animal House" of the 90's.
I've seen PCU probably 7 or 8 times and it's one movie I will never tire of..
No other film has the same effect in showing the struggle between the students and "The Man" at a University, and do it in such a great way.
Upon first hearing of this movie my initial thoughts were "not another sex-romp comedy in the vein of Animal House." Well, I guess once again I was wrong.
My friend said that this movie is very close to what campus life is like in the 1990's.
Upon seeing this movie I realised that the sex romp comedy has gone out of fashion now and college comedies are not going to be as stereotypical as they previously were.My friend's comment about PCU Pit Party being an accurate rendition of 90's campus life is pretty correct.
My friend who recommended this movie to me lived for a year in a college and his parents lived in the city as well.A pre-fresh comes to Port Chester University (PCU) just before the year ends so that he may see what campus life is like.
This movie is said to be a 90's version of Animal House, and the big thing in the 90's is political correctness.
The speech at the end, which is typical of such movies, has the main character plead to the students to put their differences behind them and to protest against the establishment.
One of the funniest college comedy movies ever!.
This movie has so many lines in it that I still love to quote after all these years.
Quotes like "We're NOT gonna protest!" or "Can you blow me where the pampers is?" (Followed by "Can you show me where the campus is?") or "Gutter is a Tool!" are really funny when well used around the right people.
The scenes with Gutter are hilarious!; from the problems getting beer to accidentally bringing back George Clinton to the frat house, to the attempt to people surf during the party at the end.
I was replacing my copy of Airheads but was only able to find a copy paired with this movie and to my dread needed to get it in order to get the movie I wanted and so I watched it...PCU is about a nice young man going off to get a look at the college he wants to attend, little does he know that he'll have the whole school out for his head.
During this time our potential new student must look to try and help a failing frat house maintain it's stance on campus.Well you know I typically look at this movie...and the fact that David Spade is in it, and say..."ugh, another Animal House ripoff" I was surprised to find the movie being fairly amusing.
Jeremy Piven plays the usual man with the plan college student who manages to be on top of everything and pretty much at that point the acting is at it's highest level.
Apparently this film is supposed to be about the repressive effects of political correctness on the college campus, however, as far as I could tell, it was about playing frisbee with Jake Busey, throwing meatballs out of windows, and..., well, that pretty much wraps it up. |
tt0369281 | Bionicle: Mask of Light | The Mask of Light takes place on a tropical island in the Bionicle universe. According to legend, the Great Spirit Mata Nui created the island's masked Matoran inhabitants. Mata Nui was sent into a coma by his envious spirit brother Makuta, who began a reign of terror on the island until six guardians known as Toa freed the island from his regime. The Matoran, alongside the Toa and Turaga leaders, live in Element-themed regions of the island. The events of The Mask of Light takes place during the latter half of the toyline's 2002–2003 narrative.
The film starts when two Matoran from the fire village of Ta-Koro called Jaller and Takua discover a Great Kanohi, a Toa mask imbued with Elemental power. The two Matoran then participate in a multi-tribal game of Kohlii, the island's national sport: the match reveals developing tensions between the Fire Toa Tahu and the Water Toa Gali. At the end of the match, the Mask is accidentally revealed and the Turaga recognize its powers. They announce that it heralds the arrival of a seventh Toa destined to defeat Makuta and awaken Mata Nui. Jaller and Takua are sent on a quest to find the Seventh Toa, guided by the Mask. In the meantime, Makuta sends three of his Rahkshi "sons" to retrieve the Mask. During an attack on Ta-Koro which destroys the village, Tahu is poisoned, causing him to become increasingly erratic and worsening his already-strained relationship with Gali.
During their journey together, Jaller and Takua receive aid from the Air Toa Lewa, and the Ice Toa Kopaka, the latter of whom temporarily immobilizes the Rakhshi by trapping them in a frozen lake. After this, Takua is threatened by Makuta, and abandons Jaller in an attempt to shield him. Makuta then releases three more Rakhshi, who attack the Earth village of Onu-Koro as Takua arrives. Tahu, Kopaka, Lewa and Gali arrive to help the Earth Toa Onua and the Stone Toa Pohatu: during the battle, Tahu is further corrupted and goes insane, forcing the Toa to capture him and flee. Takua decides to rejoin Jaller, while Gali and the other Toa purge the Rakhshi poison from Tahu, resulting in his reconciliation with Gali.
Arriving at Kini Nui, a great temple at the island's centre, Jaller and Takua are confronted by all six Rahkshi. The six Toa mount a united offensive and defeat five of them, but a surviving Rahkshi attacks Takua. Jaller sacrifices himself to protect Takua, and Jaller's final words prompt Takua to don the Mask of Light: the Mask transforms him into Takanuva, the Toa of Light. Defeating the final Rakhshi, he constructs a craft powered by the worm-like creatures inside the Rahkshi to guide him to Makuta. Traveling to his lair beneath Mata Nui, the two hold a Kohlii contest for the island's fate. At Takanuva's bidding, the Toa, Turaga and Matoran gather together in the chamber, and witness Takanuva merging with Makuta to form a single powerful being. With Takanuva's willpower dominant, the being raises a gate leading deeper beneath the island, through which the gathered people flee. The being also revives Jaller before the gate collapses on top of it. The Turaga proceed to awaken Mata Nui using the Mask of Light, which in turn revives Takanuva. The film ends with Takanuva discovering the long-dormant city of Metru Nui, the Matoran's original home. | good versus evil | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0796302 | The Babysitters | The movie begins with a voice over by Shirley Lyner (Waterston) as we are shown her babysitting service, a cabin with middle-aged men and teenage girls. A flashback takes us to Shirley being picked up by Michael Beltran (Leguizamo) for a babysitting job. After she is finished, they dine together and flirt with each other. Michael is frustrated with his wife and Shirley finds guys her age to be too immature.
Michael and his wife Gail (Nixon) meet with Michael’s friend Jerry (Comeau), who has a business offer for Michael. Gail is frustrated that Michael wants to take it, while Michael gets curious about an abandoned train yard behind the restaurant that Gail shows no interest in. When Michael is driving Shirley home that night, they stop at the train yard and explore it, eventually sharing a kiss and having sex. Michael pays Shirley extra.
Melissa (Lauren Birkell) discovers the truth about babysitting outings from Shirley and Michael tells Jerry about it. Michael asks Shirley if any of her other friends can “babysit” and her friend Melissa volunteers. Shirley asks her for 20% of the money as her cut to which Melissa agrees. They convince their friend Brenda (Louisa Krause) to take the babysitting job as well and the girls set up a working business, going so far as to have business cards printed up. Michael learns that Shirley is babysitting for others besides him, which makes him uncomfortable.
Problem arises when Brenda invites her rough and aggressive younger stepsister Nadine (Halley Wegryn Gross) into the group without checking with Shirley. She soon starts her own competing business behind Shirley’s back, and Shirley starts to lose customers. Shirley confronts Brenda and Brenda agrees to search Nadine's room. She reports back that she found nothing. With Michael 'on watch', Shirley and Melissa search Nadine's locker but find nothing. They trash the school to hide their true motive.
Melissa presents Shirley with fake permission slips for a trip to Jerry’s cabin for a weekend. The girls will be going under the make-believe of a school trip, while the men will be there on a “business retreat”. Michael is uncomfortable with Shirley being with other guys at the party. Jerry has supplied drugs at the party and attempts to rape Brenda.
Brenda wants to quit and Shirley agrees but Melissa is worried that Brenda will talk. Melissa has several of their customers attack and threaten Brenda’s brother, while Shirley gets angry at Melissa.
Michael’s wife confronts him about his distance and that he has been lying about his job situation and Michael finally voices some of his frustrations about the marriage, while Gail responds with hers. Michael tries to encourage Shirley to run away with him, while Shirley reminds him that this is just business and he’s cheating himself. She then tries unsuccessfully to contact Brenda. She hears that Nadine is babysitting without her knowledge and calls Melissa, who is with Jerry, and they go to confront her. Shirley discovers that it is her own father that is with Nadine.
The movie ends with another voiceover by Shirley. Across the street from Michael's house Shirley sees Michael interacting with his family. | violence, flashback | train | wikipedia | Well drawn characters, competent movie making, and a pleasing ambiguity that a big studio wouldn't dare leave in, lest the audience actually decide how to feel for themselves.
To be fair: things unfold a little quickly, people accept their situations a little easier than they might in real life, but this is a pretty short movie, and throwing in more angst would be overkill and overlong on screen.
The well-acted indie drama "The Babysitters" takes what appears on the surface to be fairly salacious and distasteful material and turns it into a scathing attack on contemporary mores and values.Shirley (Katherine Waterston) is an attractive suburban high school student who decides to make a little extra money babysitting for the young son of a local couple.
When the husband, Michael (John Leguizamo), who is clearly unhappy in his marriage, pays to have sex with her at the end of the night, Shirley comes up with a scheme to parlay that into a full-fledged teen-prostitution ring, with Michael lining up other clients among his married buddies and Shirley setting herself up as a sort of "madam," "hiring" her friends from school to serve as under-aged "call girls." But the folks involved soon discover that, when it comes to affairs of the heart and of the loins, one can't always dictate how things will turn out.Writer/director David Ross aims at a wide range of targets, from the sterility of suburbia and middle class marriage to middle-aged men who refuse to grow up – and who, instead of serving as moral guides for the girls, are willing to exploit them for their own perverted needs - to the capitalist system itself, at least as embodied by the "enterprising" young entrepreneur, Shirley, who often has to stoop to ruthless and dictatorial tactics to ensure the viability and survival of her business.But always, beneath it all, there is the intense sadness and emotional emptiness of the situation, as these attractive young ladies - who are really just confused and insecure kids under all the makeup, sexy clothing and alluring bravado - find themselves getting into something they can neither fully understand nor fully control.
Even Michael seems unable to separate the sex from his own more romantic feelings for Shirley as he battles with jealousy thinking about her with other men.
Yet, paradoxically, the exploitation goes both ways, as these "naïve" girls, particularly Shirley, wrap a bunch of immature middle-aged men around their little fingers, ultimately using the men's uncontrollable libido against them.It is this complicated twist that gives the film its darkly humorous tone and makes "The Babysitters" more than just a titillating and exploitative exercise in finger-wagging moral umbrage..
Stuck at home and recovering from a viral throat infection, I was looking for a couple of nice little cheesy movies that didn't take much brain power.
Katherine Waterston shone as Shirley, and managed to convey all of the awkwardness of her slightly neurotic teenage character, whilst still being completely convincing in later scenes where her inner core of steel shows through.
If there was a weak link here, I would say that perhaps there was not quite enough focus on the reactions of the teenage boys to what is going on around them - Scott's reaction to Shirley later in the film appears to come from nowhere.
Whilst I certainly never got involved in anything like this as a teenager, I found I was reminded very strongly of the amoral thing I once was, and rather grateful, in fact, that I was never given the choice that these girls are offered in the film.
An enterprising young woman sees a way to take control of her life and becomes a mastermind behind a society of young women whose lives are slowly shattered when they decide to use their charms to make some money.The film starts out slowly and then hits a few highs along the way, giving us a share of strong, controversial and provocative moments.
It is shocking at times, and there are a couple of lulls along the way that almost derail the film, but it is a movie that shows a side of teens that has probably never been shown before.
The sex scenes are probably the most interesting of the film, and mostly because that's really the only time where we really see the characters and what they're going through.
At one time you're in high school then you find yourself married with children looking back and wanting back those youthful days of freedom.
I loved the characters though I did wish that the movie didn't end so fast, I would have loved to see someone's wife find out.
There are a lot of interesting and sleazy events taking place in this film and oddly enough you'll find yourself glued to the seat begging for more craziness to happen as the story line unfolds.
These girls are not your typical high school students, don't expect anything but slightly tamed adult material from this flick.
This movie is both entertaining and highly unsatisfying; as unsure of itself as the teenage girls it depicts.
No pun intended, because the frequent sex scenes are among the film's most entertaining sequences.Almost every act committed by those in the film is immoral, illegal, or a terrible mixture of the two.
Grown adults, ranging from lonely elderly perverts to unhappily married businessmen, purchase time with teenage girls running a prostitution ring disguised as a babysitting business.
The film attempts to focus on the internal struggle of both the men and girls involved, but does little to form any kind of moral compass along the way.
As the movie progresses, you grow to dislike the greedy ringleader as well as the married men her clique sleeps with.Due to the lack of a leading protagonist, we are left with no one to cheer for.
The ending is, to say the least, highly disappointing and resolves no questions nor concludes the movie properly.This is the kind of film that demands a satisfying ending, but in the end, the viewer is left with more questions than answers.
So, for me, the movie was depending on John Leguizamo to carry it - and so he did.The story in "The Babysitters" is about a young girl who babysits for a family, and whilst driving her home in the evening, the dad invites her in to a diner for something to eat.
Eventually his friend finds out and wants in on the deal, and the babysitter bring in her friends to help servicing these adult men who have wives and kids.
The story is good enough in itself, although it does deal with a taboo subject, so the movie may not be suitable for just anyone.What made the movie watchable was the acting in the movie, because people really did great jobs with their given roles and characters.
And also the characters in the movie were really fleshed out nicely and in great detail."The Babysitters" is a story- and character-driven movie, so don't expect the movie to get up into a fast pace at any given moment.If you enjoy dramas that deal with issues that are not common day events - controversial events you might say - then "The Babysitters" might be just the right movie for you..
It was dark, yes, but it was a stretch to find anything to laugh about with teen girls being exploited by not only their father's peers, but by each other.For me, it could have succeeded as a study of serious moral dilemma, but the characters were far too superficial and there was little insight provided into their behavior.The Babysitters is an excuse to watch braless teens bounce across the screen, nothing more.
After she ends up having sex with one of her customers, a teenager decides to turn her babysitting job into an illicit escort agency, with herself and her friends as the call-girls.
Things are great at first, but the reality of the situation she has put herself and her friends in starts to take its toll.I'll be honest – even before I started to watch 'The Babysitters', I wasn't feeling great about it.
A decent cast of good but unimpressive actors; a handful of sexy girls there to just be sexy; and a play on that lovely babysitter fantasy.
Very boring.Another problem is that Katherine Waterston (playing central character Shirley), as gorgeous as she is, just isn't a very good actor.
If you're going to base your film around a young actor, that actor better be good, and we didn't get that here.
The big name in the film is John Leguizamo.
But it's one shining light in a badly-made film.'The Babysitters' is watchable, but you're not going to enjoy it too much.
If you like your films, y'know, good, avoid it..
High schooler Shirley Lyner (Katherine Waterston) babysits for Michael (John Leguizamo) and Gail Beltran (Cynthia Nixon).
Shirley starts making out with Michael and then have sex.
OK, there is something slightly sleazy about watching a movie featuring high school girls making money providing sex to dads.Michael (John Leguizamo) and his wife (Cynthia Nixon) are falling into routine, and she is not interested in his hobby.
He and the babysitter (Katherine Waterston) fall into an illicit relationship.Soon, Shirly (Waterston) gets her friends into babysitting for $200 a pop and takes a cut.One of the girls (Louisa Krause) wants out and things go to hell.Waterston was really good, and I always enjoy Leguizamo in anything he does..
"The Babysitters" seems like the sort of movie that could debut the Sundance Film Festival.
It focuses on an anal-retentive teenage girl (Katharine Waterston, Sam's daughter) who turns her babysitting service into a prostitution business, only to have things take an unexpected turn.
Then again, they might need time to let things develop.Overall, I'd say that the movie is worth seeing, although you certainly have to have a long attention span.
Also starring John Leguizamo and Cynthia Nixon (of "Sex and the City")..
I had that movie uploaded along with some others ...due to summer fires we had a 4 hour blackout...luckily my laptop was fully charged so I watched it on the porch ...I did like it....the story is fairly common and most of the characters ordinary ...that is strangely it,s success...you can very easily recall similar situations that happened either to you or to people very close...most of the characters display some weaknesses here and there but the two protagonists top the list .It is so tragic to see Michael sacrifysing his infatuation for his family as well as Shirley acting tough while she hurts inside...I cannot say I knew miss Waterston but checking wiki I was surprised to see that by the time of the films release she already was pushing 27...she really looked much younger...if that was unintentional or she put an effort to it it works very positive for her...Conclusion...I liked it a lot and left me with a sad feeling....of how many times life plays us like dominoes.
I really enjoyed this movie, first off John Leguizomo gives a terrific performance in his role..
the movie deals with a bunch of sexy teenage girls perhaps bored and broke,, they offer "babysitting" services as a ruse for prostitution, with one of the girls dad's and all of his friends.
there is definitely a lot of sex in this movie obviously and we assume that most if not all of the girls are underage, so that's presents a moral and legal dilemma for the men involved.
will the men be caught and sent to jail for exploiting these teen girls,, or will the girls blackmail the dad's and get away with it,, lot's of tension and drama,, all the way till the final climax..
I marked it high because of the original script idea and the great acting, but I have to say that the ending could have been better.It is an audacious concept: babysitting teenagers are acting as high pay prostitutes for the fathers that drive them home.
I felt that the high school teens were much too eager to have sex with strangers and that the wives were terrible if they didn't smell anything suspicious.
The girls are all beautiful, Katherine Waterson plays great; John Leguizamo again brings great quality to a movie; the direction is really good.
While the film has a great story to tell, I felt that the script was a bit naive.Bottom line: it is a tensioned, raw even, autopsy of the real suburb feelings: the taken for granted wives, the ignored teenagers and the powerful urges of the overworked middle aged men, overlooked by their spouses..
"The Babysitters" could be classified as a Lifetime style movie mixed with a big handful of Cinemax sleaze, but is it ever fun to watch.
It's quite the guilty pleasure, but also a disturbing view of seedy suburban life.First time writer/director David Ross creates a world where seemingly every man is a depraved, sex obsessed creep.
One such man (the most "normal") is Michael played by John Leguizamo who is going through the proverbial mid-life crisis.
Married with two young boys he begins and illicit affair with the babysitter, Shirley played by Katherine Waterston.
When Michael tells his friends about Shirley's "services" they want her to babysit for them to.
There is no morality in this film and the main characters realize this as Shirley mentions to Michael that they're both going to hell for this.
The most outright uncomfortable and disturbing scenes take place in cabin when all the middle aged married guys get together with all the under age babysitter prostitutes.
1. All Men Are Pigs – Every male character in the film is portrayed in the least flattering light possible.
5. Don't Do Drugs - Hmmm
Maybe this is an anti-drug movie since they're portrayed as being at the root of the Beltran's marital problems as well as a primary precipitant in Brenda's breakdown and the decline and fall of the babysitters company.Definitely worth a nod, I give it a solid '8'
almost a '9'!
I can imagine some director sitting down and going "Hmm. I've got a great movie idea.
Check this out: a high school girl recruits her friends to be call girls under the auspices of babysitting and turns into a ruthless pimp." Good idea for an edgy movie, right?
How does a girl with OCD decide it's a good idea to destroy a school?
I guess Adult-Teen romance will seldom find a happy ending.I give the movie 2 thumbs up..
The only issue I have with this movie was the pairing up of John Leguizamo and Cynthia Nixon as a married couple.
I would recommend watching this movie, definitely worth your time..
Somewhat better than I expected, high school girls form a prostitution ring..
So I saw it in 4 or 5 sittings.So the movie begins as just another slice of urban life, parents go to work, kids go to school, and some of the girls get babysitting jobs in the evening.
She is surprised when he gives her a wad of money for her "babysitting", $200 in all.So he gets hooked on his young lover and after a few $200 nights she realizes this can be profitable for her and a select few of her close friends.
The girl who organized it all gets her 20% and soon business is in full swing.Of course there has to be a downside to all this, and that is the moral of the whole movie, teenage girls in high school can't get into the prostitution business without some competition and finally some breakdowns fueled by guilt.Overall it is well made and well acted.
The daughter of veteran actor Sam Waterston is the lead girl, and the only one who bares her chest during the movie.
Even though the story involved "underage" girls, in reality they were all in their 20s, and the Waterston girl was 26 during filming..
The babysitters is far from a dark comedy, but I must agree it was an excellent film.
I thought the majority of the sex scenes were filmed in good taste.
The film left me wondering how gritty this movie ended up being.
I agree that it showed men as shallow and selfish, but the girls were profiting which I think made sense.
Only Cynthia Nixon's uptight suburban character was plausible because she played the same role in Sex in the City.
This was a gross film about gross people doing gross things.
I'll just keep thinking of John Leguizamo as Benny Blanco; it will make this character go away and I'll feel better.
This is a light-hearted comedy about a teen girl who possess the drive and ambition to turn her baby sitting service into sexual smörgåsbord of under-age delights.
Shirley (Katherine Waterston) the head of the babysitters acts as the fun loving pimp who makes her friends and their little sister available to babysit to families in the area.
After a night of watching the little tykes the girls will be driven home by the fathers, then perform sexual acts with the middle aged men.
Not only do these girls gain helpful business experience and make serious coin, but they also help raise the morale of the husbands and fathers with cash to spare.The most moving and romantic sequence in this movie is the scene at the cabin in the bathroom.
THe music was good, John Leguizamo was a shocker to see in such a film, but in a way this was just really gritty if one thinks about the extents some go to make a buck, or seek what they believe they need to give them happiness or fulfillment.
As always things get too big and too emotional or else there wouldn't be any conflict and all we would have to watch is teen girls having sex.
The drama of teen girls was on the boring side. |
tt0078500 | Witch's Night Out | The Story takes place in ANYTOWN. The plot involves a depressed witch who is 'summoned' by a pair of children, named Small and Tender, who are upset at not being able to scare anyone on Halloween. The witch turns them into a werewolf and ghost (previously their Halloween costumes), and their babysitter Bazooey into a Frankenstein's monster. The witch then takes them to the Halloween party-in-progress at her isolated mansion on the edge of town. However, the citizens of the town get offended at the thought of real monsters in their town, and form a mob, under the leadership of the straight-laced 'Goodly'. The witch loses her magic wand, which gets attached to a woman named Malicious, and is unable to turn Bazooey and the kids back to humans. The group of supernatural beings is chased through the town and forest by the mob, eventually losing them. Malicious and her partner, Rotten, misuse the wand's powers, which causes a lot of damage to the town, but also summons the witch and the kids to their location. Regaining her wand, the witch uses its power to turn Malicious and Rotten into monsters, while turning the Frankenstein, ghost and werewolf back into Bazooey, Tender and Small. Eventually, the witch uses her powers to restore everything to normal, showing the town that she isn't evil. The town quickly accepts the witch, and she starts turning people into what they want to be for Halloween.
A disco song entitled "Witch Magic" was sung in this film. | psychedelic | train | wikipedia | Charming..
Now many people may not know but Leach and Rankin , the husband and wife team, was one of the earlier Canadian animation studio's.
The backgrounds are gently rendered by Jean Rankin and the animation is drawn by JohnLeach and a small crew.
The voice of Gilda Radner supplies a beautiful Gloria Swanson , Sunset Blvd type witch .
Having had success with another earlier film " Gift Of Winter" , John and Jean managed to get this film produced.
Their animation process was unique in both how the backgrounds and animation were rendered.
The animation was drawn directly on cel with ink pens and with no predrawings .
This was Johns way of forcing himself to let it happen and quite frankly his animation was odd yet terrific.
He was a powerful painter and his hand was sure and dynamic because of it .
It blended beautifully with Gildas eccentric witch voice and is still unique after all these years .
The two creators broke up later just before John started work on the ill fated "Lets Play Grown Ups" but they have left a wonderful film that is worthy of being rescued and restored as a Canadian Classic.
Definately worthy of watching..
Odd Halloween Special.
Witch's Night Out is a bizarre late 70s Halloween cartoon with some surprisingly adult subtexts.
It follows the adventures of a witch who helps some trick or treaters by changing them into their favorite monsters.There are a number of things that set this special apart, starting with its soundtrack.
It has an electronic, disco-influenced score, reminding one a bit of Electric Light Orchestra.
This goes well with the at times psychedelic animation style.
Although the animation itself is rather clunky, the character designs are rather interesting, with the witch looking like a dominatrix.However, the film's most distinctive quality is a subtext of emotional and even sexual repression.
For example, one timid character ends up transformed into a very sexualized vampire.
It'll go over the kids' heads, but adults might have a laugh..
great - but different.
I saw this when it first aired, I was 9 at the time and loved it, it was different, it had a bizarre yet oddly engrossing animation style, and a clever wit about it.
Now 29 years later I found an old rental copy (this was out briefly on VHS and has never been out on DVD).
This is just as odd and cool as I remembered.
I don't understand why this never became a yearly special on TV.
After its initial broadcast, it just seemed to fade into obscurity.
Hopefully someone will see fit to release it on disc.
I mean copies on ebay routinely sell for $20 - $60, so someone remembers this sucker other than me.
Well, I'm glad I found a copy, as now my kids who are crazy for anything Halloween, will be one of the very few of their generation to ever see it.Oh, it also has one of the coolest theme songs, it stuck in my head for 29 years..
More fun than 10 "Charley Brown", Great Pumpkins !!!!!!.
Although its been nearly 29 years from the first time I viewed this on its original TV broadcast.
It still rings with humor in my memories.
The animation is a bit choppy but the uniqueness of the story line and not the same old, same old; has made me wonder.
Why this cartoon never made it to any classic so called status?
Let alone sequels.
Have found it recently here @ "IMdb" on line.
And learned that the cast was as special as the story.
But also so surprised that it is not carried at my local library.
It should be a definite hand me down to be enjoyed by all.
There was an all-star cast of voices utilized in the production of this movie; for example Gilda Radner, one of the most talented and epic comedic talents of the 20th century!
Again this animated, made for television movie should be viewed by all!!!
REA.
Very funny and weird film from the late 70's..
I haven't seen this cartoon since I was a kid in the late 70's and until I found some info on the web (search under Bazooey) I couldn't even remember its name.
All these years I've remembered the name Bazooey.......friends though I made it up...
It was a great cartoon, although very dated.
I recommend it to anyone who has kids.
With reference to the previous comments regarding sexual innuendo or imagery, I can tell you it would be totally lost on most kids, so nothing to worry about.
I really liked the artistry and the animation; the weird nature of the characters, the odd shapes and mono colored people..
Halloween, Witch Magic...Halloween!.
I love, love, love this movie!
I remember watching it as a kid.
Then, when I was lucky enough to find a copy on a "bargain basement" online shop, I was thrilled!
My three year old watched it 4 times, yesterday (It's 26 minutes long, so I suppose that wasn't long enough for her).
The only questionable portion, for me, is the suggestiveness of the females in the animation.
It's not terrible, but when one of the characters becomes a vampiress, It's kind of funny that her costume is a bikini.A great holiday film!.
Traditional Fun. Every year at holiday times, my family always watches the same specials.
Come Halloween time, this is one of our favorites.
My only complaint with this special is the colors.
Every single person is a different color, and it is kind of annoying and distracting the first couple of times that you watch it.
But it has a great voice cast, and is worth seeing..
Adorable NON-scary fun!.
Great for kids!
A classic must have for your Halloween munchkin.
A wonderful look at a washed up witch, & a town that has forgotten how much fun Halloween can be.
Gilda Radner is hilarious!
The animation although a little outdated is still engaging.
So pick up a copy, & enjoy!.
Creepy witch.
I remember watching this as a kid and that witch still creeps me out!
Like she's serious nightmare fuel for me.
It's a strange flashback to my childhood..
A Reminder About The Halloween Spirit..
I don't believe I ever heard of this animated Halloween special nor do I remember seeing this when I was little/younger before finding out this was airing on This TV over a couple of months ago.
I won't say no wonder I don't recall viewing nor hearing of this one because it's rare, that's not exactly the case since I also learned that after originally airing on NBC, it aired on Fox and the Disney Channel from 1983 to the late '90s.
Oddly, I don't remember it ever airing on Fox either and it airing on DC was unbeknown to me.Anyway, to get to the point of my review.
This is an inventive Halloween gem and Halloween high jinks abound when a witch, who's dejected that nobody has sought after her for quite some time, soon becomes upbeat once she hears of a couple of kids named Small and Tender wish they could be a real werewolf and a real ghost.
In the meantime, four adults named Goodly, Nicely, Rotten, and Malicious prepare and set up everything for a Halloween party.
That night, while Small and Tender are being read a bedtime story by their babysitter, Bazooey, the Witch rides on her flying broom and zooms to their house, crash landing through the kids' bedroom window upstairs.
She arrives to turn Small and Tender into what they desired with her wand, then turns Bazooey into a Frankenstein's monster at his request.
Afterwards, the four head to the Halloween party to have some fun scaring the party-goers.
As Small, Tender, and Bazooey do so, it worked so much the party-goers are convinced they're actually the real things, maybe it worked a little too well.
This leads to a misunderstanding when the townspeople decide to form a mob and pursue the foursome, but this is resolved later.Another reviewer pointed out the odd, abnormal, unconventional names of the characters.
With Goodly and Nicely, as well as Rotten and Malicious, I believe they're named as such, because the former pair are supposed to represent polar opposites and counter the latter pair, especially pertaining to their differing attitudes toward the holiday.
Small and Tender's names refer to what children are.
Bazooey's name is simply nonsensical.
One of my favorite parts is after Rotten and Malicious steal the Witch's wand, they attempt to conjure up what they want, but they fail at it, as neither seems to know what they're doing and don't seem to be well-versed in magic.
Although the animation isn't quite bad, I wish it were better and it would've been great to see it on the same level as today's animated things.
I like that the citizens are multicolored, which I don't find distracting, and the voice cast did great.
I wonder if this served as somewhat of an inspiration for one of the Simpsons' Treehouse of Horror segments, "I've Grown a Costume On Your Face", which has a similar plot.
I loved this so much, I, too, wish somehow, something else could've been done with the characters and this served as a pilot to a series.
This gives a message on what the Halloween spirit is, all in the name of thrills and fun.
The whole thing was/is great, I enjoyed it..
Looking For John Leach.
I am on a search since i was 9 for this man.
I am a animator working in the bizz .
his film was the reason I went into animation.
I was able to talk to a person that knew him but had know idea where he is now.
Tony molesworth the voice of Small was very nice but had know idea where he is.
If anyone has any info on this great man please let me know.
I would like to thank him for putting me on the path of what I love to do.
And it all started with Witch's Night Out that I watched over a million times.
So much that I broke the tape back in 89.
LOL.
But with the power of DVD I was able to burn it.
I mean really the art work the BG"s I was in love from day one.
People started looking like these characters to me.
i wanted to live in a world were we are all different colors.
I loved the voice work as well as the music.
I wish he would have used these characters more..
Wonderful.
Saw this cartoon one time when it came out, with Gilda Radner as the witch.Everyone else was illustrated in one solid color, which affected my cartooning ideas later on.
Characters had atypical names, which was a turnoff as a kid, but now I see it as fun.Artwork AND animation worked wonderfully, as does the unexpectedly delightful twist at the end.I found this decades later on VHS and enjoyed it even more.Surprised I don't have a review up for it.The strange little song was also fun..
Pretty bad, even for the 1970s.
"Witch's Night Out" is a 1978 half-hour television movie that will maybe get some attention again this Halloween.
But even if it packed with monsters and witches, it is not a scary film, but one that also very little ones can watch.
The animation is really bad here, especially the characters, who all consist of almost only one color.
Now this could be an interesting idea if this color would specify something in terms of their character (like in the new movie "inside Out" for example), but this is not the case.
Also the characters' shapes are not particularly well done.
I have seen cartoons from 35 years earlier that have better animation.
I cannot be too harsh on John Leach here, the man who wrote, directed this short film and also voices one of the characters as he was obviously not prolific at all.
Neither at this point nor afterward.
But that is fine as this little movie does not make me want to see anything else by him.
Voice cast including Emmy nominees Gilda Radner and Catherine O'Hara is not too bad, but not very good either.
Same can be said about the story.
Mediocre all around with pretty bad animation.
Not recommended. |
tt1813609 | A Haunting at Silver Falls | The movie starts with a young girl running through a dark wood from a shadowy figure. The scene becomes bleak as a severed hand is seen next to the girls dead body and the body is dragged away. On the hand is a silver ring. Jordan (Alix Elizabeth Gitter) is a teenager that has been orphaned after her father dies of Leukemia. Her mother died from drowning when Jordan was five years old. She's sent to live with an aunt (Tara Westwood), who is the identical twin of her mother, and uncle (Steve Bacic). They live in the town of Silver Falls, where she learns of ghost stories being told after seeing a burning mannequin at a park where teens go to party. When police come to raid the party Jordan wanders the surrounding forest and discovers the ring, which she places on her forefinger without even thinking. When she returns home she tries to remove the ring, but it won't come off. The ring, it turns out, attracts the ghost of the girl who had mysteriously been murdered twenty years before. No one, however, knows of the murder. The ghost does mischievous acts around the house, such as moving pictures, opening doors, and stealing small items from Jordan's aunt and uncle. These actions cause concern in her household causing them to make an appointment with the local psychologist, who is not fond of Jordan, as he believes she is a negative influence on his geek son. | revenge, horror | train | wikipedia | Now she must uncover the truth behind this haunting...First off I was quite surprised at how well this film was made and the low rating received considering the budget.
Not to mention that according to the film this is based on a true story and that always leaves you thinking of the possibilities.
Young Jordan (Alix Elizabeth Gitter) is sent down the path to who the real killer is only to find the killer is very close to her.I figured this was going to be yet another disposable film with no names and little inspiration.
And two, it is far better than the average "haunting" film because the story is not really about the ghosts at all.I have to single out James Cavlo as Larry, and I hope to see Cavlo in more things.
Moving to a quiet suburb after her parents' death, a teenage girl finds herself embroiled in a mystery by a pair of twin ghosts to solve their murder they may or may not be connected with her distant relatives she just moved in with.This is a rather enjoyable enough Lifetime Channel ghost story even if it's pretty familiar and generic most of the time.
As far as these general types of 'Righting Wrong' style of ghost movies go, where they appear to someone in a plea to fix a mistake seen by many in the community who are grossly misled by the real perpetrators or part of it themselves, the horror comes from the fact that there's plenty of ghostly encounters out of nowhere or strange shocks that come up, but then drop off in order to invest in the mystery surrounding everything and finally at the end bring everything to a conclusion.
That's how this one plays out, and it certainly hits those familiar notes quite well and often in the beginning which usually pulls out the clichéd notion of the victim thinking they've gone crazy constantly seeing ghosts everywhere which does make for this one being so run-of-the-mill and ordinary during this main section of the film.
That the mystery this one becomes embroiled in has a pretty gruesome story at the center of it all does help the middle going while the teens investigate this and holds off the ghostly encounters until the end when the real culprit comes forward and centers the film around that new-found angle and brings back the ghostly happenings in a fun if admittedly dry finale.
There's not a whole lot of real true horror in this one in terms of bloodletting, gore, dead bodies or such as the ghosts' preference is to help initiate the investigation into why they're there and killing off the one who'll do that won't help matters, so as long as that factor isn't an issue, this is a fine effort.Rated Unrated/PG-13: Violence, Language, drug use and children-in-jeopardy..
If anything you understand the ghost(s) isn't going to hurt the protagonist and just wants her to know something, and it's all about finding out what that something is, so there's little threat involved.I enjoyed it though!
I found myself wanting to see the end and it wasn't a bad story overall.Worth a shot if you're into stories and can live without brilliant cinematography and things that'll come crawling out of your closet when you try to get to sleep afterwards.
I do wish the film had been longer and much more creepy scary (I really like it when my adrenaline starts pumping - those types of Haunting thrill movies are my favourite, but to each his own).
Of course it isn't the Hollywood ga-zillion dollar budget, but Iv'e seen LOW BUDGET Movies (10,000 to 300,000)A BIG difference.
There are some small plot holes but nothing major enough that I couldn't continue to watch the movie and enjoy it for what it offered.It also had some occasional surprising and interesting twists and was directed well thru out most of the film.
Appropriately creepy and realistic without being over done.If you are a thriller/haunted ghosts fan, and wont miss the intense scares/violence/blood, and perhaps enjoy a good lifetime movie on occasion, then this movie is right up your alley..
Almost a good horror movie....
I did like the interaction of the ghosts with the main character.
It's like the screenplay guy couldn't figure out how to end the movie and someone else came up with an idea to just get it over with.
And for a ghost movie it was anything but scary and below mediocrity.There were absolutely no scare moments in the movie, and there wasn't anything scary or even remotely horror to this.
And suffering from a poor storyline and a failure to scare, concentrating on the movie started to become a struggle, and it was hard not to pick up my phone and start doing something else.The story is about Jordan (played by Alix Elizabeth Gitter) who comes to a small town, where she finds a ring somewhere in the forest, and of course she puts it on.
The ring is linked to the dark past of an event that took place in the town, and Jordan starts to see the apparition of a dead girl, while coming closer and closer to the truth.I will say that the story did have some parts that could have been great, but ultimately failed to do so.
I think it was because the movie was predictable and because of the complete lack of scares, that the movie failed to entertain me.As for the actors and actresses in the movie, well I will say that they actually did good jobs with the roles they were given.
But they were fighting an uphill battle against a predictable storyline and a very mediocre chain of events throughout the entire movie.If you are looking for a good ghost movie to make the small hairs on the back of your neck stand up, you had better look elsewhere, because this movie will fail to do the trick.And to top it off, the movie starts out with "inspired by true events".
If seeing translucent ghosts with black eye shadow opening up their mouths in a silent scream, and hearing the creaking of doors opening by themselves sends shivers racing across your skin, then A Haunting at Silver Falls will be a terrifying experience.
If not, and you are after something more frightening, you might be better off watching A Haunted Mansion with Eddie Murphy, which proved to be a lot more atmospheric.This is not to say the film is terrible by any standard, it just isn't the kind of feature that anyone could ever mistake for a horror film, despite the distributor's attempts to pitch it as one.
Instead, it is more of an adolescent romance, shrouded by supernatural occurrences, which appears to have qualities reminiscent of the movie Twilight (minus the vampires).The film has its beneficial qualities that help grasp the audience's attention.
Jordan, a teenager, who has recently moved to a new town to live with her aunt and her husband, the only familial members she has left, finds herself inexplicably slipping a ring onto her finger that she finds in the woods one night after attending a party.
By doing so, Jordan inadvertently invites the ghost of a woman about her age into her life, who, was horrifically murdered, along with her twin.
In order to satisfy the spirit's thirst for justice, Jordan is inevitably spurred into uncovering the identity of the killer.Over the course of the film, the depth of character development is well orchestrated, which in turn helps conceive likable characters, and the occasionally funny, witty dialogue establishes a sense of comical relief.
This aside, there were instances that were not believable, and other aspects of the film that could have been better developed.The film opens with a young woman, running frantically through the woods, pretending to trip over as she attempts to hide from an unseen attacker; an introduction any horror film fanatic would have seen better executed at least half a dozen times before.
However, this criticism aside, these strategies allow the viewers to appreciate the ghosts as people, with human motivations.Furthermore, the relationship between Jordan and her paramour, Larry, was not a believable sub-plot.
On one hand we have Jordan - an utterly gorgeous young woman who could cause the heart of an iceberg to melt, while on the other we have Larry, a Napoleon Dynamite look-a-like, with issues regarding his confidence.
Despite the feature providing the audience with several characters who exhibited suspicious qualities, before the end, it was too obvious who the villain truly was.A Haunting at Silver Falls is not necessarily a movie you ought to avoid, but it isn't a film that will thoroughly entertain you either, and by the end, your thirst for a horror film will certainly not be quenched.
With a plot deserving of more twists and turns, and an atmosphere in need of a far darker ambiance, this is probably a film you will want to rent, rather than purchase..
A great B horror movie.
Overall, it was a good watch for a B movie.
However, the uphill battle against a mediocre rehash of every ghost movie ever made, coupled with wooden acting by most of the cast, doomed this movie from the start.
Same with the goofy boyfriend, who, by the way, would never get a second look from a teenage girl, especially with those ugly glasses.
The horror movies to be good at my opinion as a watch man or interested person should be directed perfectly and also to bring an actor who is able to show the reaction on his face and his/her movement like our actress.
and the way we see the ghost or the dead person is worst than classic horror.
The Points I give this movie are: Music 5/25 -- Visual Effect 2/25 -- Story 1/25 and ZERO for entertaining so the total points 8/100 (VERY BAD).
The beginning of a horror movie is often familiar to viewers.
Unfortunately, this movie failed on all counts.BAD ACTING: w/ the exception of the lead character and possibly the aunt, most of the characters were clichéd, unbelievable, & unsympathetic.
If everyone believed that these girls had either been delusional or copycats, the fact that Larry divulged vague details to Jordan about ghosts would be meaningless.
Jordan wasn't told anything about the twins or the fact that other girls had claimed to be "haunted." Larry's slip would in fact ONLY matter if her condition had a supernatural origin - an assumption not considered by anyone.
- The fact that one or both of the twins repeatedly tried to hurt/kill Jordan - but supposedly wanted to send a message – is contrived.
Either ghosts are evil & want to kill, or they have unfinished business & try to communicate w/ the living.
- If the ghosts could bring Jordan outside and nearly drown her in the bathtub, surely they would've been able to remove the ring from her finger.
You can't just reveal something supposedly crucial (i.e., the dad and the twins having parts of the same ring) at the eleventh hour & expect viewers to accept it.What was the purpose of revealing the aunt & uncle's drug habit?
LOOSE ENDS - What was the point of Robbie calling Jordan, saying she wasn't crazy & asking her to meet him?
It could have been used as clues to tie the twins' murder in with the subsequent deaths of the girls, and even Jordan's mother.
- Once we discover that the aunt & uncle had been responsible for all of the girls' purported "suicides," I realized that Jordan's mother was among this group.
I only gave it three stars due to the likable character of Jordan (played nicely by the lead actress), and the fact that I didn't predict the aunt's involvement in the murders..
The film doesn't try hard to be the next Exorcist or Amityville Horror and stands on its own feet as a ghost story that creates it's own genre.If you read the plot summary, whoever wrote it deserves to be shot, the whole summary is a big Spoiler.
Why anyone would write the whole premise and outline of a movie as a plot summary I can't for the life of me understand Which hopefully every horror/thriller fan won't read.
Jordan's father died, so she comes to live with her aunt Anne, her deceased mother's twin sister, and her uncle Kevin.
She goes on a date with Larry Parrish; Larry ends up being arrested for drug possession, and Jordan gets a ride home from Robbie.
Larry calls her parents and the Sheriff, who then stage an intervention.Jordan gets to meet Mr. Dahl, the father and the condemned killer of the twins, Heather and Holly Dahl.
These are the ghosts Jordan has been seeing.
They warn her that she is next.Jordan finds the third part of the ring, and information that she did not expect.Will Jordan make it out alive?------Scores-------Cinematography: 8/10 Fairly good, but had a few problems, at least on Netflix.Sound: 8/10 No particular problems.Acting: 8/10 Steve Bacic was great; Erick Avari, an enduring favourite, was even better.
Alix Elizabeth Gitter was fine as Jordan.Screenplay: 8/10 Liked the story..
Characters were actually decent, could be trained more, but the main cast, especially Alix Elizabeth Gitter (Jordan in the movie) played the part well.
People complain about the acting, but you get past that pretty quick.Kind of a scary theme for a movie.Yes there was a cheesy part where the ghost cast a shadow when it was leading her to the bar, however that did not overshadow the movie.The ending was pretty sweet, how justice was served.I would seriously give this a try, you will not be disappointed..
Suffice to say hugely impressed by the quality of the movie and wish I had watched it sooner.Every aspect of the production was good but it was story arc and the twists in the plot that really makes it stand out.
For anyone who may consider paying any sort of credence to that ridiculous number I would suggest you pay no attention and watch the movie for yourself.The acting as a whole was very good but there were two fantastic performances that need mentioning in Alix Elizabeth Gitter as Jordan and Tara Westwood as her psychotic aunt.
Firstly I think Jordan's lack of friends or lack of emphasis on her social life other than the two love interests hinders the movie.
However, they don't mention Robbie afterwards or explain whether he just gave up and went home or continued to wait.The highest praise of all should be awarded to the ending of the movie and how satisfying it was.
If anything there should have been more of a struggle between the Aunt/Uncle and Larry/Jordan as it ends up being quite an easy comeuppance.
On that note the ending does come about rather quickly, so in retrospect they could have made it a bit longer to allow for everything to sink in and to explain where Jordan goes from here.
Its like a olden day movie with ghostly girls following a person, the ghost wants the real story of what happened told and attatches to the main character.
The costumes for the ghost girls was also very real, it shows them the way they were found when they died.
There's no blood or guts like todays horror movies display.
The ghosts are a set of twins this time.
And while their makeup and look is precisely what you'd imagine (whether that's a good or bad thing depends on whether or not you like innovation or tradition), the actual ghost effects are flat out terrible, and the ghosts are just on screen too often, robbing them of any sense of mystery.The acting is mostly tolerable, though the villains are unconvincing.
The actual filmmaking is perfectly sound for a B-movie, it's just that there isn't much to work with.
It's the kind of movie you would watch on TV if there wasn't anything else on.
There are several events in the movie that are very difficult to buy even when you are very good at suspending disbelief.
A prison system that would allow teenage girls to talk to a man on death row about to be executed for murdering his daughters because a psychiatrist thought it might be therapeutic.
It's okay, good enough to watch all the way through if you have nothing better to do.
I feel like they could have done a lot more for the story line..
This film had decent actors and the scenery and camera work was also better than other B horror movies I've scene.
For example, you are supposed to believe that on the night of a man's execution a psychologist from a small town arranges for some random teen to visit with the prisoner while he eats his last meal because the good doctor thinks it might help her with some hallucinations she's been having.
Secondly, this movie was rife with story lines and characters that went nowhere.
Like many characters in the film he offered nothing to story, he was just filler.Thirdly, the dialog was painful at times.
Most of the things they had to say were either so unnatural it's a wonder no one stopped and demanded a rewrite or it was so nonsensical you'd think they stop, raise their hands and point out that it made no sense because watching it I sure wanted to.Lastly, this movie had no logical consistency.
First the ghosts are attacking the girl, alternating between trying to kill her and get a ring off her finger.
Expected another generic ghost movie but this was a bit different..
I googled "A Haunting at Silver Falls Academy Awards" and was surprised to find that this movie won none - not even for the guy in the glasses.
It was a bold move to start making out with Jordan in the basement while those twin ghosts tore her "aunt" and "uncle" to shreds. |
tt1734703 | Imortal | === Prequel ===
Imortal is a sequel to the 2008 ABS-CBN fantasy series, Lobo. The previous series also starred Angel Locsin opposite Piolo Pascual. However, Lobo story-wise only included werewolves without any reference to vampires. Locsin's character in Imortal will be the daughter of her character in Lobo.
=== Synopsis ===
Year 1572, a group of powerful beings arrived in the philippine shores. Known as vampires, drinkers of human blood, their menace quickly spread throughout the land. But unknown to them, a powerful clan also lived in the islands, a group of beings who can transform themselves into powerful werewolves - the Taong Lobos.
The Taong Lobos were the humans' protectors and together they immediately formed an army to destroy the vampires. The blood drinkers were no match to the Taong Lobos. One by one, they fell. Those who survived were driven into hiding. What followed was peace among the humans and Taong Lobos, and the memory of the vampires started to fade. Around this time, the "Taong Lobos" dealt with a crisis of their own giving way to the events of the first series.
Unbeknownst to them, the vampires are only lying in wait – organizing and fortifying their numbers until they are ready. They are holding a secret: a prophecy that foretells of an epic battle between them and the Taong Lobos that will finally decide the one blood that shall rule all. The battle shall be led by a powerful vampire and a powerful werewolf who are each other's nemesis and downfall. The vampires believe they have found their prophesied savior and now they are preparing to come out and start the war. The Taong Lobos have grown complacent, and they know nothing about the prophecy.
With the stage set for an epic battle, two individuals, Mateo (John Lloyd Cruz) and Lia (Angel Locsin), find themselves drawn to each other, unsuspecting that as they grow closer together, they are awakening the powers that are lying dormant in both of them – the same powers that will inevitably tear them apart.
=== Episodes === | gothic, cruelty, murder, paranormal, romantic, revenge, sadist | train | wikipedia | null |
tt1177191 | Strait Jacket | Strait Jacket is set an alternate history where magic was proven to exist in the year 1899. The use of sorcery spread throughout all facets of society and changed the social and technological development of the world. The location is Tristan, an urban metropolis that appears to be an amalgamation at the turn of the 20th century Tokyo, San Francisco, and Victorian era London.
Alongside this technology and science exists magic, which has been proven possible in public demonstrations by Dr. George Greco. Although the use of magic is only possible for a few talented individuals, it is very dangerous and highly illegal. Due to an invisible contaminant called the "malediction", or simply the "curse", people who use magic too often are at risk in transforming into "Demons," or horrific, malevolent abominations of nature that become immune to ordinary weapons. The Magic Administration Bureau, also known as the Sorcery Management Bureau, is set up in the attempt to safely explore the nature of magic, officially document it, attempt to provide rational scientific explanation for it, regulate its use and police those who use magic illegally. Magic, utilized in a safe sense by the Bureau, has been used as a viable energy source by the civil service, industry, agriculture, medicine, and the military. Effectively, the Magic Administration Bureau is now in control of every field and every facet of society.
The primary enemies of the Bureau are Oddman, a former left wing terrorist cell, turned mercenary. All of these magic users, even the ones with innocent and well-meaning intentions, are in danger of tapping into the dark side either accidentally or on purpose and themselves becoming bloodthirsty beasts due to accidents or sabotage by Oddman's agents. These Sorcerist agents wear a suit of armor that resists the negative transforming effects of magic. These suits are referred to as "Mold Armor", or more commonly a "straitjacket", due to the fact they constrain human beings in their natural form. The Sorcerists also use magically-tainted bullets from large hand-carried railguns powered by a combination of steam and magic, which are the only weapons capable of effectively stopping the magically-transformed monsters.
However, the over-stretched Bureau is steadily losing ground and increasingly must rely on outside help. There simply aren't enough Sorcerists to fight the Demons caused by Oddmans sabotage. This deliberate sabotage leads to an increase in accidental demonic transformations and attacks on the public across Tristan. Among those who fight the Demons is an unlicensed, rogue Sorcerist named Leiot Steinberg, who is viewed as a loose cannon bringing the name of Sorcerists into disrepute and causing as much damage as the Demons in his one-man war against them. Yet the Bureau is forced to reluctantly call upon his services in their losing battle. Because Steinberg fights against a sin he committed long ago, even with his Mold Armor he comes closer and closer to transforming into a Demon every time he casts a spell. | alternate history, sci-fi | train | wikipedia | Weird Anime with some original ideas but way too many flaws. It was an OK movie to watch and it could have been a good movie if it didn't have that many weird flaws. The animation itself was great, no minus on that one, the music was also nice. The scenario was original, it is set about 100 years ago in an alternative past where magic exists and also magic related crime and demons and stuff like that. This story follows some crime fighters and a vigilante. So one thing that spoiled this movie for me was the fact that all this magic related stuff was a bit misused, to make this more into an action movie instead of a crime drama which would have suited this scenario more. Another big minus is on the part of the dialogs. The way they talk to each other is so unrealistically melodramatic on the one side an on the other side it's so stupid it reminded me of some American 80's action B-Movies. Also some characters tend to weird monologues that simply made me angry. Character development itself is poor. Storyline itself is inconsistent and does not really follow a constant plot, it's even seriously hard to tell in one sentence what happened in this movie. I guess anime fans will like this, and non anime fans won't. I'm sorry for this well done animation being wasted by such a low competence of writing a good screenplay.. Great Action, Blood Pumping with Gore any anime fan would enjoy. One of the better anime movies I've seen in a long time. Leot Steinberg is voiced by Coyboy Bebop's Spike so I hope that caught your attention. Aside from that, was done well to mix action, drama, and catchy phrases that will get you yelling EXIST!!! during the movie. Imaginative demons, fresh take on terrorism, and new look at walking the fine line between being human and monster. Some funny parts (oh look a flower) and some sad parts. Forget the world you live in, because this universe immerses you within it. Only flaws I can see is the usual stereotypical Japanese *le gasp* moments that annoy me a lot, and the idea that deploying regular cops to fight these indestructible demons MAKES ZERO SENSE!!!! But the thing is, this anime will make you forget logic for a bit, and suck you into the story and action very well. It's like Star Wars, you watch it 10000x and you'll see the flaws, but the first 5x you see it, you won't be bothered, you'll just love it! |
tt0279570 | Rabu Hina | The story is a shōnen comedy that takes place in the Kanagawa Prefecture, and centers on Keitarō Urashima and his attempts to fulfill a childhood promise that he made with a girl to enter Tokyo University together. However, he has forgotten the name of the girl he made the promise to and hopes to be accepted into Tokyo University in order to find her. Having failed the entrance exam twice and with his parents no longer willing to support him, he goes to stay at his grandmother's hotel, only to find that it has been converted into a female-only apartment. The tenants are about to kick him out when his aunt appears and announces that his grandmother has given him the title to the apartments. Much to their dismay Keitarō becomes the new manager of the family-owned girls' dorm Hinata House and must now balance his new responsibilities in addition to studying for the university entrance exam.
At Hinata House, Keitarō meets Naru Narusegawa, who is also studying to enter Tokyo University. Naru ranks first in the whole of Japan on the practice exams, and Keitarō convinces her to help him study. As the two of them grow closer through their studies, and after Keitarō accidentally reads a small section of Naru's diary, he becomes increasingly convinced that Naru may be the girl with whom he made the promise. On the second day of the Tokyo University exam, Keitarō asks Naru about the promise and is stunned when she tells him he is mistaken. Despite their studying, and Naru's mock exam results, they both fail the exams. The pair then have an argument and independently run off to Kyoto to clear their heads. While on their trip they settle their differences and meet Mutsumi Otohime, who lives in Okinawa and is also studying for the Tokyo University exams.
After returning from Kyoto, Keitarō and Naru decide to retake the exams. After a while, Mutsumi moves to Tokyo, and the three begin to study together. During this period, Naru becomes convinced that Mutsumi is Keitarō's promised girl, but Mutsumi states that she made a childhood promise with Naru, not Keitarō. During the next round of Tokyo University exams, Keitarō believes he has failed them once again and runs away before finding out his results. After learning of this, Naru chases after him without checking her exam results either, and they are followed by the rest of the residents of Hinata House who announce that Keitarō and Naru both passed the exams along with Mutsumi. Unfortunately for him, Keitarō has an accident at the Tokyo University opening ceremony and is unable to attend classes for three months. After recovering from his injuries, Keitarō decides to study overseas with Noriyasu Seta. As Keitarō is about to leave, Naru finally confesses her feelings to him at the airport and decides to wait for him to return.
When Keitarō returns, he and Naru finally begin to express their feelings for each other. After they deal with new obstacles, Grandma Hina returns to Hinata House and reveals Naru is the girl of Keitarō's promise. Four years later, a wedding ceremony (with a new girl, Ema Maeda, presented) is held at Hinata House for Naru and Keitarō as they finally fulfill their childhood promise to each other. | psychedelic, comedy, violence, flashback | train | wikipedia | I've read several Japanese manga's but none has managed to capture my heart like 'Love Hina' did.
The story is as follows: Keitaro is about to become a third year Ronin and wants to get into a high class university called Tokyo U, but he has failed so many times before he doesn't think he has a chance...
However, he neglects to tell them the real reason for why he wants to go to Tokyo U: years ago Keitaro made a promise to an anonymous girl that both of them would get into the university together.
There's Naru, the heroine of the story, who becomes Keitaro's best friend and begins to harbour a crush for him, which is mutual; Kitsune, the sly fox who often gets into trouble by getting wasted or gambling far too much; Motoko, the verging-on-psycho kendo girl who is forever trying to kill Keitaro (she, however, also has a crush on him); Shinobu, the sweet, shy and caring young girl who unlike Naru and Motoko falls in love with Keitaro almost at once, and Su the eccentric yet lovable Indian girl.
Along the way Keitaro meets other new friends, such as Mutsumi Otohime, the clumsy yet carefree girl who could be a link with Keitaro's past.Together both Keitaro and Naru vow to study hard in order to get into Tokyo U together, but they both know it won't be an easy ride.So, why should you read the manga first?
Looking for a job and a place to live, he ends up at the all-girls dorm Hinata Inn where he quickly becomes the caretaker, despite the protests of Naru Narusegawa, who, to put it mildly, isn't Keitaro's biggest fan.
Violent and hilarious comedy ensues as Keitaro must deal with his own extreme bad luck, angry girls, and an ever increasing sense that the world is against him.This is in no way fine art, but that doesn't stop the show from being absolutely impossible to stop watching.
This adaptation faithfully brings the essence of the manga to the TV screen: horny teens accidentally getting into awkward situations, lots of goofy humour, lots of violence (in 99% of the case directed towards poor Keitaro), lots of hot girls, a heart of gold and a generally surreal atmosphere.
However, if you haven't read the manga, you will be beside yourself with laughter for the first several episodes, and you will find yourself pulling for the characters throughout the series.
Motoko sounds like "Izzy" from the Digimon dub, and Shinobu and Naru, while having voices that relatively fit their characters, are acted adequately at best.
No one can squeal like this guy!So all in all, I highly recommend this series to anyone, anime fan or just a fan of good laughs.
Before I saw this anime I thought it was another attempt by an anime director to make people laugh, but after watching the first episode alone I could not turn away.This anime series is a beautiful adaptation of the original manga, although the characters all look slightly different to the way they were portrayed in the manga I must say they do look a bit batter in the series than in the manga.I particularly enjoyed episode 20 (the episode that featured the doll Moe)which made me realise just how important it is to keep the promises you make to friends and to keep them.The series also has a fantastic soundtrack which really broadens the atmosphere of the series and makes you feel part of the show.To those who have not yet seen it, you don't know what you are really missing out on.
I've seen a lot of anime at various university clubs and rented a lot from local video stores and I rank Love Hina among the best shows.
This show is well worth watching because the plot advances unlike shows like Ranma where it will take forever for the two leads to confess their love.
The residents, ranging from a shy junior high girl to a sword wielding kendo master, either like or dislike Keitaro at first, but he soon gains their friendship, despite the fact they think he's a pervert and they kick the living crap out of him at least once each episode.
There's also a romantic relationship that evolves between Keitaro and Naru, who deep inside really likes the guy (she kicks the most crap out of him, by the way).Later in the series, a love triangle develops between Keitaro, Naru, and another girl...and she might be the girl from Keitaro's past!
It's also one of the most accessible of the new series, being available for the princely sum of £20 (animation) on eBay, or available from many good book shops (in manga form).
Most animes are about 26 episodes; this, most of the time, leaves very little room for character and story development as it should be (this isn't the case with a select few, like Cowboy Bebop and Trigun); this especially applies for shows based on comics, where the characters develop slowly over time, and you enjoy every minute of it.I still recommend seeing the show, but I also, even more strongly, recommend reading the comics; the show's for laughs, the comics are for everything else..
Those aren't the most happy series and movies out there so when I saw Love Hina, this was like a relief.
At first Love Hina may look like some crazy kids show (unlike the manga) but there's so much more to it.
But never have i seen a cartoon series that i have been into so much, love hina is my favourite of all time, and it will stay that way.
The anime is identical, has filler episodes and no ending: Both the anime (i just glanced at it for confirmation) and manga are bad but the manga is a bit better done and just listen to me and Bennett the Sage as his Love Hina reviews are very funny and insightful.
I actually started to dislike the series half way through when i read it more than 10 years ago as a teenager so the art and the very first stories are the only saving grace.
Clearly following up on the success of such manga / anime projects as Ranma 1/2 and Maison Ikkoku, this series re-uses many of the same gags - misunderstandings, ill-timed intrusions, super-punches throwing characters absurd distances - to tell the story of a teen romance that follows a rocky road.
Love Hina is one of the best anime Series I Have Seen.
(which is another great anime series)!But as always, it's always better to watch animes in Japanese, because US or UK will just mess it up somehow.I admit that US take time to maintain quality graphics, but they ruin the intros and endings and sometimes the voices!UK will just mess all of that up!
I liked Love Hina , I watched the 24 episodes in the original japanese with subtitles and the voice acting is great, the story (though not incredibly original) is engaging and full of twists.
The characters are strongly defined, the animation is slick and the music suitably cute and bubbly.The only complaint I have is that in the middle of the series the writers seemed to completely forget about the storyline and added "zany" (and pointless) episodes to flesh out the show.
Though these episodes are good, they detract from the overall emotional nature of the series.I have yet to watch the series dubbed, but I have a feeling it would lose a lot through translation.
If you really want to enjoy Love Hina, I suggest switching on the subtitles and turning the american voices OFF.Overall, if you like cute anime with strong emotional overtones and a slightly geeky guy getting kicked about by girls, this one's for you.
But i still think Love Hina is good series to watch and you should check it out.
Excellent Anime......Not Bad. Wow, this is a very good anime, this anime has lots of comedy, lots of love and relationship, lots of beautiful characters, and lots of breath-taking scenes.I got interested of watching this anime last year, because the way the story goes, gives you a very good story and explanation, so I had to get a try watching it, although I didn't know what channel has this program and when will it be on, so I just read the story about it.
Until I found out that you can watch episode by the internet, so I gave it a try,i've only watched episode 21 and it got me laughing badly because of the guy Keitaro always gets smashed by his love Naru.....Yep, funny story.
When I finished watching the 21st episode of Love Hina, my brain just wanted me to watch it again and again and again or watch a different episode.This love anime isn't just about 5 girls and 1 boy working in a Hotel and studying at Japan Uni, its about how we can love one another and be one another, well a bit of smack in the bum though, but not only the series of love-hina 2000 TV series, people who have very difficult relationships like men or women, well, this anime can give you a very good example of how you can take care of your lovelife and (how you can smash each other if your lovelife is going to go way off the line.
- Hehe, nah I'm just joking.) Anyways thats why I put the brackets so you know I'm just joking.I recommend that this Show "Love Hina" is one of best animes I've seen, its super addictive, and super cool.If you haven't seen Love Hina, watch it now or rent it on DVD so it will make you keep laughing at home all day, if not, mate, your missing whats there.
It's a great mix of teen comedy and romance, which is pretty far removed from the usual science fiction, horror, and fantasy trappings of the Anime' I'm usually accustomed to watching on a regular basis.The series concerns Keitaro Urashima, who unexpectedly becomes the manager of an all-girls dormitory after failing the entrance exam to get into Tokyo University twice.
His desire to get into Tokyo University is spurred on by a promise Keitaro made to his childhood sweetheart: they would both enter Tokyo University upon their graduation from high school and live happily ever after afterward, but the problem is that the young girl moved away and he forgot what her name was and what she looked like (I find it hard to imagine forgetting the name/face of your one true love, but please just bear with the series).He goes to his grandmother's apartment building to try to cram for the upcoming entrance exam, but unfortunately he doesn't realize until the last minute that he's been hired out to be the manager of the apartment building (which also simultaneously takes care of his housing and employment problems, since he no longer has to worry about finding a job and paying any rent), which is now a hotel and is also now an all-girls dormitory.
Hilarity ensues as he adjusts to rooming with five other beautiful teenage girls, taking care of their every need, cramming for the university entrance exam, and also trying to find his long-lost first love.Keitaro Urashima is one of my newfound heroes in Japanese Anime'.
Such romantically-impaired shy-guys such as Keitaro are such a common staple in Japanese animation that they can become a dime a dozen, but this kid is different.
"Love Hina" is just utterly hilarious with a truly believable and three-dimensional lead character such as Keitaro Urashima.The other five women are also quite colorful, and, of course, very beautiful; Naru Narusegawa, the chief female resident who also aspires to enter into Tokyo University, seems to secretly have the hots for Keitaro (while also inflicting the worst physical punishment upon him); another, Kaolla Su, is a hyper-active toy-collecting obsessive/inventor who always walks around the apartments barefoot all the time; Motoko Aoyama is an insecure, yet tough-as-nails man-hating Kendo master; Mitsune Konno seems to be the highly flirtatious Japanese equivalent of a Southern belle; and the shy, quiet junior high school student Shinobu Maehara - the youngest female of the bunch - also happens to be an excellent cook.
Unlike a lot of similar-themed Anime', there is no explicit nudity in this show from the presence of these female characters, but if it was released in the United States as a live-action movie, it would definitely get a "PG-13" rating (and a "TV-14" rating if it were ever aired on U.S. cable television).Based upon the hugely popular Manga series by Ken Akamatsu, "Love Hina" is a welcome delight for any Anime' fan, especially for those looking for something different from the usual run-of-the-mill sci-fi, fantasy, and horror stuff.
Madcap wacky boy-meets-girls adventure with a sweet romantic twist follows in one of the better romance comedy anime series out there.More an ensemble piece than other shows of this genre, its main selling point is definitely the characters.
Keitaro is THE guy that the intended target audience (single male who wastes his life either studying or watching anime like this) would die to be.
But no romance would be right without a proper love triangle and we get that in the form of Mutsumi Otohime, a simple but adorable ditz introduced later, who claims to be Keitaro's childhood friend.Though the central story is sort of a coming of age thing for Keitaro and the surreal love story, each of the other girls are given ample development of their very own character arcs.
Definitely "cleaner" than other shows of similar genre, Love Hina is a fun filled gem of a series filled with drama, romance and crazy comedy complete with giant robot turtles, mysterious island kingdoms and a little bit of magic..
Love Hina is an o.k. anime.
I know there are a lot of people don't like these kind of series.
Good anime series, I have watched all the 25 eps twice and now Love Hina Again OVA.
Love Hina is a great series.
It is highly entertaining, with some of my favorite characters of any anime that I have seen.
this is a great example of a series that has boosted its potential through a good soundtrack.The story is well written and is at times faithful to the manga, although i personally disliked the Moe-chan episode.
It may not be as good as the comic, but it's one of the most entertaining animé I've ever seen.As you may already know, Love Hina is a romantic, slapstick-comedy, drama.
Love Hina was the first anime I've seen in years, and it was the best I've ever seen.
As a long time fan of Anime I have seen many series.
The characters and stories are some of the best and funniest stuff I've seen in a long time.The story is Keitaro makes a promise to a girl in a sand box that they will meet again at Tokyo University.
Actually there are 6 girls in Keitaro's life as Mitsumi who doesn't live at the Hinata Inn is almost Naru's double, she is also much like Keitaro himself, forgetful and clumsy.
I rate Love Hina up there with my other favorite anime series Gundam and Urusei Yatsura..
I personally find it funny, but not awesome: I had a good time laughing with some scenes and situations, but there is not any kind of innovation in this anime that makes it special like Evangelion, for example.It is a romantic comedy, but it is full of provocative scenes, where Keitaro always get problems with his clumsy and shy personality.
I read basically the whole manga, but I didn't see all the anime episodes to say all the differences between then both.Keitaro is a 20 year old guy who dreams to be accepted in the excellent University of Tokyo in order to fulfill a childhood promise.
OF course, being a manager for a place like that, he will start to meet all the girls that are going to be part of the plot in special Naru, the girl he has more feelings for, but as any Japanese romantic comedy, they only will declare to each other their true feelings close to the end..
Protagonist Keitaro is determined to get into the prestigious Tokyo University no matter how many times he has to re-sit the entrance exam because of a promise he made to a girl when he was a child
even though he hasn't seen her in years and can't even remember her name.
The residents aren't too pleased to have a man in the building; especially as he got off to a bad start by bathing in the hot spring and startling Naru Narusegawa; a girl who is also trying to qualify for Tokyo University
inevitably they are convinced that he is a pervert!What follows is a fairly madcap comedy with plenty of misunderstandings between Keitaro and the girls
most of which end up with him being punched so hard he flies hundreds of feet into the air!
As the story progresses it grows clear that Keitaro has feelings for Naru, but he is far too shy to tell her, and she starts to like him too, although she refuses to admit it; even to herself.
It might sound like a standard harem comedy but the only characters Keitaro shows any interest in are Naru and late arrival Mutsumi
and that is only because he believes the latter to be the girl he made the promise to.I suspect this will be a love it or loathe it series; personally I loved it.
I mean that it has good stories, characters that feel real, and will make you want to see the next one.And that is saying something, considering I am a 37 year old man!Love Hina is a cartoon from Japan, that was broadcast on the commercial TV stations in 2000. |
tt0053901 | Hell to Eternity | In Depression-era Los Angeles, Guy Gabaldon gets into a fight at school when another boy snitches about his breaking into a grocery store. After Japanese-American Kaz Uni (the brother of Guy's friend George) finds out Guy's mother is in the hospital and his father is dead, he invites Guy to stay with his family. As Kaz's parents speak little English, Guy begins to learn Japanese. Then, when Guy's mother dies, the Unis adopt him. He becomes especially close to Kaz's mother.
After the attack on Pearl Harbor and the US entry into World War II, Gabaldon's foster family is sent to an internment camp: Camp Manzanar. Gabaldon is drafted, but fails his physical exam due to a perforated eardrum. When Gabaldon goes to visit the Unis, he learns that George has been allowed to join the Army and is fighting in Italy. After making sure that "mama-san" does not object, he manages to enlist in the Marines on the strength of his language skills.
Gabaldon does not make a good first impression on S/Sgt. Bill Hazen at Camp Pendleton, but wins him over. When they are shipped to Hawaii to join the 2nd Marine Division, he gets himself, Hazen and Cpl. Pete Lewis bottles of whiskey and dates with two Japanese-American women and standoffish reporter Sheila Lincoln. Sheila is disgusted by the behavior of the rowdy Marines, but eventually warms up to Gabaldon after a few drinks.
Going ashore on Saipan, he freezes at first when he comes under fire for the first time, but regains his composure. During a Banzai charge, Lewis is killed, and later during the bloody campaign for the island, Hazen is shot in the leg and then killed by a Japanese swordsman. Gabaldon then gets mad and starts killing Japanese soldiers ruthlessly, but after he sees two civilians kill themselves, he remembers George and "mama-san" and changes back to the way he was. During the final battle, he convinces the Japanese general to order approximately 1000 Japanese soldiers and 500 civilians to surrender. | revenge, depressing | train | wikipedia | World War II hero Guy Gabaldon's story could hardly have been entrusted to a more suitable director than Phil Karlson.
Operating as usual on a less-than-A budget, Karlson nonetheless makes the most out of every scene and elicits excellent performances from his cast.Hell to Eternity is by far the most violent war film made up to that time.
In terms of its violence and sexual content, Hell to Eternity probably went as far as the censors would allow in 1960.As Gabaldon, Jeffrey Hunter gives a performance of great sympathy, but also one of considerable edge in his battle scenes.
The fact that Hunter made King of Kings only one year after this film and also offered diverse characterizations in Key Witness and Sergeant Rutledge the same year as Hell to Eternity is a testament to his versatility as an actor.Leith Stevens provides an outstanding dramatic score, which unfortunately was poorly represented by the soundtrack album, which contained mainly his jazz-oriented incidental music.The lower-than-A budget for this film more than likely accounts for it not being better known.
.. A great war/personal true story, as previously commented, about a Mexican-American young man from Boyle Heights (just east of Los Angeles) CA., who worked close with the migrant Japanese-American workers and learned to speak Japanese.
"Hell to Eternity" represents a true story of spiritual development in an individual involved in a spiritual conflict from the beginning of the film to it's conclusion.
It depicts a real person, Guy Gabaldon, who was raised in California by a Japanese family and his reluctance to kill the Japanese enemy in WWII, a hardening of his heart and a means of reconciliation that borders on miraculous.
This is a great war film without the impact of Audie Murphy's story in "To Hell and Back" (1955) only because that film starred the hero that wrote the book about his personal exploits.
The movie "Hell to Eternity" still stands out as a great biography of an American hero, Guy Gabaldon!.
Guy described himself as "swarthy." In addition, there is a scene where the mamasan, in order to distinguish him from her Japanese grandchildren, refers to Guy as her "All American son." I once saw the movie on the History Channel.
The historian briefly answered that the movie was focused on the treatment of Japanese Americans during WW II and that Guy's ethnicity would have distracted from that.
Fortunately, even thought the movie takes some liberties with the truth about the life of Guy and his life, the more important moral messages about war, human emotions, race relations and the Japanese Internment controversies more than make up for these inaccuracies.
David Janssen and Vic Damone stand out in my memory and Jeffrey Hunter was always a class act in films.
Good looking Jeffrey Hunter, plays Guy Gabaldon who was raised by a Japanese foster family.
Gabaldon, turned down by his own draft board, nevertheless, joins the Marines and meets two close friends, played by David Janssen and Vic Damone.
Interestingly enough, Guy Gabaldon risks life and limb, saving the lives of thousands of America soldiers and Japanese civilians, yet fails to be nominated for the Medal of Honor.
The goal was to get the Japanese to surrender.Years later, Gabaldon called his actions foolish, but back then he had reasons to believe he would succeed.Many years before, in Boyle Heights (Los Angeles, CA), a Japanese American family had taken in Gabaldon a wayward boy, prone to trouble and raised him.
During the war years the family was sent to an internment camp and Gabaldon joined the Marines.
What makes this part of the film interesting is that there's a nightclub scene that has rampant sexuality featuring a female character and Gabaldon played by Jeffrey Hunter which must have seemed somewhat explicit at the time The second half features the bloody battle of Saipan and one interesting thing about the landings is that Japanese characters speak to Japanese characters in Japanese without the benefit of subtitles .
The battle scenes are relatively graphic though little children turning reminded me of THE GREEN BERETS The problem with this movie is that for something that is marketed as a war film it takes a long time to reach its destination of the battlefield and with the exception of the nightclub scene the film is very talkative with little in the way of incident which stops it from becoming a great film .
I recommend it to all who wish to know some of the real stories from World War Two. What is interesting however, is that my grandfather was in the Air Force I believe during World War Two, and his brother was employed by the government to take movies and pictures of the war, which, quite ironically, lead him to meet his wife in Italy, who consequently, was a very beautiful woman.
Hell to EternityThis is the first movie (from Hollywood) to deal with the incarceration of Japanese Americans in 1942 during WWII.
What follows is a war movie based somewhat on fact-the unit he eventually joins fights the Japanese, and there is doubt, heroism, and tragedy and it's a well done story.
(Other WWII movies were still being made, but many are about the exceptional parts of the war, like D-DAy in "The Longest Day" in 1962 or Nazi trials "Judgement in Nuremberg" in 1961.)The main character is supposed to be based on a Mexican-American kid, but the actor (Jeffrey Hunter) is a very white American, which adds to the contrast (and meld) between cultures.
When the fighting starts the movie clicks into place -in fact, director Phil Karlson is great with smaller budgets and yet keeping an honest intensity to the acting.
HELL TO ETERNITY (1960) is, I believe, the first Hollywood film to depict the experiences of Japanese-Americans in the early stages of World War II.
This must have been powerful material in 1960 and, I daresay, remains so today.The movie pulls the viewer in emotionally right from the start as we see a troubled white youth, Guy Gabaldon (who was Mexican-American in real life), get into fights at school and go home to a decrepit shack, only to find his mother gone, taken to a hospital where she will soon die.
Nine years later in the narrative, in 1941, Guy is played by Jeffrey Hunter and his Japanese brother, George, is played by George Takei.
(The mother is played by Tsuru Aoki Hayakawa, wife of Sessue Hayakawa, who appears in the film as General Matsui, the Japanese commander on the island of Saipan.) It's the exchange with his mother at Manzanar that convinces Guy to try and enlist in the Marines.
(Hunter's portrayal of an orphan raised by a family of different race recalls his role as Martin Pawley, a part-Indian raised by the Edwards family in Texas in John Ford's THE SEARCHERS, 1956.) After such advanced racial politics, there's a bizarre scene about midway through the film showing Guy and two of his marine buddies (David Janssen and Vic Damone) on liberty in Hawaii, where they wind up at the apartment of Sono, a Japanese bar hostess (Michi Kobi) and Famika, her Japanese roommate, a stripper from San Francisco (Reiko Sato).
Eventually everyone's paired up and, as Guy starts grappling with Sheila's bra strap, there's a quick cut and---BOOM!--the big guns go off in the naval bombardment of Saipan, where the rest of the movie takes place.The scene with the women is a long one and has no bearing on the rest of the narrative.
It's a remarkable display and I guarantee you've never seen him like this in anything he did for TV.After intense and bloody combat on Saipan (filmed on Okinawa), the final stage of the film involves Guy's attempts to get the Japanese holdouts to surrender.
Contrast this with Japan's own entry in the genre that year, I BOMBED PEARL HARBOR (1960), which I've also reviewed on IMDb. While HELL TO ETERNITY is about 25 minutes too long, it's still a powerful treatment of its subject, despite the unfortunate Hollywood compromise of hiding Gabaldon's true racial background.Jeffrey Hunter and David Janssen would re-team the following year in MAN-TRAP (1961), which opens with a scene of Korean War combat featuring the two and also shows Janssen as a very different kind of character than we normally saw him play.
Great war film and respectful look at Japanese people.
Based on a true story from WW II, of Guy Gabaldon, who single-handedly brought in more than 1,500 Japanese prisoners and civilians in the Battle of Saipan in 1944.
The film is a rare one in also showing the concern and care by the American combatants for the innocent Japanese civilians.
And, it portrays well the conflicted psyche of the grunt Japanese soldiers and civilians who had been told by their leaders that the Americans were cruel barbarians, and that the Japanese must fight to the death or kill themselves and their children rather than surrender.Wikipedia has an interesting piece on Guy Gabaldon.
However, "Hell to Eternity" has an exceptional story--and with only a few small but obvious changes, it could be a great story...because it's true.This film is about a Marine named Guy Gabaldon.
First, although the movie was VERY progressive in dealing with anti-Japanese prejudices, the film was also prejudiced in its own way--having the VERY non-Hispanic Jeffery Hunter play the lead.
This is an overlong and corny drama about a white American raised by a Japanese family who ends up fighting the Japanese in WWII.
Although based on a true story, it seems situations are contrived just to take advantage of the fact that a Japanese-speaking American is present among the U.S. troops.
Though Hell to Eternity fans out to being a fairly standard WWII war drama, for me it was the opening scenes and background circumstances that make this one stand out above many others.'Yanks vs Japs' movies do tend to be two-a-penny, it seems but lead character Guy Gabaldon (a very good, determined Jefrey Hunter) was brought up from a young age by a Japanese family after his mother dies, in his California community.
By the time of Pearl Harbour, and as a young adult, he sees his Japanese siblings as his brothers and of the same blood and race - therefore you can see and appreciate his heartbreak and dilemma on conscription and he is sent out to the Pacific.His knowledge of the Japanese language becomes a huge asset and he becomes a war hero when he uses this talent to get an enemy battalion to surrender and the film is essentially a biopic of him and his story.Fortunately, despite much that could be over-sentimentalised, it never gets too cloying and the dialogue remains pretty much matter of fact, i.e. realistic.
I submitted a comment about Seven Against the House, suggesting Phil Karlson was a director worth retrieving from the forgotten, but I should clarify that Gunman's Walk and Rampage are pretty bad, whereas The Brothers Rico and Hell to Eternity are pretty good; in fact, Hell to Eternity is a real eye-opener, for those of us who remain ignorant of the internment of the Japanese in the early days of World War Two. Guy Gabaldon was a real guy, and Jeff Hunter is actually convincing in the part.
He is first sent to Hawaii and then his unit is sent into the Battle of Saipan.A Star Trek fan may notice George Takei as older George and Jeffrey Hunter as older Guy. The childhood section is fascinating and war's opening has some important scenes.
Some Hedging and Changes were made to the "Real Life" Story of Guy Gabaldon (Jeffrey Hunter), but the Core Message Remains.The Movie is too Long, with some Scenes Extended beyond Tolerable, mainly the Marines Drinking and Sexing, but there are others.
The whole First Half of the Film is a Setup and Pre-War Family Bonding, that was Needed but it goes on Way too Long.
There are other Small Missteps like No Subtitles in the Long Japanese General's Speech to His Men.It's Not a Perfect or Great Film, but Overall, it is Karlson's Edgy Direction of a Story Worth Telling that makes this a Remarkable and Memorable Movie.Part of its Reputation is because in 1960 it was an Anticipatory Style that Prefigured the Decade and Beyond and there just wasn't anything like it at the Time.
Phil Karlson directed this true story about Guy Gabaldon(played by Jeffrey Hunter) a young boy with absent parents who is adopted into a Japanese foster family in the 1930's, and later has to deal with their internment during the outbreak of WWII.
Guy joins the marines, where his fluent Japanese proves vital in dealing with the enemy, and he later distinguishes himself by capturing 800 prisoners in Saipan after the general commits ritual suicide.
Such statements were more typical of the later 60's.I love the fact that the film keeps us talking about Guy Gabaldon, he is a great American hero.
You reinforce the fact he was rescued and raised by a Japanese family (The film did a good job of this
it is important)4.
Jeffrey Hunter is Guy Gabaldon, a real person, in this "based on a true story" film.
Gabaldon was an orphan in the Great Depression, adopted as a child into a Japanese family in California.
The movie demonstrates, without making the point overtly, that in the Marines, everyone is a rifleman first, and a cook, a clerk, or a translator second.After a long stop in Honolulu, Hunter finds himself in combat on Saipan where two of his buddies (David Janssen and Vic Damone) are killed by the Japanese.
Phil Karlson directs with less than an A-movie budget, but comes up with outstanding war action scenes and the best from his talented cast.
The story is based on the real life story of Guy Gabaldon, who enlisted in the Marines and became a hero in the Battle of Saipan by persuading 2,000 Japanese soldiers to surrender.
After Pearl Harbor, the young man from Chicago was turned down by the Army due to a split eardrum...but being able to speak Japanese fluently the Marines knew he was of use to his country.At this particular time HELL TO ETERNITY contained harsh and violent war action.
By the time the war starts, he has grown up with his new parents.The story as told does not exactly state whether the boy (Guy Gabaldon) is legally adopted by the family or not and I think back in that era that perhaps they would not have had to do that?
It does pull in the viewer with Guy's relationship with his new family after his mom dies (we never meet his mom on screen as she is in the hospital ill when we first meet Guy).George Takei is 23 years young and this is his 9th role of a fine career in support as George Une. He is an older brother to Guy. The script can be admired for creating what would have been an extremely rare family situation for the 1930's, and early 1940's but it is quite easy to take apart.This is a film that addresses the issue of the internment camps and the race relations during this time period.
In a way, the worst scene in the film is the party where we have Americans and Japanese mingling in a social setting.
It's not the exact true story of Marine Private Guy Gabaldon that you see in Hell To Eternity, but you've got enough of the story to appreciate what a remarkable thing he did at the Battle of Saipan.
If the story were done today, you can be sure a Latino actor would be in the role.What is true is that as a kid Gabaldon is taken as a foster child and raised by a Japanese American family, learning the customs and language in the best of schools.
The Japanese had been fed a steady diet of what to expect from American capture, a lot of that inspired no doubt by what they did with their prisoners.When Gabaldon brought in his charges, his commanding officer immediately dubbed him the Pied Piper of Saipan and the nickname stuck the rest of his life.Despite having the wrong background Jeffrey Hunter delivers a fine performance.
Imagine Colonel Saito the commandant in combat in Saipan and you have some idea of his role.The film also deals with the fact that Gabaldon's foster family was interred as many Japanese Americans were, Hell To Eternity was one of the first films dealing with that issue.
One of his foster brothers is played by a young George Takei and he fought with the Nisei division in Italy.Despite the steamy sex angle, Hell To Eternity is a good enough war film without it and a real tribute to a genuine American hero.
Not only was it a great war movie, but it was also a human interest story in the fact that Guy was raised by a Japanese American family, by the way he only seen them as family, that was obvious when he told his foster parents that he had enlisted in the Marines to go fight the Japs!
This fine movie is based on a true story about an American raised in the home of Japanese-Americans and his unique opportunity to serve our country in the battle of Saipan, using his language abilities.
The scenes with the hero's adopted Japanese-American family are best, the scenes where the Marines get drunk with three chicks in Honolulu right before shipping out. |
tt0114231 | Ram Jaane | A nameless boy, who was abandoned at a very young age faces taunts from the other children in his village. He asks the priest what his name is to which the priest answers Ram Jaane (God knows) which the boy accepts as his name. Ram Jaane and his friend Murli are caught stealing from a train by corrupt police officer, Inspector Chewte (Puneet Issar). Chewte beats Ram Jaane in prison but he is released without charge. Years later, Ram Jaane (Shah Rukh Khan) is working under Sameer Sanvla (Tinnu Anand) – Sanvla is murdered by Chewte and when Ram Jaane attempts to kill Chewte, he is again put in prison. When released from prison, Ram Jaane is taken by Murli (Vivek Mushran) to 'Apna Ghar', a home set up for the homeless – Murli believes that this is the best way to reform him, it is here where Ram Jaane is reunited with his childhood friend Bela (Juhi Chawla) whom he is in love with.
However even in Apna Ghar, Ram Jaane still remains a criminal and even manages to influence the children in the house to follow in his footsteps. Apna Ghar is soon targeted by Baweja (G.P. Singh), who encourages his gang to attack Apna Ghar and all its residents, which Ram Jaane is able to stop. Ram Jaane is then seen shooting Baweja in the head. Chewte learns of Baweja's death and is determined to have his murderer put in prison – he approaches Apna Ghar and starts beating one of the children which leads to Murli and the others attacking Chewte and his fellow officers. In the riot, one child gets killed. Murli blames Ram Jaane for this tragedy and Ram Jaane runs away, he attempts to make Bela run away with him (as he believes she loves him) but she refuses. Bela is, in fact, in love with Murli – Murli realised this all along and reciprocated her feelings but did not show it as he realised that Ram Jaane also loved her. Murli begs Bela to attempt to reform Ram Jaane. However, whilst trying to reform him, Bela begins to dislike him for his criminal ways. Bhau (Gulshan Grover), Ram Jaane's rival and Technicolour (Pankaj Kapur), Ram Jaane's former partner in crime hatch a plot to kill Ram Jaane – when he hears of their plan, he kills them both and then rushes to Apna Ghar to stop their henchmen from killing anyone. Eventually Chewte arrives but is shot by Ram Jaane.
Ram Jaane is taken to court where he confesses to all of his sins – the court decides that he must be sentenced to death. On the day of his death, Bela rushes to stop him but is too late – after his death, she and Murli read a letter from Ram Jaane to Bela which states that he feels guilty for everything he had done. | tragedy, romantic, murder | train | wikipedia | Heroic effort!.
This movie has an intriguing story.
Two foundling orphans are childhood friends: one turns his misfortune into an opportunity to help others, while the other is unable to rise above his sad beginning and turns to crime.
Murli, the good orphan (Vivek Mushran) now runs an orphanage himself, while Ram Jaane (played by Shahrukh Khan, and so named because when he asks a priest what his name is, the priest replies "God knows!" "Ram Jaane!") works for an evil crime lord.
Juhi Chawla is Bela, the sweet girl who is loved by both men, but who only has eyes for Murli.Shahrukh Khan, the undisputed King of Bollywood, is an engaging, riveting, charismatic actor who is unfortunately prone to unprovoked fits of atrocious overracting.
Ram Jaane is a case in point.
Although he has moments of sheer brilliance in this film (his reading of his goodbye letter to Bella had me in tears) his consistent scenery chewing becomes a distraction in many scenes.
Khan is entirely capable of delivering subtle, thoughtful performances, and it's hard to see why the director didn't reign him in a bit here.
The character of Ram Jaane has so much potential; he is a tortured soul who longs for love and tries in his own twisted way to be loyal and virtuous, but simply lacks the moral equipment to make the right choices...if played with a bit less hamming this could have been a great film.Vivek Mushran and Juhi Chawla handle their characters admirably, however, and there are a trio of nice songs: the title song Ram Jaane, another little ditty called Chori Chori that has Juhi and Shahrukh dancing in the fields of Ram Jaane's imagination, and a manic dance number called Pump up the Banghra that's loads of fun.
This movie has its moments, but overall fails to live up to its potential..
Scrpit wasn't great, but Shah Rukh Khan Saved the day.
Ram Jaane is a Bollywood attemp in the gangster genre.
Does it succeed in entertainment and is it worth the watch.
The answer is YES, and this is only because of Shah Rukh Khans performance.
Ram Jaane (Shah rukh khan) is about a orphan who is dumped in the bin and grows up to be a street wise smart gangster.
Once Ram Jaane becomes a gangster, there is no proper plot.
Its Ram Jaane and his way of life.
Shah rukh Khan delivers a Great Performance.
Why doesn't he make more of this kind of role.
The movie also stars the very sexy Juhi Chawla in a decent role.
The other actor is Vivek Mushram who is long gone and forgotten.
Pankaj Kapoor is amusing as the Funny Gangster.
This movie is absolutely entertaining.
The Ram Jaane character is so amusing, his style and way of speaking is madness.
If you like action movies and Shah Rukh Khan.
It is worth the watch..
Riveting movie throughout.
I missed this film when it first came out and just saw it on DVD.
The story line is very depressing though not really removed from reality.There is a great deal of violence and the usual overblown underworld but all that fades with the presence of Shahrukh Khan.
In fact the great strength of the movie is the remarkable performance of Shahrukh Khan as the main protagonist.
He is believable as a victim of circumstances who retains great moral strength and ability to fight back but also has pathos.
He retains audience sympathy throughout.
The heroine Juhi Chawla is rather weak.
We can understand the obsession and love of the 'hero' for her but cannot make her out at all.
We have to take her at her word that she loves Murli the good character and is just pretending love or affection for the hero.
But there is no conflict in her emotions or evidence of what she really feels for the Shahrukh character.
Is he able to get through to her at all?
The ending is unsatisfactory in this regard.
A film well worth seeing for the performance of Shahrukh Khan..
Absolutely spectacular!.
This film is the epitome of LOVE, DEATH and PASSION.
It successfully captures themes of each aspect, into a breathtaking acting peformnce from the main protagonist Ram Jaane (Shah Rukh Khan), alongside other actors/actresses.
The acting reflected the situations in every scene.
Lastly, and how can i forget, the songs, catchy and powerful..
Angels with Dirty Faces.
I have seen Angels with Dirty Faces (James Cagney) before I saw Ram Jaane.
In fact, I was so impressed by "Angels..." that I thought if I were to make a movie it would be a remake of "Angels...".
Then I saw "Ram Jaane".Cagney certainly is the best in the original.Sharukh Khan has played the James Cagney's role and Vivek Mushran played the role Pat O'Brien played and Juhi Chawla revived role of Ann Sheridan.
Personally I feel that they never came any where closer to the original.
The ending, in the original is much better and underplayed compared to the loud ending in "Ram Jaane" that makes "Angels..." much better movie.If you have seen Ram Jaane you would find "Angels..." much better movie, however if you have already seen the original DO NOT WATCH RAM JAANE.Music of Ram Jaane is worth forgetting and watching "Angels..." make you wonder if the songs were needed for Ram Jaane!.
angels with dirty faces bolly style.
I was quite excited when I saw that this movie was a gangster flick with my favorite Indian actor, Shahrukh Khan, nevertheless SRK's mere presence doesn't make the film any better, actually for once I think it makes it worse.The movie is a pathetic remake of WB's Angels with dirty faces starring James Cagney (in the part taken by SRK) and I think that SRK has mixed up a lot of Cagney with a bit of Amitabh Bachchan's simpleton in Don (the chewing thing).
But this cocktail rather turned me off.
Though I sincerely love him, his overacting is truly dreadful, one of the worse performances of his career, but the rest of the cast, though less excessive, is not this wonderful either.
The film is replete with a series of nerve-raking songs that never end, when I saw SRK and Juhi on a boat near a sunny desert island, it was really too much!!Moreover it seems to last forever!
The first half hour is tolerable, and has a very nice action scene in a bar.
If you wondered where Farah Khan got the great idea of SRK sliding on his knees between the legs of a villain in Main Hoon Na, that's where she got it, and it works damn well.
But apart from that there is not much to save.A pity to remake an overall good US film into a dreadful Bollywood flick, nevertheless they have been luckier with other remakes such as Nayakan (Mani Ratnam) which is a remake of the Godfather and really worth watching.Keep trying boys !
my grade: 4/10 (5 if U like the fact that SRK never wears a shirt under his jacket, which is pretty sexy but useless).
HUGE let down......
I remember how excited I was to see Ram Jaane, I was thinking to myself "This movie is definitely going to rock like all of Shahrukh and Juhi's other films; I can't wait to see it!" But I was WRONG...
Ram Jaane ended up falling way below my expectations.
The story itself isn't really that exciting or on the other hand that boring, you could say it's about average.Also, Shahrukh and Juhi weren't even together at all in this film!
I know that SRK was in love with Juhi in Ram Jaane, but she was interested in some other guy which practically took out all the fun of the film itself!
As for the acting, I'd have to say that Shahrukh had done a fabulous job playing his role and Juhi did a fairly good job at playing the role of Bela.I, myself as a fan of Shahrukh-Juhi was really disappointed after watching Ram Jaane and I know that many of the other SRK-Juhi fans were let down as well.All in all, Ram Jaane deserved a 4/10!.
Great movie, actually.
Surprisingly, it's become one of my favorites.
Yes, it's really quite uneven and over-the-top in places but it has this very human core and philosophy that won me over...
I cried quite a bit.
Ram Jaane is not afraid of death...
And that's why he evokes so much pity.I thought Shahrukh really shined in this one.
I too thought at first that he was overacting, but really, it's the character.
He's supposed to be like this...
Quite unhinged...
a bit loud, a bit over-the-top and all over the place.
But also carefree, simple, lovable, soft and smiling.
Why always think in stereotypes based on Hollywood films that such a character should be more restrained and cool?
I thought SRK created a really unique and memorable character.
All his "baddies" are different.
Watch "Josh" for the "cool" one.Ram Jaane is a whole other story...
SRK was plain brilliant in some scenes...
many scenes.
For example, the one where he learns that Bela loves Murli and not him, and asks Bela what it is that Murli has and he doesn't, and turns away hiding tears.Juhi is very beautiful and charming as usual.
Since I've recently watched quite a few of her and SRK's films and really loved them ("Yes Boss" being the favorite), Juhi is fast becoming one of my favorite actresses, along with Rani, Kajol and Madhuri.Vivek Mushran as Murli was perfect.
I really liked his character.And last but not least -- the music is great.
I listen to the songs quite often and like them all: Ram Jaane, Chori Chori Chal O Gori, Ala la la long Pehla Love Song, and Phenk Hawa Ek Chumma Mein.
They may not seem great at first but after a listening to them a few times they really grew on me.All in all, technically speaking, this film is not a masterpiece but since it's really endeared itself to my heart, I'd give it 9/10.
For SRK's acting, for the story, for the music, and for the scorching chemistry with Juhi.
I'd choose this over many SRK hits that are better known, like Don or Kal Ho Naa Ho or Mohabbatein or Dil To Pagal Hai or whatever..
You'll recognize it at the end....
It wasn't until the very end of Ram-Janne that I realized I was watching an homage to the 1938 "Angels With Dirty Faces" with James Cagney.
If you can hold out that long, the final 15-20 minutes of the film is worth the wait.
Until then, this is pretty typical masala fare with Shah Rukh Khan and Juhi Chawla dancing their way off to exotic locales not remotely related to the movie.
It's those musical interludes -- and a few comical moments during "Ramjanne's" childhood -- that make the majority of the first half of the movie bearable.
As much as I love Juhi, her character was a cardboard cutout in most scenes, Vivek Mushran's "Murli" (the alter ego of Pat O'Brien's "Father Jerry Connely" in "Angels") was less saintly than saccharine, and Pankaj Kapur as "Pannu Technicolor" was just plain annoying.
Even Shah Rukh's version of Cagney's "Rocky Sullivan" (the title character, "Ram-Janne") couldn't prop this film up most of the way through.But the film's final scenes vindicate the patient viewer.
Yes, it's still Bollywood at its melodramatic best.
But the same elements that made "Angels" the classic it is are all in place for the big finish.
And perhaps Ram-Janne -- being a masala film -- lends itself even better to this denouement than did its predecessor.Because it's this kind of scene that Bollywood does better than anyone else.
Seeing SRK begging for his life on the way to the gallows is somehow more believable than watching Cagney blubbering in fear on his way to the electric chair.
And give credit to F.C. Mehra for at least choosing to remake a film that's not been (re)done to death.A remake -- by definition -- will never change the course of cinematic history.
But if you have an evening to spare, there are far worse choices you could make..
When Shahrukh was an actor.
I have watched this film may be more than 30 times in theater.
There was a time when I used to watch this film everyday in the theater and the only reason was Shahrukh Khan.
I can talk about story and other stuff but I really don't think thats important.
Every single frame of the film is just Shahrukh Khan.
'Ram Jaane' was a very definite flop but for some people like me it was a mania.
I remember I was traveling from Lucknow to Hapur and a rickshaw puller did a somersault and landed very badly on the ground.
He just got up and started walking singing the title track.
I really liked him because I was also in the same frame of mind for may be two months.
I used to try somersaults, rectangular black glasses, jacket without shirts and above all drink directly from the bottle.
I also used to get these exciting urges to slap a policeman but somehow I controlled.
I wonder how I managed to control myself.There are lots of other interesting things i.e Background music, Shahrukh's dance, action sequences and of course Pankaj Kapoor.
I and a friend of started smoking 'More' for good two months.
Every time Shahrukh lit a cigarette we did.
Every one in this world watch one film with total devotion for example my father who doesn't watch films watched 'Shree 420' fourteen times.
For me it is 'Raam Jaane'.
'Khallas'.
I really wish Shahrukh hadn't become so big. |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.