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
⌀ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
tt0044186 | Vengeance Valley | Fifteen years ago, wealthy but crippled Colorado cattleman Arch Strobie (Ray Collins), whose own son Lee (Robert Walker) is wild, took in young Owen Daybright (Burt Lancaster) as a foster son to help raise him. Now Owen is ranch foreman, but Lee, despite being married to Jen (Joanne Dru), is wilder than ever.
Unmarried Lily Fasken (Sally Forrest) gives birth but refuses to identify the father. After Owen gives Lily $500 to help care for the baby, her brothers Hub (John Ireland) and Dick (Hugh O'Brian) believe that he is the guilty party, unaware that he did so on Lee's behalf. The brothers try to beat up Owen and he lodges a complaint against them. Sentenced to a week in jail, they vow to get even as soon as they're out.
When Arch chides Lee for overdrawing his bank account by withdrawing $500 in gold, Jen realizes that Lee fathered Lily's baby. She confronts him and Lee tries to lie his way out. She decides to leave him but is persuaded by Owen and Arch to stay. Lee inveigles Arch to make him a partner in the ranch by saying that he will strike out on his own unless he gets a half-interest and learns that the other half will go to Owen once Arch retires.
Jen locks Lee out of their bedroom. Lee gets drunk, mistakenly believing she and Owen are carrying on behind his back. He schemes to get rid of Owen and make a fortune at the same time by conspiring with Hub and Dick to ambush Owen during the spring cattle roundup. On the trail, Lee secretly sells 3,000 head of the cattle, planning to run off with it, but Owen learns about it.
Lee pretends to change his mind. He persuades Owen to ride in with him to stop the sale, but in fact he lures Owen into a trap. Hub and Dick, waiting in ambush, wound Owen as Lee casually rides away. In the ensuing gunfight, Owen Kills Dick. Hearing shots, a group of trailhands ride to Owen's rescue. They chase down and shoot Hub. Owen catches up with Lee and tells him he is going to confess everything to Arch. Lee draws his gun, forcing Owen to kill him. Owen breaks the news to Arch and Jen. | revenge | train | wikipedia | null |
tt1760967 | Ill Manors | Set in Forest Gate, London, the film begins with partners Ed (Ed Skrein) and Aaron (Riz Ahmed) drug-dealing. Undercover police chase the two to a closed gate – Aaron manages to climb over and Ed hands his phone over to let Aaron take care of it. Before Ed can climb over, he is caught and sent to jail. Aaron takes the phone to Kirby (Keith Coggins), a well-known drug dealer across the area who has recently come out of prison, who keeps Ed's phone at his house. The song "Drug Dealer" leads the flashback story of Kirby and a man named Chris (Lee Allen), who was Kirby's protégé in the drug business, however, he is now independent. As Kirby collects the drugs from Chris to sell, he encounters Marcel (Nick Sagar), who is caught selling on Kirby's "turf". He decides to make Marcel strip and he runs off, naked. Aaron, waiting for Ed, is given a letter by his old social worker, and is dismissive in opening it. Meanwhile, Ed is released from prison and meets up with Aaron, telling Ed that his phone has been taken but knows who has it.
At the local park, various gangs of youths gather. A young teenage boy Jake (Ryan De La Cruz) meets his friend and borrows some money to purchase weed off Marcel, a youth drug-dealer who is the leader of a gang. Jake then proceeds to go up to the gang to purchase some weed. Marcel firsts steals the money, before asking Jake to beat up his friend for the weed, primarily due to his appearance and unfamiliar status. Jake reluctantly beats him up whilst the gang go over and record the scene. Marcel watches from afar and invites the vulnerable Jake to join his gang. Their activities when Jake joins the gang are recorded on a mobile phone such as partying and driving around. The gang then enter an abandoned building where a man is tied up for not paying Marcel his drug money. The man is threatened and is released when his cousin delivers the money. The song "Playing with Fire" represents the story.
Kirby encounters Jody (Eloise Smyth) and Chanel (Sasha Gamble) at a café and tells Chanel that he can introduce her to his friend Nigel, who is part of a modelling agency. The gullible Chanel does not realise it is a lie, and so takes his number. Jody does not believe Kirby but decides to support Chanel anyway and decides to go with Chanel to meet Nigel.
Ed and Aaron find Michelle (Anouska Mond), a drug addict and prostitute who was sexually-abused as a child. She is accused of taking Ed's phone (as she steals mobile phones to support her habit) and attempts to find it. Michelle offers to go to fast-food shops where the employees pay £20 or less to have sex with her, whilst Ed keeps the money – represented by the song "Deepest Shame".
As Jake has now passed the initiation in proving his loyalty, Marcel manipulates him into killing Kirby to get revenge for Kirby forcing him to strip earlier. In the house, Jody and Chanel have arrived – Kirby promises that Nigel shall be arriving shortly.
Terry (Neil Large), a local resident who knows Kirby visits whilst the girls are there. Terry finds Ed's phone under Kirby's sofa and goes to return it, thinking Ed has his phone. Aaron feels sympathetic towards Michelle, as it is revealed that she never had the phone at all. However, when Terry turns up expecting his phone, Ed blames Michelle of taking Terry's phone and proceeds to beat her. Aaron is warned by Ed but he manages to take the money made from Michelle's prostitution and pays Terry to leave her alone. Aaron and Ed leave and watch from a distance as despite Aaron's kindness, Michelle continues with prostitution.
Meanwhile, Marcel and Jake are in the car outside Kirby's terrace house. He is told to take the gun from the glovebox (after much refusal) and go inside and kill Kirby. He then enters the room (wearing a balaclava) and shoots Kirby in the head, whilst accidentally murdering Chanel in the process, leaving a shocked Jody crying over the body. However, Chanel happens to be Chris's half-sister. Terry then returns finds the two dead bodies (Jody had left) and decides to take the bag of drugs that Kirby got off Chris, left beside the sofa.
Aaron is at the Earl of Essex pub and is interrogated by the landlord about selling drugs in the pub; as this happens, Chris enters the public toilets. The song "Pity the Plight" explains how Jody leads Chris to Terry's garage to gain information on the killer of his sister. One of the workers at Terry's garage says that Marcel could be responsible, as Kirby made Marcel strip earlier. Chris enters Marcel's residence with a gun and interrogates him, before Marcel tells Chris it was Jake who killed Chanel, inevitably setting Jake up to save himself. Chris and Marcel pick up Jake who sneaks out and a stand-off occurs with the three by a canal where Chris tells Jake to stab Marcel, revealing that Marcel set him up. Jake loses his temper and stabs Marcel, subsequently killing him, while Chris shoots Jake. The scene where Chris enters the pub bathroom is repeated, showing Chris hiding the gun in a bathroom cubicle water-tank after he flees from the murder scene. The following morning, Chris goes to retrieve the gun but it has already been taken.
Before the next story is introduced, it shows Aaron who had found the gun from the pub. In the next story, the protagonist is a woman called Katya (Natalie Press), a European immigrant who was raped by Vladimir (Mem Ferda), the owner of a whore house. She gave birth to a baby girl and finds it difficult to survive. The song "The Runaway" shows how Katya escapes the Russian whore house when the owner mixes vodka with heart pills and passes out. She then escapes with her baby into London. There she performs prostitution and steals food to survive. Looking for somewhere to crash for the night, she meets Michelle. Michelle realises the slim chances the baby will have and takes Katya under her wing. Meanwhile, the Russian gangsters are looking for Katya and she goes to the train station and while Aaron is alone on the train, the doors open and Katya leaves her baby in the buggy on the train, as she can see that the gangsters are about to catch her. Aaron bangs on the window in an attempt to gain Katya's attention. After his failed attempts to return the pram to the mother, he sees police at the upcoming station. Aaron hides his gun and drugs inside the pram and the baby's nappy respectively, and walks past the police without any problems, he then takes it upon himself to look after the baby, even though he is mocked by Ed. He then looks after the baby at his flat, talking with Jody about what to do. As the Russian gangsters have found Katya, a time where Michelle is distracted, she sees the car leave off, but she jumps in a cab just in time and orders the driver to follow them back to the whore house. As Vladimir is beating Katya, Michelle sneaks up behind him with a brick and hits him on the head with it. The two women run back into the cab, and although Vladimir attempts to chase them, they get away.
Ed convinces Aaron to sell the baby to the owners of the Earl of Essex pub for £8000, as the wife of the owner cannot have any of her own. Later, Katya and Michelle find Aaron who explains that he's given the baby away. Meanwhile, Ed is held at knifepoint by Chris who wants the gun back that Aaron has taken. Ed promises that he'll get it back within two hours. At the pub, the owners are reluctant to give away the baby and demand a full refund (not just Aaron's half of the money). After Michelle lashes out at the pub owners, she reveals that she had sex with Vince. After Vince's wife realises that her husband slept with Michelle, she proceeds to slaps her and the two begin to engage in a fight. Upstairs, Terry falls unconscious after leaving an electric heater near his bed, accidentally setting fire to the pub. The baby is still upstairs crying. Katya goes after her child but passes out due to the smoke. Aaron goes upstairs and saves Katya, but leaves the gun upstairs. Ed goes up for the gun, and before he leaves, decides to go back for the baby too. As the pub falls apart around him, he decides drops the baby out of the window for Aaron to catch below in front of a shocked audience. Aaron successfully catches the baby, and Ed tries to escape the smoke-filled room as the fire brigade arrive. He climbs out of the window but slips and kills himself. Aaron then says to Katya and Michelle that he knows someone who can help them, and arrives at the home of his social worker. She allows Katya and Michelle to stay there, whilst Katya names her baby "Hope".
Aaron returns the gun to Chris, who asks Aaron to work for him. After Aaron refuses, he goes home and opens the letter from social services given to him at the start of the movie. It's a letter from his mother, and he learns that he was abandoned for his own safety as a child. He then speaks with Jody about Ed's funeral, deciding to use Ed's £4000 from the baby money to go towards it. The members of Marcel's gang are shown next to some graffiti reading "R.I.P. Marcel and little Jake". The boy Jake initially beat up is shown taking back his £20 off another boy, showing the effects of the previous actions from Jake and his gang. Chris gets pulled over by police, who find crack in the boot of his car, whilst other police arrest Vladmir and the others from the whorehouse, intertwined with images of the Olympic Park. Jody beats up April, who tried to run off with the funeral money. The final scene shows Aaron being driven in a taxi. He glances in the rear-view mirror and Plan B himself is the driver. | realism | train | wikipedia | Plan B is clearly not content with just being a famous rapper/singer/actor, as he has now tried his hand at directing, with his debut film ill Manors being released in cinemas today.
Set in East London, the film follows a series of characters from drug dealers to prostitutes to runaway single mothers as they all struggle to survive in their poverty stricken area.
As you can guess, this is not a happy-go- lucky sort of film, but nevertheless it's a very good film.The style taken is very much similar to Pulp Fiction (believe it or not), as each character gets their own little tale, and soon enough they begin to over-lap with one another, creating a sense of community, we see that everybody really does know each other, whether for good or bad.
It's a very brutal film that doesn't hold back either, from violent murders to a woman being pimped out for £10 at a kebab shop, we see it all within 121 mins.Whilst it is an ''urban'' drama at the end of the day, the film does what Kidulthood/Adulthood/Shank could not do and has a go at actually trying to explore the reasons behind why people join gangs or decide to riddle their body with heroin.
Considering that a year ago I had never listened to a Ben Drew (Plan B) track, dismissing him out of hand as yet another rap/hiphop wannabe, and today regarding him as a genuine multi-talented prodigy is an honest tribute to his unbelievably versatile creativity.Due in part to the perfect format of a rap narration, in part to the fact that this is a man with his finger FIRMLY on the pulse of a disaffected sector of society and in part to the unforgiving art and poetry of the writing, direction and art direction, I feel that this is a modern masterpiece.
Consider again that this is a directorial debut and was achieved on a budget of merely £100,000, it's almost genius.John Cooper Clarke, rather surprisingly for me, adds the perfect complementary poetic touch; I had forgotten quite how uncompromising and bleak his words can be.Reminiscent of Clockwork Orange in its brutal beauty,the story is realistic to the immorality and just plain incomprehension of the consequences within an "underclass" subculture, yet the characters are so finely drawn and portrayed that you feel not only sympathy, but you feel a part of their hopelessness and helplessness.There was one scene I couldn't watch (no spoilers); watching with my 19 y o daughter, she remarked that it was the first time in a long time that a film had affected her emotionally.
It bends moral boundaries to a level rarely seen before in British cinema, even when the character does things for the 'greater good', the brutality of the streets re balances the already lop sided scales back into darkness, corruption and greed.A fantastic blend of black and white re winds, flash backs and present time, in a style similar to that of Pulp Fiction where each characters story gets told and varied perspective on events is shown, on this poor and heartless council estate in London.
The extent to which this film impressed and shocked me, in the standard in which is was created, the plot, characters, and actors involved, means Ill Manors easily waltzes into my top 3 of the year so far..
And some of the acting is actually quite good.But much like Kidulthood and other mediocre attempts at portraying Council Estate life on film, it only shows one shade of the story.The grim is coupled with the opposite in real life.
If I can luck out on a rush ticket Saturday, it will be the first time I've ever seen a movie TWICE at the festival, (I have a feeling that this film will take time to reach the American market – perhaps being toned down in the process -- and I've GOT to see it again.) This is certainly a helluva directing debut for musician Ben Drew (a.k.a. Plan B) who also wrote the pulsating soundtrack.
Especially impressive Is Riz Ahmed as the character who bridges several interconnected stories about life on the mean streets of East London over a several day period.
I ain't gonna beat around the bush here, Ill Manors is one of the best films I have seem in a long long time, If like me, you enjoy British drama's like kidulthood, adulthood & wild bill, then this is a definite!!
The acting is superb and very believable.The Story itself shows a very harrowing tale of different peoples lives living in London, There are drugs, Gangsters, Violence, the lot.
Im originally from London and spent many a year on estates getting into all sorts.As someone else rightly said on here, there's good and bad and there's a lighter side to the dark side, in fact its mainly middle ground with episodes of badness and episodes of coming together, but films have to take a story and this story was to depict the dark-side..like it or not.It does this in such an astoundingly clever way that it cannot fail in delivering a very disturbing story - one that will shock all that watch it.
Without question, this film will take you in from the first minute and drag you into the hurricane that is the working class of London where you have no idea how or where you will end up.From a spectacle point of view, this film is breathtaking one minute and the so raw the next that you will feel the need to look away.I can quite readily say that I did not expect nothing close to what I saw and I am extremely glad that I took the time to check this brilliant film out.9/10 for me..
I've never seen (or noticed) Ed Skrein in a film before, and he played his part perfectly - Totally believable, and basically a right nasty piece of work.All the other parts were played excellently too(with maybe the exception of Kirby's character)It had a great story that keeps you engrossed from beginning to end, it is shocking, harrowing,and some good humor was thrown in too.After it finished, I text a handful of friends (who I knew would like it) and told them to watch it asap.Nuff said, 10/10.
It has been a while since I have been spirited to write a positive review on a film, I'm always drawn though to gritty British street drama by the likes of Shane Meadows(This is England, Dead Man's Shoes) and Guy Richie, and now I have Ben Drew to look out for.
The film borrows the integrating of separate lives genre such as used in Magnolia and Lock Stock with a Rap music throughout, now had I have know that it used rap music in that way I probably would have avoided it like the plague as rap music is just tedious to me under normal circumstances, but the lyrics which add narrative to the story and backgrounds of the characters is superbly done and despite my prejudice on rap music I have to hold my hands up and say "I have been educated" other music is well chosen and builds nicely to the feel at the time of use in the playout.
Plan B writes cleverly from the different perspective of how the people live in the London street life and the storyline is brilliant in how the character meet together.
I don't like to write many reviews, but when I discover a movie that I think it is underrated, it makes sense to write about it:)Although there are many characters, you do not get to know very well any of them and at the same they all have something in common: a horror east-London story-line that tangles them.I guess the movie seems very rough and tough from many points of view, specially to someone who has not been in that part of London, nor has seen anything similar.
To all the other ones, this seems to be just another slice of live that brings up sometimes the worst and best of people.There is a positive message in the end, but boy..you have to through hell and back before you get there!I am having hard time recommending the movie, although from technical point of view it was almost without flaw, mainly because the abuse of using too many sad stories at the same time.
Blah Blah Blah..the following 3 words might as well be the only thing some reviewers of this movie should have written as their reviews are about as useful to movie lovers as a bullet proof vest is to superman.The movie is a solid drama/thriller,which is very very realistic,the seedy underworld of London is portrayed on the mark.the main focus however is a strange one,rather than an actual plot as such "ill manors" is a story about different kins of people all connected to the underworld(not a bad thing at all) in a different way and each persons story is connected via crossed paths,its very clever very well acted,the soundtrack is amazing,the attention to detail that drew has is immense.I would also like to comment that other reviewers trying to sound cultured and intelligent on IMDb have said drew is trying to gain street cred in with this movie obviously have no idea who Ben drew is and the fact that he has been the UK's most intelligent,profound and lyrically punishing rapper for the last ten years and he has enough cred to last 2 lifetimes,do your homework!!!..
In fact - the only thing that I care about in films is whether or not I enjoy it, and with the curiously named Ill Manors, I find myself giving a definite thumbs up.The main character of the film - Aaron (played by Riz Ahmed of "Four Lions" fame) seems to represent someone trying to do the right thing in a world where being weak is not tolerated at any level.
In my opinion, he has done a pretty good job especially with the blending of music in to film to tell characters back stories.
It makes me wonder if Ill Manors could have been a much more powerful film, if the director had actually restrained some of that rather showy visual style and non-linear editing and had just concentrated more of the story.
It is a brave film and certainly must be commended for trying: there are some very intense and good moments, which I am really praising, however, even though I might talk to people about Ill Manors, I don't think I'll ever recommend anyone to watch it (aside for our prime ministers and politicians).
STAR RATING: ***** Saturday Night **** Friday Night *** Friday Morning ** Sunday Night * Monday MorningThe directorial debut of hot new hip hop/acting star Ben Drew centres on a series of interwoven stories, of various different characters caught up in a grimy underworld centred around a South London housing estate, where guns, drugs and prostitution are the order of the day.
There is a story laid out with an inter wining theme - but no real protagonist of antagonist is ever properly established as the plot switches too often to establish the key characters and their overall goal.This is one of the best debut films i have ever seen, but its writing is severely flawed in my opinion.
If you are expecting something along the lines of Kidulthood/Adulthood this film is not it.I think Ben Drew set out to create something similar, and while you can't argue with the authenticity of the locations & events, the story isn't really there to cement it.
Learn the language of the narrator, because he's explaining what's happening as we shift back and forth in time.Writer and Director Ben Drew / Plan B presents a shockingly realistic portrayal and insight into the hapless lives of the damaged individuals that we get to know in the course of the story.If society, as a whole, has not got the message that comes out loud and clear from the film, it's 'Keep drugs, fireworks, sharp instruments and unloving care-takers away from young children - if you want a happy ending in the longer term'.This film charts the everyday outcomes which follow early exposure to forbidden fruit and the inability of people to recover from exposure, later on in life - whether due to premature death or permanent, irreversible psycholgical damage.
This was a very deep film, a great story, very real, very true to life, very dark, very intense.
In hopeless cycles of fear, flight, and attack; the characters connect and collectively manifest the poisonous web that is their ghetto-hood.With it's killer soundtrack, razor-blade-sharp eye for plot-detail, visual gags, and a speed-dial connection to " Hood-life circa 2012"; watching Ill Manors is sometimes surprising, sometimes painful; but never dull.On this roller coaster ride of losses and gains, everyone rides and no one is clean; but the ticket to redemption can sometimes be bought for a price, paid in deeds or paid in blood.What this movie lacks in perspective depth, it more than makes up for with a style and pace, that leave many movie releases of 2012 standing.Contemporary Street vibes and idioms are vividly captured, and projected with an authentic immediate bleakness.While possibly falling 'only-just' short of being a "classic"; Ben Drew's directorial film debut is an amazingly confident foray into the 'social-realism movie' arena.His talents as an established singer songwriter serve him well, and add a refreshing twist to this well-trodden genre.Originally written & published ...
David Cameron was born in London yet I doubt very much he has witnessed a social London manor such as Ben Drew's depiction of this brilliant portrayal of the inner London of today.Teenage girls & boys, young men & women, a new-age society that only knows gang-culture, turf war, drug dependency, gun violence, prostitution, fear and a one-way ticket to the abyss.The movie world makes me smile regarding what is considered a good, or a bad film.
Inspired by Brit urban dramas such as Kidulthood, singer-songwriter Ben Drew developed this film after the 2011 summer riots in Britain as a response to David Cameron's Broken Britain.Ill Manors is a chaotic film set in an area of inner London as we criss cross the lives of various drug dealers, street kids, crack addicted prostitutes, sex gangs with their imported sex slaves.With a soundtrack consisting of urban rap and grime which gives the background of the characters and their little tales as well as ageing punk poet John Cooper Clarke popping up as a chorus.There is the story of the street kid teen Jake who uses his friend's £20 to buy drugs and is ripped off and then has to beat up the friend he took the money from to get respect.
The debut feature from Ben Drew (better known as rapper Plan B) makes some interesting inroads as a gritty gangster film bent on uncovering the many flaws of David Cameron's broken Britain.
But, at an ill-advised two-hour plus runtime and an ill-managed script that very quickly degenerates into a nonsensical shamble of f-bombs, c-bombs, 'innits' and 'bruvvas', Ill Manors looks more like an unassuming eight-year-old with a painted gold chain and counterfeit snapback: he thinks he's tough, but he's the only one.The effort made to blend the six stories surrounding the film's doomed night crawlers – four drug dealers and a pair of prostitutes – is a respectable one.
The film is a rap musical about the lives of drug dealers and prostitutes on a London housing estate (i.e. social housing).
The film ends with the searing track Falling Down that knots the intestines but my favourite to listen to as a stand along song is Drug Dealer (the story of Chris's life).
when i first seen the trailer for ill manors i cant say i was too exited, i thought it was gonna be another kidulthood type of film, and i was very surprised at what i got, the movie is the British equivalent of 'mean streets'.
the movie is directed by rapper plan b, and he clearly knows his subject matter well, as there is an undeniable realism to the movie, and he incorporates his music into the film well, yet never feels like a vanity project, it is a very well made and gritty crime drama, and i recommend.
These people stay in character all through the film, whereas in real life, is just a facade for the street.The imagery is stark, especially in the baby rescue scene, and it really does deliver it's message, very bluntly.On a 100k budget, Drew has made a very professional looking movie, and I look forward to seeing what he has to give us next..
I was wrong, halfway through the film there is no plot what so ever, the characters are difficult to get to know because so much is going on, and to me it gives a real negative vibe about the streets of London.
Growing up outside of London I don't know what it's really like, but I'm sure this film is over the top with the theme of gun crime, prostitution and drug dealing.
The situations that occurred I could share many similar stories of friends and people I know.Most of all the film was enjoyable to watch the storyline had its funny, shocking and violent moments.
I do feel it built up to a climax in the middle of the film with Chris killing the young guy who killed his sister and then with the women who left her baby on the train we started a whole new story.All in all a very good debut for Plan B aka Ben Drew!Another element of the film.
Set in London and showing its underworld side evolving around drug dealers and gangsters, visually looks impressive and you would not have thought it was from a first time film maker.
Honestly you would think, based on this film and how many of the characters know each other, that London had a population of about a thousand people. |
tt0120716 | Jakob the Liar | In Poland of early 1944, a Polish-Jewish shopkeeper named Jakob Heym is summoned to the German headquarters after being falsely accused of being out after curfew. While waiting for the commander, Jakob overhears a German radio broadcast speaking about Soviet offensives. Returned to the ghetto, Jakob shares his information with a friend, sparking rumors that there is a secret radio within the ghetto. After hesitating, Jakob decides to use the chance to spread hope throughout the ghetto by continuing to tell the optimistic, fantastic tales that he allegedly heard from his "secret radio" and his lies keep hope and humor alive among the isolated ghetto inhabitants. He also has a real secret in that he is hiding a young Jewish girl who escaped from an extermination camp deportation train.
However, the Gestapo learn of the mythical radio and begin a search for the resistance hero who dares operate it. Jakob surrenders himself to the Germans as they demand the person with the radio give himself up or risk hostages being killed. During interrogation, Jakob tells the police commander that he had only listened to the radio inside his office. He is ordered to announce publicly that this was all a lie, so the ghetto's liquidation would then proceed in an orderly fashion. When presented to the public, Jakob refuses to tell the truth, but is shot before he can make his own speech.
At the film's ending, Jakob says, post-mortem, that all the ghetto's residents were then deported and were never seen again. As in the novel, there is an alternate "but maybe it wasn't like that at all" ending where, following Jakob's death, the train carrying the Jewish prisoners to the death camps is halted by Soviet troops and the occupants released. | murder | train | wikipedia | There were parts that didn't work for me, especially pieces where narration would have worked better than a character monologue (Jakob is a narrator as well as a character, so why does he talk to himself instead of us so much?) But on the whole, it was a good story, well performed by those involved.The ending, which I shall refrain from describing for the benefit of any who have not seen it, is absolutely fitting.
So I wasn't sure what to expect in "Jakob the Liar." What I found was a surprisingly good performance in a wonderful movie.Williams plays Jakob Heym, confined to the Jewish Ghetto of Warsaw by the Nazis during the Second World War. With hope fading, Heym accidentally discovers that Russian troops aren't far away, and begins to spread the news.
Others become convinced that he has a radio hidden, and Heym's fictional "news reports" from the BBC provide enough hope to keep the residents of the Ghetto going through this dark time.Williams (also executive producer) did a fine job as Heym.
The rest of the cast (primarily Hannah Taylor-Gordon as Lina and Liev Schreiber as Mischa) are good, but overshadowed by Williams.The character of Kirschbaum (played by Armin Mueller-Stahl) filled me with sadness and represents a clear statement of the evils of Nazism.
He plays Jakob, a Jewish shopkeeper in a Nazi ghetto who tells a friend that he has a radio in order to prevent that friend from committing suicide.Things do not appear to be going well within the ghetto, the war seems like it will never end, and morale among the imprisoned Jews is steadily waning, resulting in suicides left and right.
His skeptical friend doubts him, so Jakob quickly tells him that he has a radio so that he will believe the Russians will be there to save them all soon, and his friend's suicide is prevented.By the next morning, literally everyone in the ghetto knows that Jakob Heym has a radio, and so he is venerated like a God and constantly hounded about what the newest news is, and thus enters the main conflict of the movie.
It's a conflict that you sit there knowing what needs to happen for a happy ending and so you sit there and hope for that, because every option has terrible consequences.Jakob, first and foremost, is absolutely terrified that word will reach the Nazis who will execute him if they discover he has a radio (whether he really has it or not), yet at the same time he can't let it get out within the ghetto that he DOESN'T have a radio, because since the whole rumor began the rampant suicides have completely ceased.
What he has to do, then, is walk the fine line between delivering lots of fictitious good news to the whole ghetto without letting the Nazis find out about it.There is definitely something that needs to be said about the importance of a movie like this.
The Nazis killed funny people, too.I read a review on the title page for Jakob the Liar here on the IMDb, where a reviewer who completely missed the boat on this movie criticized it for things like the comedic content, the behavior and presentation of the Jews of the ghetto, and the choice of Robin Williams for the role of Jakob Heym.
The way I see it, as long as a movie takes the holocaust seriously then it should not be criticized for being a holocaust film that's not in the right format or that had an actor who has done too many comedy roles.
This same reviewer, by the way, praised Life Is Beautiful, a spectacular film, as is Jakob the Liar.I can certainly understand that there are people who are touchy about the holocaust.
It presents a story of a ghetto full of captive Jews who have had their lives stolen from them and are desperate for some hope, and one man tries to help and inadvertently finds himself in a position to provide massive amounts of hope to them, but at massive risk to his own safety.So if you don't like to see Robin Williams playing serious, dramatic roles (roles at which he is increasingly displaying his massive talent ), don't watch the movie!
Maybe a myth that mothers started telling their kids to make them scared of Germans or some other such nonsense.Jakob the Liar has no illusions, it takes a tragedy in human history and tells a story of a man who did what he could to help those suffering around him, and Robin Williams should obviously be commended for the power of his performance, as should the rest of the cast.
The film wanted to be Roberto Benigni and Life is Beautiful but never seemed to have the courage to go there, even with Robin Williams in the lead, until the last few scenes of the movie.
Having said that, Jakob the Liar is fiendishly good, creatively done, and Robin Williams does a fine job, even when Hannah Taylor-Gordon, who plays Lina, wasn't stealing every scene she was in.
I can understand why some viewers take offense at any film which might seem to trivialize the Holocaust, but I found Life is Beautiful not disrespectful but deeply moving, and consider this particular tale to be a captivating depiction of one individual's unique attempt to keep hope alive in a desperate situation.The story revolves around a lonely Polish shopkeeper & widower, Jakob, who is confined to a Jewish ghetto in 1944.
The Germans hear reports of this forbidden radio and are seeking out the resistance operator of it.Robin Williams dominates this movie and is brilliant as usual in the endearing, sympathetic role of the kind Jakob who must try to balance getting out lots of hopeful (if fictitious) war reports to keep spirits up while at the same time avoid Nazi suspicion and detection.The movie portrays the despair of the ghetto's inhabitants and the grave injustice of their captive state.
The movie begins with Jakob (played by Robin Williams in one of his surprisingly many serious roles) narrating a joke to the audience.
"But Hawkeye, why should I care about pretty good acting in a movie about the Holocaust when I can just go watch Schindler's List?" Well, eager reader, I'm actually glad you brought that film up.
Instead
well, I don't want to spoil anything, but here are Robin William's words basically spelling out the reality of trying to live each day as a Jew during the Holocaust: "So that's how it ended.
Well in my 9th grade history class in school we are learning about WW2 and so we watched Jakob the Liar and I think it was great, Robin Williams does good in the movie.
Jakob the Liar is an underrated movie.I just want to say that before anything else in my review.The movie tells about Jakob Heym, excellently played by Robin Williams.Jakob is a Jewish shop keeper living in Polish ghetto in 1944.He overhears a German radio broadcast about Russian troop movements.When he shares the information with a friend a rumor about a secret radio starts spreading in the ghetto.Jakob starts making up stories to the ghetto inhabitants he has heard from his 'secret radio'.This way he brings hope to the people who are losing it.Peter Kassovitz' Jakob the Liar (1999) hasn't got as much credit it would have deserved.It's a movie about an important matter.It combines comedy and tragedy in a great way.It has a brilliant cast.Robin Williams is just amazing.This actor, who turns 55 today (congratulations) has a great ability to act both comic and dramatic roles.He is a great man and a great actor.The young Hannah Taylor- Gordon is excellent playing Lina Kronstein, the Jewish girl Jakob is hiding.She was amazing also playing Anne Frank a couple years later.I hope we'll be hearing a lot from her in the future.Then there are also these greats; Bob Balaban (Kowalsky), Alan Arkin (Max Frankfurter), Michael Jeter (Avron), Liev Schreiber (Mischa the Prizefighter), director's son Mathieu Kassovitz (Herchel) and lots of others.This is a movie that can make you laugh and it is a movie that can make you cry.It shows all these poor people living under the horrors of war, under the circumstances you can not justify.
I'm a huge fan of Robin Williams but even he couldn't make this enjoyable for me, I didn't find Jakob to be a likable character and didn't care for him, as for the rest of the cast, there was a complete lack of chemistry and none of them put enough effort in to their performances.
The wayward Jewish accents are almost cartoonish in their over-exaggeration, and casting Williams as Jakob was a gambit that just doesn't work (his performance plays like a medley of the actor's other serious turns on film).
To be brief the producers of Jakob The Liar don't deserve from the users of Internet Movie Database a "6.0 average".The humor in the screenplay became unforgettable by the perfect role-playing of an actor (Robin Williams) who created the main characters of every movie that he acts a milestone...
Jakob is a role he carries off with impressive realism, and which significantly deepened my respect for the man's acting talent.As a Jew in a Polish ghetto under the Nazis, Robin Williams portrays a man hurting from the loss of wife, freedom and friends.
The excellent film-making further supports the atmosphere by almost making you feel you've stepped into a black-and-white era, walking the streets with Williams, watching death and depression eat away at the whole neighborhood.Things begin to change when Jakob, summoned by the commandant, overhears a radio bulletin.
In this film, Robin Williams plays a serious role as Jakob, a jewish resident in a war camp in nazi occupied Poland.
He notices how this news lifted the spirits of many of the jews so he continues to make up bogus reports and gives everyone the impression that he does in fact have a radio, which he does not.In the meantime, he is secretly taking care of a young girl in the camp and must try and keep the secret that he has no radio, from her as she is very much looking forward to getting out of the camp and seeing her parents again.I really liked this movie.
Jakob the Liar features a good straight-up performance by Robin Williams and a terrific supporting cast, but more than that it is a surprisingly complex film that reflects many of the classic traits of Yiddish humor.
In Yiddish humor, the shtetl, or classic village, as immortalized in the wonderful stories of Sholomon Aleichem (think Fiddler on the Roof and Tevya, which is a direct adaptation from Aleichem's tales) are full of set characters - and they are here - the Professor is like the Rebbe, Jakob is a schnorre (someone who loves to get things for free) who becomes the mensch (the upstanding man), and so on.Of all the films in the Holocaust corpus this is one of the few that reflects with fantasy and imagination and humor what suffering means in Jewish culture.
However it defies our norms of this style of film and as such, very correctly, challenges our notions and images of daily life outside the camps.All in all this rewards viewing at a deeper level than simply a man who invents a radio to give others hope - it is a real reflection of pre-war Judaic humor and as such is a very worthwhile attempt to preserve the deeper meaning of a Jewish understanding that humor is one of the better ways, and sometimes the only way, to cope when darkness falls..
Even those who don't actually like films related to wars, might like this one,robin Williams has done a good job, but others in the cast are at times even better.
Jakob, then carries on the lie,and later is forced to carry on the lie, that he has a radio, to keep the hope alive, in the end dies , but doesn;t let go , just so that people already close to death under the Nazis, don't lose whatever hope that is left.You keep getting the feeling , that it could have been better made, with more focus on the emotional drama happening due to the situation.
The story within the film I can agree with some that it's not new, but the remake with mr.Williams (Jakob Heym) I think is very good indeed.
Robin Williams was perfect in his role as Jakob, a latkah vendor, who pretends to have a radio and distribute good news to other Jews in the ghetto.
While this one doesn't come close (and it doesn't try), it is still an entertaining movie.Jakob Heym (Robin Williams) is a man living in one of the many Jewish ghettos of the time.
I gave this 8/10Well acted, great scenes, great sets, excellent supporting characters (especially Misha), very believable behaviors, everybody is starving, the Germans are brutally bad people (mostly) and Robin Williams is wonderful.But there's something wrong somewhere, and I can't put my finger on it.
Life is beautiful was a masterfully gifted story of hope and survival; Jakob the Liar promised so much but delivered so little.Williams' brief reprisal of his Good Morning Vietnam talent as a "radio announcer" was the only part that caught my interest and that was out of sheer nostalgia.
There is a lightness to the movie throughout, including the music but I wouldn't exactly call it a comedy, it has a few funny moments but the mood is generally dark, cold and hungry with Williams obviously toned down.This takes place in Nazi-occupied Poland during WW11 with Robin Williams as Jakob, a (former) café owner/pancake maker who accidentally overhears a forbidden German radio broadcast and then tries to boost the morale of his ghetto neighbors by inventing further fictitious news bulletins.
I enjoyed the overall story here and how the radio took on a life of its own with Jakob almost forced into telling tales as his reports had begun to generate hope and lessen the overwhelming depression and suicides that prevailed over the ghetto.
In "Jakob the Liar" Peter Kassovitz has directed Robin Williams and an impressive cast in a film that will invariably be compared to last year's `Life is Beautiful'.
Based on Frank Beyer's `Jakob der Lügner' (1974) from the novel by Jurek Becker, Peter Kassovitz' version, or remake if you must, had the bad luck to come out just a few months after Benigni's `La Vita è Bella' and thus was simply considered opportunist band-wagon riding, especially as it seemed to come into comparison with Spielberg's superb `Schindler's List', when in fact production and filming was well under way in Hungary and Czechoslovakia long before Benigni suddenly popped up like a rabbit in a top hat.Usually I would just pass over Robin Williams as I find most of his supposedly humourous attempts at playing rôles more than somewhat irritating; however perusing IMDb I got curioser and curioser.
It is a film that has everything, sadness, some lighter moments and history and like Robin Williams said people should be reminded the awful going ons of that time.
You don't feel the same way as if you were watching Schindler's List but because the movie is not that depressing, it actually shows hope and because of a misunderstanding, Robin Williams charater must do all he can to raise the moral of his friends and a little girl that lives with him.PLOT: A Jewish pancake maker (Robin Williams) lives in a Jewish ghetto during WWII.
Because of this he must keep the ghetto's moral up by making them believe that freedom is on the way.VIEWS: Robin Williams does give a good performance and you sympathize by what he does.
Instead of showing the whole picture, this movie show a small part of what it was like for the Jewish people during WWII.SCENES TO WATCH FOR: The arguing between Robin Williams and his barber friend..
It's timing couldn't be worse, only because this new film cannot hold a candle to Benigni's triumph.Robin Williams stars as Jakob, a lonely widower stuck in a Jewish Ghetto in 1945.
His pained dramatic look while trying to make the whole world happy is very admirable, but he needs to stop making these movies (Robin Williams and his wife produced this film for their Blue Wolf Productions, so it really is their fault).
At times it did feel a little laboured as it tried to get laughs or comedy out of a very serious situation, and some of the scenes between Jakob and the orphan girl did feel like Williams settling back into well worn material.What the problem was for me was that it didn't really grab me until near the end, for the moat part it was almost as if the film could have become background noise for me as it wasn't well delivered and was a little flat.
Robin Williams gave a good performance, as always, but the movie itself lacked the dramatic touch it needed.
Of course it's very timely that "Life is Beautiful" was released around the same time as "Jakob the Liar." I just rented this film today, but I still have to say I was reminded of the much-better Benigni masterpiece.This movie gives us a theatrical look at the Holocaust.
"Jakob the Liar" is not a bad film, and is fairly watchable (though you might want to watch it in bits and pieces like I did), but you can't help but feel a lot more could've been done with the intriguing premise.
Robin Williams puts in a surprising performance in this heartfelt, touching, interessting, and beautiful movie about a group of Jewish people in a Nazi German ghetto.
"Jakob" (Robin Williams) is a Jew living in a Nazi-occupied Polish ghetto where the residents have lost all hope.
At any rate, rumors get started within the ghetto that Jakob (Robin Williams) has a forbidden radio. |
tt2465238 | Lego Batman: The Movie - DC Super Heroes Unite | Bruce Wayne and Lex Luthor are both nominated for the Man of the Year award, and Wayne wins. As he is making his speech, the Joker breaks in with the Riddler, Harley Quinn, the Penguin, Two-Face and Catwoman, and steals the award, as well as money and gems. Batman arrives and stops everyone except the Joker, who escapes on his boat, but Robin's helicopter picks up Batman. When the rope holding Batman is broken, he calls in the Batwing and defeats the Joker. Meanwhile, Luthor is running for president, but his poll figures are terrible. He learns that the Joker knows how to produce more Kryptonite, and can make a gas that makes people love him, which will help Luthor win the election and defeat Superman. He breaks the Joker out of Arkham Asylum and promises him the use of Luthor's De-Constructor weapon to defeat Batman by dismantling all his gadgets and vehicles.
And as they leave, Joker uses the De-Constructor to break Harley Quinn, Poison Ivy, the Penguin, Two-Face, Bane, Catwoman, and the Riddler out. While the Joker is "chemical shopping" at Ace Chemicals (much to Luthor's annoyance), Batman is arriving at Arkham. As the villains escape on their vehicles, Robin takes down Catwoman while Batman goes after Two Face's car, with the Riddler and Harley in tow; while they leave Bane, Poison Ivy, and the Penguin because Bane's vehicle was too slow. Batman beats Two Face by stealing his coin, so he does not know which direction to turn and crashes, then follows Bane's mole vehicle underground, where he takes control and crashes them into a wall.
Batman and Robin put them back into prison, then investigate the breakout, which leads them to Ace Chemical Plant, booby-trapped by the Joker after a visit to gather materials for the gas and Kryptonite. Superman rescues the Dynamic Duo, but Batman is rude to him (concerned he might go rogue some day) and he leaves. Batman also does not want help from Superman, much to Robin's dismay. Batman traces Luthor's mobile lab and snatches the manufactured Kryptonite, but the Batmobile is deconstructed. At the Batcave, he determines the new Kryptonite is harmless, but it proves to be a tracking device which leads the Joker and Luthor to the cave—Batman has a Kryptonite Vault which the Joker knew about. Using explosive pies, the villains destroy the cave, escaping with a load of Kryptonite, while the heroes are saved by Superman.
The next day, election day, Superman and Batman visit the LexCorp building, and are attacked by Luthor in a giant Kryptonite-powered Joker robot. The villains describe their plan to the heroes as they defeat them, and then leave. However, Batman and Superman had switched costumes to learn Luthor and the Joker's plan. The two then switch back costumes and chase down the robot, but fail; since the Kryptonite drained Superman's powers and Batman doesn't have a vehicle, the two are forced to take a bus to City Hall. Later, outside City Hall, Luthor makes a speech in front of a huge crowd and then has the Joker use the Joker robot to spray the crowd with Joker Gas. Luthor then finds out that the Joker Gas has caused the crowd to start cheering for Joker to be president and realizes that the Joker tricked him. The Joker's handiwork is visible from space, alerting The Justice League, who arrive to help Batman, Robin, and Superman.
After a prolonged battle, the League traps the Joker robot. Cyborg and Batman open up the robot's chest with explosions, and the Flash loads the Kryptonite into Wonder Woman's invisible jet, which shuts down the robot. The Joker and Luthor are arrested and Commissioner Gordon congratulates the Justice League for their victory. Robin asks Wonder Woman where the Kryptonite is and she tells him it is in a safe place if Superman goes rogue. Cyborg offers help rebuilding the Batcave. Batman at first refuses, but Robin convinces him to admit they need 'a little' help. As Superman starts to get excited at the thought that Batman is asking him for help, Batman corrects him and says he was asking Green Lantern for help. Green Lantern then fires a bright green light into space to celebrate their victory.
From his ship deep in space, Brainiac spots the green light and realizes that he just found the green energy. | comedy | train | wikipedia | Having never seen nor played any of the Lego movies or video games this was my first venture into their blocky incarnation of various franchises.
I was fully expecting nothing but a feature-length cut-scene but was surprised at how cinematic it actually is.Opening with Danny Elfman's brilliant Batman theme (no offense to Zimmer but Warner knows that fans prefer this version), we learn that Lex Luthor and Joker have teamed up and have gained the upper hand over Bats and Supes.
It's not an original framing device, but it was better than I was expecting.Director Jon Burton (no relation to Tim) uses many atmospheric locations that look wonderfully photo-realistic, while building as much of the world as possible with actual Lego bricks.
Builders will get lots of ideas when watching this movie.
He should have let a couple of scenes speak for themselves, but it's still good enough to warrant a release on CD.There is a fun sense of humor permeating each scene, meaning that if the vivid sets and cute action don't entertain you will still be smiling.
It does suffer a little bit from the "smashing skyscrapers" cliché that is common in many comic book movies but it's not too much of a distraction.Far better than I expected.
Batman kicks some serious butt (with a little help from all his super-friends, of course)....Even though LEGO Batman's story of over-the-top, superhero crime-fighting pretty much went over the same, old ground, I still enjoyed this particular CG offering a helluva lot more than I did the likes of Christopher Nolan's live-action "Dark Knight" movie-series.
I really did.Besides LEGO Batman containing some often-humorous one-liners (nicely delivered by both Batman & Superman), I also got quite a delightful kick out of the LEGO-look of all the characters.From having some very amusing facial expressions, to their squat stature and stubby legs, I'm actually looking forward to checking out other LEGO movies once they become available through my city's library system.Of all the superhero characters featured in this picture's ultra-violent, fast-paced story, it was Flash, in his brief, but pivotal appearance, who I liked the most..
Action, Adventure, Great acting and a Life Lesson - Sometimes You Need a Little Help.
All the Marvel superheroes and everything else are made out of Legos.
It is more focused on Batman as a man and other heroes like Robin, Super Women, Super Man, the Green Lantern and many others.
This move has a mix of comedy which I've noticed is in every Lego movie.
It has action, adventure, great actors and even a lifelong lesson - sometimes you can't do things all by yourself, you need help.
All these structures are built out of Lego bricks so you can really build them yourself if you knew how!The adventure begins when Bruce Wayne wins the "Man of the Year" award.
If you don't know who Bruce Wayne is, he is Batman undercover.
Then, the Joker commits a crime and Batman and Robin have to capture him once again.
Batman gets annoyed with Superman but, at the end they work together and call in all the superheroes to defeat the Joker!
If you want to know what happens at the end you must watch the movie.What I love about this funny, action-packed film is how it shows the relationship between Robin and Batman as somewhat difficult.
Also, it shows all the heroes' powers like Superman's strength and Batman's throwing skills.
And, as in most Lego movies, there are cool animations, good actions and great voice-over actors.My favorite scene is when the bat cave gets destroyed.
It's action packed and shows Joker's "funny" side with his strange humor and his pie bombs.
Would you like to know how he was able to defeat Superman's power?
"Lego Batman the Movie" is extremely kid- friendly.
A fun little superhero film.
Before The Lego Movie (2014) completely shot the small building block toy into moviegoers' spotlights, the LEGO company had long since prior to that adapting their products for all kinds of popular franchises.
As superheroes became more bankable during the rise of the Marvel Cinematic Universe, LEGO was able to make even more products.
The difference between the two comic book giants was that Warner Brothers Studios owned the rights of the main DC comic properties to be shown in movies; while Marvel wasn't included.
This is validated with when viewing of The Lego Movie (2014) because Superman, Green Lantern, Batman, Wonder Woman and couple others had appearances during the film.Yet before this, the DC characters did have a small movie of their own.
After losing the "man of the year" award to Bruce Wayne (Troy Baker) and with election day being a day away, Lex Luthor (Clancy Brown) hatches a scheme that involves having The Joker (Christopher Corey Smith) persuading his non-believers.
Once Luthor breaks The Joker out of Arkham Asylum, Batman & Robin (Charlie Schlatter) head out to find out what's going on.
As an overall story it's fun fluff but it feels more like an extended TV episode more than an actual movie.
Its running time is too short to really be considered a movie.What's cool to see that was written into the screenplay was the inclusion of several other popular DC characters.
Perhaps the whole payoff doesn't feel like all characters had equal screen time but it is fun to watch.
The characters that get the most screen time are Luthor, Joker, Batman, Robin and Superman (Travis Willingham).
As for other characters, fans will get to see villains and heroes.
As for any film aficionado, they too will have fun picking out the various other voice-actors that have different roles like Rob Paulsen, Brian Bloom, Steve Blum, Cam Clarke and others.
Perhaps the only character that comes off somewhat obnoxious is Robin who is portrayed a lot like Adam West's Robin from the mid 1960s.
It's all in good nature and goofy fun but this batman-dependent Robin isn't as likable.It is fun to see though when Batman and Superman interact.
The entire film was created via CGI for animation, thus the fluidity of character movement gives them the ability to flex further than actual LEGO characters.
For the sake of the film, more articulation allows the characters to express more emotion but it is deceptive to kids who are just being introduced to LEGO.
LEGO characters are much more rigid and this is why The Lego Movie (2014) is the best representation.
LEGO movies should actually be made by stop motion animation.
The action is fun to watch throughout as well.
However the best part for most people is when every known character is on screen.
All that fan service.The cinematography provided by Jeremy Pardon looked nice too.
Since this is a LEGO film, the ability to be creative in choice is necessary.
After all, everything in a LEGO film is a building block to something else.
What actually needed to be physically filmed again?
And although the music is memorable and has main themes, it is only because many of the tunes are borrowed from John Williams' music from Superman (1978) and Danny Elfman's from Batman (1989).
Is it acceptable, no...but again it matches everything nicely and works with the characters.
So it sort of nulls that it was even taken from to begin with.Aside from a short running time for a mini Justice League film in LEGO form and the Robin character feeling too similar to the campy version from Adam West's Batman, it's fun fluff.
The voice actors match their roles, the action is amusing, the music (although borrowed) is memorable and the CGI camera-work is creative..
If this is the best Justice League movie we'll get, I'm cool with that..
The box might say "LEGO Batman - The Movie", but it features .
Even so, it being LEGO puts a nice spin on such well-worn story material, and there are plenty of made-out-of-bricks gags.
This may have been direct-to-video, but it's another win for WB; the voice cast is great, they use the Elfman and Williams scores (homage-y, not cheap) and the characters really come to life.
I liked the friendly rivalry between Batman and Superman, and Batman's constant shaming of Robin.I had a lot of fun with this and there's plenty of potential with LEGO properties.
Lego Batman: Dc Superheroes Unite is a fun kids film.
It isn't great or anything, but it is still a good movie.
The film is pretty funny, the animation is nice, and it's a good way to spend an hour.
Let me tell ya - Had one more violent explosion taken place in this 70-minute, LEGO, Batman movie - Then - I think that my brain would have probably exploded, too (out of sheer exasperated boredom), right along with it.I mean - Talk about explosion overload!
- Like - Is this really what the screenwriters of this kiddies' film thought was all that the viewer wanted to see?And, speaking about these LEGO superhero characters - For such pipsqueak, little toys - They certainly all had mighty big, over-inflated egos.
(I guess that accounts for all of the explosions - They had to vent some of that egocentricity, somehow)Anyway - IMO - Since LEGO Batman's story truly lacked any real substance - The best that I can say about this juvenile film is that it was just "OK", and that's all..
Having seen The Lego Movie, I expected this to be similar but found it to be a more serious rendition of the Batman tale, and probably nothing like the more recent Batman Lego Movie which I've yet to see.
Beginning with the titles sequence in Legos copying the opening of the live-action Batman the Movie, and the use of the Batman and Superman themes from those films, the intent is immediately obvious that the story is going to proceed along those lines and not the more lighthearted and satirical tones of the latter.There are some amusing moments, however, in the depiction of the characters.
Unlike the adult Robin portrayed in the live-actor movies, Robin is here a youngster, impatient to join in the mayhem while Batman continually forces him into the background.
He also sleeps with a teddy bear.It's an enjoyable movie and the Lego constructs are interesting, and it definitely opens the way for the later, more ambition presentations..
Review: This movie isn't in the same league as the Lego Movie, which was proper funny, but there are some funny moments and the storyline was much better than some of the earlier Batman movies that came out.
It was great to see all of the Justice League together, especially Superman who made me made laugh when he teamed up with Batman and the Joker and Lex Luther were great as the baddies.
The director chose to use a really dumb Robin which added to the wit of the film but I was hoping that Batman was going to be as funny as he was in the Lego Movie.
Anyway, if your a fan of the Lego Movie then this animated movie is definitely worth a watch and the extras on the DVD were a great bonus.
Watchable!Round-Up: The animation in this movie wasn't that great, which is probably due to the small budget compared to the Lego Movie, but the characters do move in true Lego form which was well put together.
Personally, I think that the thing that has worked with this Lego franchise is the fact that it doesn't take itself seriously and most of the characters are quite funny in there own way.
Batman cracked me up in the Lego Movie, which is why I ran out and added this movie to my rental list.
In some ways, this is more of an traditional Batman movie were he's trying to save the world by taking on all of the baddies by himself, but he soon realises that he can't do it alone.
I recommend this movie to people who are into there animated movies with some of the most popular comic heroes in the world.
Every single scene had muted audio, drowned out by a loud music score in the background.Apart from that, the movie is just unfunny.
Even the usual Lego gags are used only 2-3 times.
Most of the movie just shows Batman as a jerk to Robin while being right at the same time.
Wasn't the whole point of "Lego" movies and games was to use Lego blocks as a joke?
Characters don't move stiff-like, they move smooth.
This movie feels like a "draft version" compared to the other Lego Batman / Justice League movies made since 2013.
Everything about it - the characters, the editing, the pacing, the story - make it look like it was made 30 years ago, even though the animation is modern.
It doesn't grab your attention like Gotham Breakout, Bizarro, Brainiac, or Batman 2017..
Actually, I've had enough of Batman these days.
Every time I watch one of the animated movies, he's okay
until he or the storyline starts to downgrade the greatest hero of our fictional time: Superman.
This "movie" is no different.That said and disregarding the display of Batman being a dick again to Superman, LEGO Batman: The Movie - DC Super Heroes Unite is an absolute pleasure.My roommate/landlord has played the game where the majority of these shots were side segments and he states some scenes were added to make it a full-fledged film
if you can call a 71 cartoon a "film." Since I have not played the game – whatever it's called, this entire video was brand new to me.I loved almost every minute of this.
Laughed hard, marveled a lot and actually enjoyed the journey of these characters lego'ized.It was clever, fun and adventurous, despite the limitations of being just about Legos.
And above all that, it was clever; just when I thought it had flaws, the movie sideswiped me and explained what I would normally criticize.Basically, Lex Luthor and Joker team up so Lex can be President of the United States, but both Batman and hilarious Robin set out to expose his evil plots.
Sometimes calling upon the likes of our lovable Justice League players.Even if you're only mildly interested in either Batman, Legos or Animation, this is an absolute must see.
A Fun Movie with Nostalgia.
#1 I used to play with Lego toys so I like this movie.
#2 the movie was actually good!
Sadly some of our adult live action movies need to take a lesson!
All should beware of the Joker even if you think you are on the same team.
I laughed a lot throughout the movie which I think was a nice touch that way a parent and the children can enjoy the movie together.
I like how Batman had issues and an attitude problem.
They have issues they need to work out so they can...wait a minute...be be better heroes!
My favorite was seeing Batman and Superman at the bus stop.
Seeing all the Justice League in the end was marvelous!
A pleasant surprise with neat extras for Lego and DC fans.
This is based on the video game Lego Batman 2 and the cynic in me was expecting the film to be *just* the FMV sequences from that game all edited together, maybe with the odd inter-title to explain actions that took place during the playable levels.
I'm glad to say that I was wrong and that the original animators from the game created a series of visually entertaining sequences to tie the original FMV footage together, vastly increasing the runtime and creating a finished product that's exciting and surprising even if you've already played the game through and know the story.The DVD also comes with a good selection of extras.
There's a collection of very high-end fan-made Lego stop-motion animation shorts.
There's a featurette about the process of stop-motion animating Lego that's very sweet in a 'Being Elmo' way at times but also the part of the package that's most evidently just pushing Lego products on the viewer.
There's also a well-chosen set of episodes from Batman: The Brave and the Bold and Teen Titans that focus on the Justice League members featured in this film: "Triumvirate of Terror!" with Superman and Wonder Woman, "Scorn of the Star Sapphire!" with Green Lantern and Wonder Woman and "Overdrive" featuring Cyborg (no Flash or Martian Manhunter, though).
I hadn't seen any of these episodes before and they're quite enjoyable, especially the Batman/Superman/Wonder Woman episode, the epilogue of which shows the trio of heroes still working together as a team well into their old age.
Just like the Lego movie, it wasn't the best to be quite honest with you.
Now, I don't know whats going to happen when the original Batman movie comes out next year but this, wasn't a great example to use the Lego format as an excuse to make it look better.
I really didn't think this was really that good because, I felt the actors weren't getting enough lines or the story just dragged on.
Maybe if they made this short Lego movie more serious with less jokes, then definitely it would go onto the Hollywood Hall of Fame.
Here I was thinking that the 2017 Lego Batman movie was the original, but this proved me wrong.
Being a huge fan of Lego, I think this may have been the first movie of any kind to prominently feature them.
Then again, the Bionicle movies might count, being based on a line of Lego products.
The animation is just nice and there's a lot of cool stuff going on.
There is a huge complaint I have.Despite the fact that the title is "Super Heroes Unite", the actual Justice League don't appear until literally the last seventh of the entire movie!
And seeing as how the movie is only 70 minutes long, that's really annoying.
There is this rather humorous scene where it's revealed Batman and Superman have been impersonating each other and they swap body parts. |
tt1754811 | InAPPropriate Comedy | The framing device has Vince Offer pressing buttons on his tablet computer that open offensive applications.
Psychology World
A psychologist (Rob Schneider) has a session with a sex-obsessed young woman (Noelle Kenney) who wants to change. She shows him the pills that make her wild. He takes them and passes out on the floor.
Flirty Harry
Flirty Harry (Adrien Brody) is a cop who, with a repertoire of double entendres, patrols the streets of New York.
Blackass
A Jackass spoof, where Vondell (Da'Vone McDonald), Murphay (Calvin Sykes), Swade (Thai Edwards), Darnell (Chalant Phifer), and Acquon (Ashton Jordaan Ruiz) are five African American guys who go about their days causing trouble.
The Porno Review
J.D. (Rob Schneider), Harriet (Michelle Rodriguez), and Bob (Jonathan Spencer) (who spends most of the time masturbating) host an At the Movies-style film review series that showcases pornographic films, including the dubbed Asian film "Sushi Mama" and an homosexual parody of Swan Lake known as Sperm Lake.
Things You'll Never See
A beautiful young woman (Kiersten Hall) dating an old poor man (Anthony Russell).
Above the Grate
Lindsay Lohan stands on an air vent much like Marilyn Monroe's famous scene from The Seven Year Itch while a man (Vince Offer) watches her from underneath.
The Amazing Racist
A spoof of The Amazing Race. Ari Shaffir and his cameraman go around the city showcasing extremely racist and offensive stereotypes against Asians, African Americans, and Jews. It is heavily implied that all of Shaffir's doings were not rehearsed and done to random people on the street. | comedy | train | wikipedia | null |
tt2302966 | i | Lingesan (Vikram) is a bodybuilder from Chennai, whose main ambition is to become Mr. India. He wins the title of Mr. Tamil Nadu, which gives him direct entry to the Mr. India pageant. He is infatuated by Diya (Amy Jackson), a leading supermodel. Diya is soon blacklisted, with all her advertisement film contracts cancelled by John (Upen Patel), her co-star in all her advertisements, after she constantly rejected his advances. To save her career, Diya decides to replace John with Lingesan, whom she had earlier met at one of her shoots, as her co-star for her next advertisement. The shooting is to take place in China at the same time when the Mr. India paegant is to take place, but Lingesan agrees, sacrificing his Mr. India ambitions in the process.
Lingesan is given a makeover by Diya's stylist, a transgender woman Osma Jasmine (Ojas Rajani). The shoot initially does not go well as Lingesan is shy and awkward around Diya. On her director's advice, Diya pretends to fall in love with Lingesan so that he would loosen up and perform better during the shoot. The plan proves successful and gradually both excel in the modelling industry as the lead pair. As time passes, Diya reciprocates Lingesan's love for her and they soon get engaged.
In his journey from a bodybuilder to a top model, Lingesan makes many enemies, including John, whose modelling career was ruined due to Lingesan's rising popularity, forcing him to appear in local advertisements to stay afloat; Osma, who was infatuated with Lingesan and proposed to him, only to be rejected; industrialist Indrakumar (Ramkumar Ganesan), whose company suffered losses when Lingesan refused to endorse their soft drink as it was reported to contain pesticides; and another bodybuilder Ravi (M. Kamaraj), who also competed for the Mr. Tamil Nadu title but lost to Lingesan. These four people conspire to take revenge on Lingesan and destroy his fame and modelling career.
Two days before his wedding, Lingesan slowly starts to experience hair and teeth loss and a skin disorder. He consults his friend Vasudevan (Suresh Gopi), a doctor who is also the guardian of Diya's family. Vasudevan claims that he is suffering from a rare and incurable genetic disease which results in premature ageing. Lingesan's condition worsens, with his face and body deforming, and eventually he becomes a hunchback. In his current condition, Lingesan decides to disappear from public eye and also from Diya's life by faking his death in a car accident. Only his friend Babu (Santhanam) and Vasudevan know that he is alive. Lingesan asks Vasudevan to marry Diya as he is the only person who will be able to understand Diya's past and present situation. Vasudevan agrees and the wedding is fixed.
On the eve of Diya's wedding, another doctor reveals to Lingesan that, contrary to Vasudevan's claims, he is actually suffering from H4N2 influenza, caused by the "I" virus, which can only be transmitted by injection. He discovers that John, Osma, Indrakumar, Ravi and, to his horror, even Vasudevan, are responsible for injecting the virus into his body. Vasudevan had an insatiable lust for Diya since she was ten years old and was enraged when she chose Lingesan over him. Therefore, he sided with Lingesan's enemies and planned the entire operation to have Lingesan injected with the virus. Enraged and betrayed, Lingesan abducts Diya on her wedding day and keeps her safely in an old house without revealing his identity to her.
Aided by Babu, Lingesan starts taking revenge on those who had deformed him. He first immolates Ravi, who suffers severe burns. He then prepares a paste which Osma applies on her body, causing her body to sprout huge growths of hair. Next, he subjects Indrakumar to bee stings all over his body. He fights John over a moving train and gets him electrocuted. Finally, he gets Vasudevan to unwittingly inject a virus into himself, causing his whole body to swell up. After achieving his revenge, Lingesan reveals his condition to Diya, who, though initially taken aback, still loves him despite his deformity. They decide to live a secluded life together. Lingesan undergoes ayurvedic treatment, yoga and physiotherapy for his condition and soon returns to normal. | revenge, romantic, flashback | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0076709 | Si wang ta | After a recent amount of challenges, Billy Lo (Bruce Lee) and his friend Chin Ku (Huong Cheng Li) begin to suspect that someone wants them dead. Billy later visits his younger brother Bobby (Tong Lung), who is studying with Billy's former teacher, and leaves him a book on Jeet Kune Do. Chin is soon killed, and Billy goes to Japan to find his stepdaughter, May. May tells him that Chin had visited just before his death, and left a film for her. They are suddenly attacked, but Billy manages to escape with the film.
A few days later Billy attends Chin's funeral, where he is turned away from viewing the body. A helicopter arrives during the burial and steals the coffin away. Trying to prevent the theft, Billy is carried up with the casket but falls to his death. Bobby Lo is told of Billy's death by their father, who tells him to find a man named Sherman Lan and avenge his brother. Sherman gives him the film, which shows Chin Ku at the Palace of Death. The Palace of Death is run by a crazed martial arts expert by the name of Lewis (Roy Horan). Any challenger who fails to defeat Lewis is fed to his pack of lions. Bobby decides to meet Lewis, who is impressed with Bobby's abilities. While investigating the Palace, Bobby is attacked by a masked man. Then, He informs Lewis that someone is trying to kill him. Later that night, a woman is sent to Bobby's room to seduce and assassinate him. When she fails, one of Lewis' lions attacks Bobby. During the fight, the masked man appears and kills Lewis.
Suspecting Lewis' valet, Bobby seeks him out at the Fan Yu temple, where the underground Tower of Death is rumored to be. After defeating the valet, Bobby spies the secret entrance into the tower. Battling his way through the tower he eventually confronts the operator, Chin Ku. Chin is the head of a global drug trafficking organization and staged his own death to throw off Interpol investigators. He tried to frame Lewis for his death and arranged for the coffin to be stolen to prevent it from being searched. Realizing the only way to defeat Chin's sword skills is with Billy's Jeet Kune Do, Bobby cold-heartedly uses Chin's sword, impales Chin's bodyguard monk (Lee Hoi-San) and Chin together, finally killing Chin and stopping his drug operation. | revenge, murder, violence | train | wikipedia | If you have even half of a sense of humour, you'll be laughing for literally 80% of the film.Everything about the film is wrong: trying to resurrect Bruce Lee with scraps of footage and a guy that "kinda" looks like him; having a man dress up as a lion and go toe to toe with the lead character; having sets that belong in a star trek episode; having jesus play the bad duy.
A truly surreal piece of classic exploitation that's just so insane you feel you have to love it, a slice n' dice treatment made on real Lee footage jumbled together to create yet another new `Bruce Lee movie', much in the same vein as its non-related predecessor, however this one's a lot more fun.
Bruce Lee returns, so they say, as Billy Lo, eager to discover the reasoning behind his master's sudden death, which sure enough leads to his own end.
Enter Billy's brother Bobby (Kim Tai Chong, or rather Lee-alike Tong Lung') and the second half of this crazy charade begins, with Bobby continuing the investigations into both the deaths.
When the Lee footage runs out (by ludicrously killing off the character halfway using the classic fall from the under carriage of a moving helicopter' trick), the movie is left to Kim who in actual fact does quite well with it, given the circumstance: events consist of visiting the palace of crazy fighter Horan, battling a man in a tarzan outfit in some underground sci-fi laboratory, before beautifully laying waste to a random monk (Lee Hoi San) and Hwang Jang Lee. It's complete madness, but like a cute family puppy it's just too difficult to put down.
I don't know why people slate this film, it's no better or worse than something like Shaolin Iron Claws (also starring Hwang Jang Lee), or many other martial arts films from the late 70a and early 80s.Unfortunately, as this was planned as a 'tribute to' (read 'another way to get money out of the image of') Bruce Lee, it's what it's mainly remembered as.
I would argue that there are some rather good sequences in this film - Roy Haron's fight scenes, for example, or the end sequence (which is pretty enjoyable in a James Bond type of way).And, to be honest, the footage is interpolated a HELL of a lot better than that P.O.S.
Anyway, it's better than the first Game Of Death, Hwang Jang Lee is well worth watching (as always) and Roy Haron is wicked..
NOTE: This review covers the Fortune Star Digitally Remastered version of Si Wang Ta (a.k.a. Game of Death II/Tower of Death).This is another disgrace to the name Bruce Lee. Not only is it another butcher job using never-before-seen Bruce Lee footage and some thrown in shots from his other movies, the plot is loose (if there is one) and just plain doesn't make sense.
Only die-hard martial arts movie fans should bother to watch this, and really only for the fight sequences and to be that much more complete in titles...otherwise steer clear of this title.Also, for "extras", we are "treated" to the original trailer and the "new" trailer which is nothing special at all..
At times, it felt like I was watching a sequel to Kung Pow rather than a Bruce Lee film.To be honest, this film has bugger all to do with 'Game of Death'.
Bruce Lee's character Billy Lo (apparently) investigates the sudden death of his friend and encounters a piece of film that was left with the man's daughter.
When the body is stolen during the funeral (!), Billy is also killed and it's up to his wayward brother to avenge both men's deaths.Tong Long stars as brother Bobby Lo and doesn't really have the sort of charisma to carry the film.
Saying that, on the whole, the footage is actually edited-in better than in 'Game of Death' but it doesn't stop the film from being a mess.OK, so the fights are actually very entertaining (dare I say mind-blowing) and make the film at least watchable.
However, I did finish the film and was kind of glad I did because the fight scene towards the end (much like 'GOD') was the whole reason for watching.
This sounded great, like a twist on Bruce Lee's original idea with different styles of fighting on each level.
It's as though Enter the Dragon had never been made, with the plot being a poor imitation.Worth watching once for the fast paced fight scenes, but so stupid sometimes that it hurts.
I can't help but wonder if they were filming as they were writing and may well have planned to keep Bruce alive, but later decided to kill him off because it would not have been plausible as Bobby does not appear until Billy is dead.
It's hard to change the lead character halfway in the movie and Bruce is a hard act to follow so it's hard to now accept Bobby as the star.
People hoping to see a new Bruce Lee movie will be disappointed to see that although he's given the top billing, he only has a featuring role.
I don't see how a small budgeted movie like this could get enough money to use footage from Enter The Dragon.
STAR RATING:*****Unmissable****Very Good***Okay**You Could Go Out For A Meal Instead*Avoid At All Costs ..........well,if you come across this movie in the video shop or on TV,please don't miss it.There's not just lots and lots of it,but it's also incredibly entertaining ,especially the end showdown,which does however get a bit tiresome as it stretches out a fair bit.Also,this is the most convincing attempt at dubbing in a Lee movie,with you being practically unable to notice that the words aren't coming out the character's mouths properly as they speak.If only similar praise could be given to the plot and the acting which are,unfortunately,exceptionally bad in this film.Still,if you were expecting it to win a 1981 Academy Award (R) for either of these things,you don't really know your martial arts action films that well.***.
You'll laugh in awe at how the film splicing isn't very good, but some cool deleted scenes from Enter the Dragon are thrown in the mix.
A lot of people were using Lee's name to promote their own productions, but Golden Harvest (who Bruce worked for; though technically this was a Seasonal production) was the worst of these offenders.The first act of the movie is the least interesting and worst part of the film.
After an reestablishment of friendship between the two (never a good sign in a Kung Fu film), he visits an abbot (Roy Chiao revisiting his role from Enter the Dragon so they can reuse and redub footage) to discuss about his contumacious brother Bobby Lo (Tong Lung who also starred in Game of Death).Of course, the scenes that compromise the first act are not only exploitative of Bruce Lee they are also poorly done.
However, anytime you see a fight scene and that Bruce (or his double) does a difficult move such as a flip you will notice that it is the incomparable Yuen Biao (he even has a small role toward the beginning.) Bruce later visits the funeral of his friend Chin Ku and he is prevented from examining the body (this must mean something to the plot.) When the ceremony takes place a helicopter comes by and snags the coffin.
Though this is not as bad as the 70s clothes at the funeral or the tacky real funeral footage of Bruce Lee that would come next.Now the movie gets more interesting and less exploitative.
It is owned by Lewis, played by Roy Horan who has been an executive at Seasonal, an actor who also acted in Snake in the Eagle's Shadow, a student of Hwang Jang Lee and currently a lecturer at HK Polytechnic University; obviously his life is more interesting than this film.
I really do not trust one-armed people in Hong Kong films unless they are played by Jimmy Wang Yu.Lewis tells Bobby of a tower built by abbot Hung Kuang.
I will not give it away (or tell what happens at the Palace of Death) but it is fairly obvious who it will be.The final act of the film leads to some good fighting scenes, obviously with the help of action director Yuen Wo-Ping, as Bobby makes his way down the tower (try to see how many times Yuen Biao is used as a stunt double; hint check every other move Bobby makes).
The story is similar to hundreds of other karate-movies: A man is killed by a drugs-syndicate and his brother takes revenge by kicking them all to kingdom come.What makes this movie so terribly bad, is the use of old footage of Bruce Lee (who "plays" the part of the older brother).
Even Steven Seagal's films are way better than 90 percent of the martial arts junk movies made during the 1970s and early 1980s in Hong Kong.
But this time for "real,"(kinda silly I know) at least in the movie, So his brother Bobby Lo must go to the tower of death, take revenge and find out the truth.I would say this was at least as good as the first, maybe not in story,
are much better and they don't stand out badly like the first, which is good.This film as a whole was bad but enjoyably bad, Bobby Lo also fights a lion
as good but better with the action and truthfully, I like both.If you don't mind a corny martial arts movie like this, see it.
Game of Death II is a really sad state of affairs, and I mean sad in that this is a brilliant kung-fu film but it's so easy to get put off due to the fact that it's such a blatant cash in on the Bruce Lee name.The first half of the film is pretty disrespectful.
For a start the footage is clearly from Enter The Dragon and it looks like they didn't even bother to match the film type as you can tell it's from totally different stocks when it cuts between the archive footage and the real film.
They shoot Kim from behind most of the time in a really obvious way but on a few occasions you see a full front shot of his face and can tell it's not Bruce so there was absolutely no point to it.All this is doubly sad because this is actually a brilliant kung-fu film.
The fight choreography is superb and if you disregard the Bruce Lee cash in it's actually a decent story as well (for this type of film) Having no less than three directors is a plus point and all are known names.
Ng See Yuen and Corey Yuen later went on to make the martial arts triumph 'No Retreat No Surrender' and of course Sammo hung who is a legend in the kung fu world helped direct and stage the fights and boy does it show.I'm actually surprised that Raymond Chow who was supposedly a family friend of the Lees allowed such a foul cash grab to be made.
Fair enough, the first Game Of Death had an excuse as they were finishing his work (even though they changed everything) but this really was a cheap effort to make money off the dead.Regardless, if you can stomach the first half of the film and it's really shameless flogging of Bruce Lee footage then you are in for a treat in the second half when the movie dumps the stock footage splicing and actually becomes it's own film, and it's a damn good one too.
The end fight is one of the very best in kung-fu history and that's saying something.If this film had been it's own thing then it would be almost at the top of the pile and it's a shame because most people won't watch past the first few minutes or so and they'd probably be quite right as morally this film is a disgrace, but underneath is a superb martial arts film that sadly not many with even bother with..
A mish-mash of archive footage from older Bruce Lee movies, which actually only gives us one original and previous unseen Bruce Lee fight scene.
And that is not enough to make it watchable, as the incredible archive fight scenes did it in his other posthumous movie, Game of Death, 1978.The lack of unseen material with Bruce Lee is affecting the plot to focus on Lee's characters brother, Bobby Lo, played by Tae-jeong Kim, who also was stand-in for Lee in Game of Death.
Not a real Bruce Lee film.
The story is about Billy Lo and his younger brother Bobby Lo. Billy is a master martial artist and a friend of Chin Ku (played by Taekwondo master Jang Lee Hwang), who mysteriously dies and after stealing his coffin at the funder, Billy is killed trying to reclaim the coffin.
He is very experienced and skilled, so he uses his skills to find people who killed his brother.Now, the problem here, is that in the first, well 15-20 minutes in the film, the Bruce Lee "clone actor" is taking time from Tai Chung Kim (who plays Bobby), and credited the dead man (Bruce) instead a real actor who filled Bruce's character.
Really, check it, fighting scenes are very good, very well choreographed and filmed with such energy.
Although this is probably the best of the imitation-movies of Bruce Lee, it is still not very good.
Scenes like the lion-puppet thrown in through the window is funny, and the movie changes character towards the end in the computer game-like tower.
The Bruce Lee aspects of this movie makes no sense.
Anyway, there's some pretty good martial arts in this movie and it is recommended, actually, to Bruce Lee fans and historians, just to see how his legacy was exploited by people who wanted to make money..
Bruce Lee stock footage plus intentionally bad movie equals fun!.
The worst Bruce Lee's movie.
You know, i'm a Bruce lee fan, but this movie is cold as hell.Of course they did it after Bruce died because i really doubt the real Bruce would like to do that film been alive.It's not like the seventies movies you know, it was different, the movie was not good, the plot has not sense at all, the villains are really dumb, some good fights but nothing special in the other Bruce's films we can see better fights.So for me, well i haven't see fist of fear and fury of the dragon, but Including big boss, fist of fury,return of the dragon, enter the dragon and game of death this one is the worst.I'll give it 6/10 and only because i fell respect for Bruce Lee..
Game of Death II has the best fight scene of the century.
i first seen this unique flick in 1988 and was impressed especially with the final fight scene with bobby lo and the evil chin ku.they're rivalry transferred into kung fu action made it one of the most impressive fight scenes that i've ever seen.i've seen many kung fu flicks.all of vann damme's,chuck norris'es,and practically all of everybody else's.oh yeah,all of bruce lee's flix at least 10 times apiece.but like i was saying,of all that i've watched,this one has some extreme groundbreaking stuff.i could hardly believe my eyes when i first saw it and upon purchasing it last year i was eager to let my guests check it out for themselves.everyone else that's seen it has been equally impressed,especially with the final fight scene.the rest of the movie has it's flaws but they actually ironically contridict themselves into some genuine classic unintentional 70's style kung fu humor.(i know the flix from 1981 by the way)aside from the flaws in acting and plot,this nevertheless stands firm as at least a well done project in the action fighting sense of the term project.yeah.i guess that basically sums it up.it's a bit more of a unique project of action fighting more than it is a genuine action flick.in conclusion of my point,i give the flick a 10/10in the fighting action department,a 7/10 for it's unintentional humor,and a 3/10 for storyline,acting and plot.that would probably amount to an overall rating of a 6.5/10,i'd say.which means it just barely passes overall.but once again i emphasize,the fighting mastery is unforgettable and leaves a lasting impact on martial art's enthusiast's and practitioners alike..
This movie is not as bad as people say, the fight scenes are believable, and the music is pretty good.
this film is a psychedelic hodgepodge featuring Bruce Lee in stock footage and even showing him in his childhood and youth.
My opinions towards this film may seem very bias and one-sided, but when Bruce Lee set a new standard in the martial arts cinema, particularly after his masterpiece: Enter the Dragon, this film failed to rise to these standards.
Now, it's rather incredible that Bruce Lee was still making movies nine years after his death, and I was rather incredulous as to how a sequel to GAME OF DEATH could have been produced.
In the first film they were struggling with unbelievable doubles and inserting left-over footage from Lee's unfilmed work but just about managed to create a believable (and very popular - hence the sequel) movie.Thankfully GAME OF DEATH II dispenses with the Lee character around halfway through, and I say thankfully because the efforts to which the makers of this movie go to convince us that Bruce Lee has a starring role are incredible and in vain.
At last the use of stock footage is finally over.Enter the film's real hero, Tong Lung.
At around the hour mark he travels to the 'Tower of Death' and from then on the film just becomes constant action, one long martial arts fight after another. |
tt1692486 | Carnage | When two grade-school boys get into a fight in the park that results in one boy, Zachary Cowan, hitting the other, Ethan Longstreet, in the face with a stick, their parents meet in a Brooklyn apartment to discuss the matter. Zachary's parents, Alan (Christoph Waltz) and Nancy Cowan (Kate Winslet), visit the home of Michael (John C. Reilly) and Penelope Longstreet (Jodie Foster), Ethan's parents. Their meeting is initially intended to be short, but due to various circumstances, the conversation continues to draw out. In fact, Alan and Nancy begin to leave the apartment on two occasions, but are drawn back in to further discussion.
At first, the couples are friendly to each other, but their respective comments start to hurt feelings, making everyone argue with one another. Apart from fighting among themselves, the couples blame each other about who is responsible for the fight between their sons. Nancy calls the Longstreets "superficially fair-minded" and Penelope and Michael complain about Alan's arrogant and dull attitude. Everyone also gets irritated with Alan when he accepts endless business phone calls on his BlackBerry, interrupting the discussion, and showing he has more interest in his business problems than the matter at hand. Michael also receives many phone calls from his ailing mother, to his frustration.
Nancy accuses Michael of being a murderer because he, annoyed by the constant noise it made during the night, had earlier turned his daughter Courtney's pet hamster loose in the street. Penelope becomes emotional about the hamster and with everyone arguing with each other. Other issues include a risky drug Alan is working to defend and Michael's mother has been prescribed, and the question of idealism and responsibility that is part of Penelope's current work.
Michael offers everyone a glass of fine scotch. Penelope claims she doesn't "get drunk" and Nancy drinks way too many and finally stops Alan's phone calls by dropping his cellphone in Penelope's flower vase full of tulips and water. Penelope and Nancy both laugh uproariously while Michael and Alan try to blow-dry the BlackBerry.
The conversation continues to decay into personal attacks and opinionated statements and, eventually, epithets are uttered. Penelope is ranting, calling Nancy's son a 'snitch', and Nancy's true colors are revealed when she destroys the tulips and drunkenly and vulgarly states she is glad that her son beat up Penelope's and Michael's son. The couples realize the conversation is going nowhere. Alan's BlackBerry, lying on the coffee table, vibrates, and all four stare at it.
The film cuts to the hamster, alive and well in the park, where Ethan and Zachary are reconciling on their own. | psychological, satire | train | wikipedia | That's the reason why I was very interested in watching Carnage, his most recent film; however, even though it ended up being an interesting experience, I didn't find it very memorable, and it's definitely very far from being among Polanski's best films.Even if it hadn't been mentioned during the initial credits, the fact that Carnage is based on a play would have been obvious.
Meanwhile, Kate Winslet and Christoph Waltz are brilliant as a wealthy, but accessible and casual couple.Even though it didn't leave me completely satisfied, I can bring a moderate recommendation to Carnage as a competent film with excellent performances and an interesting story..
Roman Polanski got his hands on some of the most talented actors like Jodie Foster, Kate Winslet, Christoph Walts and John C.Reilly.
This adaptation from the Broadway play, God of Carnage, is a soberer (by a little) version of Edward Albee's Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?Penelope (Jody Foster) and Michael (John C.
Reilly) host Nancy (Kate Winslet) and Alan (Christof Waltz) in their Brooklyn apartment to iron out difficulties coming from their sons' fight, which resulted in Penelope and Michael's son's mangled mouth.
Yes, it doesn't turn out well, nor would most confrontations except that the civil veneer usually stays intact for most of us.But when writers Yasmina Reza and Polanski allow the characters to speak their minds, albeit helped by Scotch, the drama gets good and the words become socially lethal.
Reilly, Kate Winslet and Christoph Waltz main seem like an unbalanced superficial casting to some for a low-key movie such as this, but what at first is expectedly unfit and useless is later realized and understood.From the opening of the film Roman Polanski uses the same intensity of 50's-60's suspense film openings such as 'Compulsion' to distract you from what is happening behind the credits to then lead you to the purpose of the film to the then the plot.
A starting such as this lets you know that you're in for the creative dramatically playful telling of Mr. Roman Polanski.The first few lines of the movie give way to the two head strong characters of the movie who battle it out later on, but before then the movie centers on the societal dealing with a schoolyard attack on the son of a seemingly liberal couple; Penelope and Michael (played by Jodie Foster and John C.
The first half of the movie displays the tight-rope courtesy of the two couples dealing with this unfortunate situation in Penelope and Michael's New York apartment, as little by little the faults of each parent comes out but is especially looked over for the sake of good re pore, which makes for a realistic look out on the stubborn idiosyncrasies of parents in general.
As the conservative couple Nancy and Allen are nothing without their accessories and as the liberal couple Penelope and Michael just want to be heard and taken seriously.What's great technically about 'Carnage' is Roman Polanski's eye and directing as he is aware of the subtleties and exaggerations of film and why they can go hand in hand.
Reilly naturally does great playing the friendly, caring Michael who as much as he is that, he's as well careless and Christoph Waltz plays his usual cocky self who has an answer to everything, which is accurate as the fierce attorney he portrays.Also written by Roman Polanski 'Carnage' has a lot of insight biased or not about men and women and society which makes it importantly realistic and in part shows view of the accurate thoughts of Roman Polanski.
And yet, it's so much better than any of the more ambitious films he made in recent years - The Ghost Writer, Oliver Twist, The Pianist and The Ninth Gate all having their merits, but none a real classic or any kind of a surprise.Not to say that Carnage is as good as 12 Angry Men or Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf, masterpieces of minimalism and cinematic landmarks.
I never found it boring for a second - uncomfortable, yes, grating even, but never dull, I was completely drawn in by the wonderful performances of the leads - Jodie Foster, Kate Winslet, Christoph Waltz and John C.
While it's clearly a filmed play - and Polanski let the original text shine - he makes excellent use of the possibilities the film format allows, from the bombastic and melodramatic to the quiet and subtle, neither of which is possible on stage, at least not in the same way.Carnage isn't necessarily a masterpiece but it's a wonderful intellectual exercise and one of my favorite films of 2011.
The disintegration of these two pairs of parents is intrigued bit by bit with derision, insult and disdain, the initial wrangle of two flatly unfamiliar couples are reflecting everyone's customary procedure of dealing with strangers, the approach of eclipsing others in a restrained manner in order not to break a fragile bottom line "our face of respect", and once Nancy (Kate Winslet's character) has lost her face with a hilarious vomit to all the civil pretentiousness, the battle of matrimony, sex, social supremacy and civil wit is officially instigated, the carnage of verbal assaults prevails and within a compact 80 minutes, the dialogues are drolly sharp and incisive, wounds are acute without bleeding, The grand cast is beyond any accomplishment, Jodie Foster manifests her excellent curb in melodrama in many years though is a shade over-the-top during the end and Kate Winslet never mislead her devotees albeit being self-conscious in sundry scenes, Christoph Waltz fiendishly holds his introvert nature all the time while being socially authentic; arguably the weakest line, john C.
Carnage is a fantastic piece of art film where seemingly unimaginative plot of two pairs of parents hold a friendly meeting after their sons are involved in a fight, turns into a verbal brawl.
Roman Polanski's Carnage is without a shadow of a doubt the best black comedy I've seen since Bobcat Goldthwait's World's Greatest Dad. It's thin, but beyond commendable as it depicts two couples discussing the aftermath of what happened between their two children in an extravagant, beautiful Brooklyn (cough, cough Paris) condo.The victim here is Ethan (both boys only appear at the very beginning and the very end), who was hit in the mouth with a stick, removing his two front teeth by another kid his age.
At only seventy-nine minutes long and gridlocked into one standard setting, the slick writing manages to squeeze out humor, compassion, passive-aggressive behavior, and provide a social commentary on modern parenting all in one quick rapid-fire excursion.Despite all the personal attacks that come into play later in the film, neither couple seems like the villain.
The acting is all top notch with Foster playing against type as the most unlikeable character of the bunch and Waltz impressing yet again by delivering my favorite performance of the film.
The investment broker Nancy Cowan (Kate Winslet) and her husband, the lawyer Alan Cowan (Christoph Waltz) visit the aspirant writer Penelope Longstreet (Jodie Foster) and her husband, the salesman Michael Longstreet (John C.
Zachary Cowan (Elvis Polanski) hit his classmate Ethan Longstreet (Eliot Berger) on the face with a bat in a Brooklyn Park and the injured Ethan will probably miss two teeth.Nancy is a stressed woman; Alan is an annoying workaholic that is more interested in taking work calls using his new cell phone; Penelope is researching Africa and was the mentor of the meeting, based on her idealistic sense of justice; and Michael tries to accommodate the situation.
Along the discussion, they eat a cake and drink whiskey, and change their civilized behavior, revealing their real feelings about the situation in a clash of egos and war of the sexes."Carnage" is a theatrical dark comedy by Roman Polanski about the relationships of parents, sons and a hamster.
Perfect comedy for a movieholic!Where Jodie Foster's amazing acting and Christoph Waltz's witty dialogs are the center of this movie, you better watch out for Kate & Reilly!
Most of the action, as in the play, takes place in the spacious New York apartment of the Longstreets with much of the fun being the slow dissolve of the superior-minded one percent's resolve as they gradually become less civil and more savage to each other by the day's end.Yet, with all of Raza's witty remarks and ironic touches still on hand and the dialog zinging along, the film remains inert and not as entertaining as the play.
I wanted to watch Carnage because I usually like when Roman Polanski makes movies behind closed doors.
I's suggest that if you liked "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf" that you'll love "Carnage." I saw it as a play performed by very talented actors and the movie seems to follow the script exactly.
Riley), who tries to be as accommodating as possible to retain civility in any situation; Nancy Cowan (Kate Winslet), a nervous and emotionally stressed woman; and Alan Cowan (Christoph Waltz), who is married more to his work as evidenced by the attachment he has to his cell phone and taking work calls at the most inopportune times.' The one room (except for a bathroom and hallway) setting becomes more claustrophobic as the film presses on, making the childhood misbehavior of the incident between the two boys pale in comparison to the ruthless adult conflagration that results.
Time being short, the film had to step on the gas in several places.In terms of dialogue and cast, not to mention great camera work, this film is as funny as it's characters are pretentious and phony (very).Performances were great although Jodie Foster (and John Reilly) best nailed the drunkenness (though to be fair Christoph Waltz' character was running on an empty stomach) by showing that people don't have to be fitshaced to say asinine things or take stands against things they would normally defend.Penelope's (Foster) veiny neck and extended jaw reminded me of a baby Alien as she spat and wept in her aloof loneliness.
"Carnage" is the latest film from director Roman Polanski, a film with a minimalistic plot - two sets of parents decide to meet after their sons get into a fight - that relies on a sharp script and actor power in order to tell a story.
"Carnage" reminded me of the times when you only needed some talented actors and a good script in order to make a good movie, there was no need for flashy special effects or over the top action scenes.If you liked films like "Who's afraid of Virginia Woolf?" or "Glengarry Glen Ross" where the actors and the story are the ones who really matter, you might want to give "Carnage" a try as well.
The whole movie is set in one apartment and has the feel of a stage play and it is backed up by four very good performances from Jodie Foster , Kate Winslet , John C Reilly and the impressive Christoph Waltz.It all about snobbery and how parents are over protective of their children.
Based on a stage play, CARNAGE shows two sets of parents (Jodie Foster, John C.
I feel otherwise because the reverse is true--it is easier to adapt stage-plays (to movies) than screenplays (to stage) because not all cinematic effects are replicable in theater.This film is a thoroughly enjoyable adaptation of Yasmina Reza's God of Carnage.
From the director of Rosemary's Baby, Chinatown & The Pianist, Carnage is a simple, small scale & lighthearted black comedy that stacks four interesting characters inside a single location and, with the help of its sharp wit & committed cast, demonstrates the entire futility of the situation where parents try to settle their children's fight by themselves.The story of Carnage follows two pairs of parents who, following an incident involving their sons, decide to meet each other and discuss the matter in a civilized manner.
Friendly & cordial at first, their discussion soon dives into endless snarks, squabbles & disagreements and as the day progresses, the issues of their personal lives eventually make it to the surface.Co-written & directed by Roman Polanski, the film is in perpetual motion throughout its 80 minutes runtime even when it is taking a breather, for the jibes just keep coming from one end or another.
Camera is employed like a silent observer that's solely focused on the biting conversations between two parties, and Editing provides a tightly-knitted structure to its 80 minutes narrative.Coming to the performances, Carnage features an outstanding cast in Kate Winslet, Jodie Foster, Christoph Waltz & John C.
The tirade between Winslet & Foster, in particular, is a highlight to watch while the two men really try to keep their distance from the pointless argument until dragged into the mess by their respective missus.On an overall scale, Carnage is a delightful, delicious & devilish little comedy that's skilfully crafted & splendidly performed and delivers an extravaganza that's funny, smart & engaging from start to finish.
And they are only four characters: two American couples played by John C Reilly & Jodie Foster and (Austrian) Christoph Waltz and (British) Kate Winslet.
So, if you only like action movies, this is not for you.But where the film scores is with the cracking script, the fine acting and the shifting alliances: at first, the two couples trying to be co-operative in discussing a fight between their sons; then the couples taking sides in support of their respective off- spring; next each husband and wife in conflict with one another; eventually the men and women forming gender coalitions.
Based on Yasmina Reza's play God of Carnage, comes Carnage – a new film by ousted director Roman Polanski starring Jodi Foster, John C.
The film is set almost entirely in a New York apartment where parents Alan and Nancy Cowan (Waltz / Winslet) are meeting Michael and Penelope Longstreet (Reilly / Foster) to discuss a fight between their two pre-teen children which resulted in the Cowan child having two teeth knocked out after being whacked by a stick wielded by the Longstreet boy.The film opens with the two couples discussing verbiage changes to a document prepared by Penelope detailing the incident.
The parents Nancy (Kate Winslet) and Alan Cowan (Christoph Waltz) meet the overly friendly Penelope (Jodie Foster) and Michael Longstreet (John C.
Two pairs of parents, the Cowans (Christoph Waltz and Kate Winslet) and the Longstreets (John C Reilly and Jodie Foster) meet up to discuss an incident involving a tussle between their two sons.
The above line belongs to Christopher Waltz who is superb in his portrayal of the unpleasant and in many times even annoying, Alan Cowan who is visiting along with his wife, Nancy (Kate Winslet), the parents of a kid that got in a nasty fight with their 11-year old son, Zachary, which led to the serious injury of the one.
As the time passes, the arguments get more and more heated leading in a climax where all four characters of this theater play (written by Yasmina Reza), are literally screaming.This is an one room-set movie, directed by Roman Polanski, based solely in its great dialogue and the good performances by the small cast.
Jodie foster, Kate Winslet, Christoph Waltz, and John C Reilly all bring their very best effort to this movie.
There's a lot of interest in what these people get into, even if I must admit that some of the movie's attempts at humor are unsuccessful, and maybe the childishness is played up a little too much at times.But this is Roman Polanski's show, and he does well at building tension between these couples, as well as building something of a claustrophobic feeling while inside this confined apartment for the 75 minute duration.
Two pairs of parents hold a cordial meeting after their sons are involved in a fight, though as their time together progresses, increasingly childish behavior throws the evening into chaos (plot).I haven't seen the play on stage but i know this is a movie with only four characters in a room, and they talk for about one hour or 70 min in this film, first thing i ask my self "is this a boring film?", but after i watch this film i change my opinion, for example when i saw "12 angry men" they shoot the film in one room with few actors but i didn't feel boring or stop the film to do something!, this film made by an great director Mr Roman Polanski (The Pianist, Chinatown) with great cast "Foster, Winslet, Waltz and C.
¨A new comedy of no manners.¨Roman Polanski is a great director, there is no denying his trajectory (Rosemary's Baby, Chinatown, The Pianist), and his latest film, The Ghost Writer, was amongst my favorite movies of last year, but Carnage was a bit of a disappointment for me.
Perhaps I was expecting more going into this movie considering Polanski was directing it and knowing it had a spectacular cast: Jodie Foster, Kate Winslet, John C.
'Carnage' is a play filmed by none less than Roman Polanski, although one assumes he personally didn't oversee the location-setting shots in Brooklyn, New York.
Carnage is a film that should have a lot of award buzz behind it, it is based on a critically acclaimed play, directed by awards and festival darling Roman Polanski and has a great cast.
Carnage (2011) *** 1/2 (out of 4) Roman Polanski directed and co-wrote the screenplay for this black comedy about two couples (Jodie Foster-John C.
A stage bound film almost completely enacted within the confines of a Manhattan apartment, although filmed on a set in France due to Director Roman Polanski's outstanding legal issue in the States.The film employs perhaps some of the finest actors working at present and commences almost at the end of a discussion already undertaken off screen.The young son of Nancy and Alan Cowan (Kate Winslet) and (Christoph Waltz) has after school, attacked and slightly injured the son of Penelope (Jodie Foster) and Michael Longstreet (John C Reilly). |
tt1879032 | Rapture-Palooza | Lindsey Lewis and her boyfriend Ben House are left on Earth after the rapture. The souls of the worthy have been taken to Heaven while everyone else has been left behind. The people left on Earth must fend for themselves in a world now plagued by evil locusts that constantly yell "suffer!", talking crows that use profanity, brimstone, wraiths, and storms that rain blood. A politician named Earl Gundy takes control of the government and begins calling himself The Beast.
Lindsey's mother, a fervent Christian, was raptured but becomes the only person sent back after starting a fight in heaven. Her father is killed by one of the falling meteorites, and her brother Clark begins selling pot to the wraiths. Ben's father, an employee of The Beast, attempts to recruit Ben and Lindsey into working with The Beast. At first they refuse, but after their dream of opening a sandwich cart is literally crushed, they are forced to accept. On his day off, Ben's father begins to give them a "tour" around the Beast's mansion outside their hometown of Seattle. The mansion is heavily guarded by the Beastly Guards, the Beast's own private army of humans who made the deal with the Antichrist and the wraiths that serve his command. As warned by Ben's father, it is secretly loaded with land mines. The Beast, his guards, and his son Little Beast unexpectedly arrive, interrupting the tour. The Beast becomes smitten with Lindsey and pressures her to marry him and bear his evil children, giving her eight hours to decide before he will kill everyone she knows and loves.
Lindsey consults a Bible and together with Ben hatches a plan to imprison The Beast. They are warned not to kill The Beast as he will just return as Satan. Ben's father had built an escape-proof dog kennel for their pet, so they decide to use it to hold The Beast. They hatch an elaborate plan to isolate The Beast from his guards and the wraiths. They enlist Lindsey's brother and their undead zombie neighbor Mr. Murphy to assist in the plan, and Lindsey returns to The Beast's mansion to be wooed. While Lindsey's brother and his friend smoke pot with the wraiths and their neighbor engages the guards in a distraction, Lindsey attempts to spike The Beast's drink. When he fails to drink it, she is forced to lure him to the hot tub so that Ben can help her.
Outside, Lindsey begins yelling for Ben who arrives and challenges The Beast to a fight. After mocking Ben, The Beast pulls a gun and attempts to shoot him before Lindsey intervenes. The Beast knocks Ben out with a champagne bottle before being shot by Lindsey. As Ben comes back around, The Beast begins to recover. Lindsey begins shooting him again as Ben brings her more guns. Out of ammunition, they resort to bludgeoning him with a shovel before Ben decides to try and shoot him with a giant poolside laser that The Beast had installed. As Lindsey and Ben try to aim the laser they are blinded by a light coming from the sky. Ben is startled to see a man in white riding a winged horse and shoots him in panic, killing him and the horse.
Ben and Lindsey slowly realize that they've accidentally shot Jesus Christ. There is suddenly lightning from the sky, and the pair are confronted by a man in a white suit whom they realize is God. God angrily explains that Ben and Lindsey have ruined his entire plan involving the fate of all mankind by killing Jesus. Ben and Lindsey at first apologize, but God begins mocking and insulting them. The Beast revives as Satan and sneaks up on God, waylaying him with a shovel and starting a fistfight between the two. The fight spills over into the hot tub, where Satan deliberately drops a boombox in the water and electrocutes them both.
The Beast's guards drive up and see the two bodies. Ben's dad arrives and the men begin arguing over who will take The Beast's place as ruler of the world. Lindsey interrupts to point out with God and Satan dead, everyone is now in charge of themselves. Lindsey and Ben kiss as the men decide what to do now that they are free.
Ben and Lindsey finally open their own sandwich shop (which turns into a thriving lunch destination) and Lindsey is shown visibly pregnant with their child. Little Beast is now happily working with them. Lindsey's mother has made friends with some of the wraiths that are still around and is shown smoking pot with them. Ben's father moves into the mansion and throws a huge party with many other people including Morgan, the Beast's former right-hand man and leader of the now-disbanded Beastly Guards, as they celebrate their freedom with barbeque and salsa loaded with PCP. | good versus evil, satire, murder, adult comedy | train | wikipedia | I have to say that I thought this was very funny and I laughed throughout the whole movie, but it is my kind of humor.
Mainly a lot of random things happening and some really stupid jokes that make me laugh like a man getting killed by a huge flaming rock and the wife mad because he was holding the eggs when he died.
Overall, a stupid movie that I thought was very funny and I laughed a lot.
It does seem sky-breakingly original in a Hollywood controlled market that seems to fear openly satirizing Christian/Jewish/Muslim beliefs beyond the people who don't question them in any way or use them to get power and wealth.The actors clearly have a lot of fun with this and get into their parts without any fear of becoming toys of the antichrist or Satan.
Lindsey (Anna Kendrick) and her boyfriend Ben ( John Francis Daley) are non- believers so they remain on earth.
never mind the god awful "Peeples", which was a failure more due to a horrific, unfunny script than Robinsons performance, Rapturepalooza is the movie that allows Robinsons irreverent, thoroughly raunchy comedic style to truly shine.
Craig Robinson is about the only thing in this film worth seeing IMO, as I have yet to see one of his performances that he is not fully committed to, and just plain funny.Funny.That's what I expected in this film, however, it fails to deliver.With a premise like the "rapture", there is all kinds of room for some serious comedy, but this film wastes that opportunity, and instead seems to make the actors take the irritating / idiotic approach to their roles, and in the delivery of their supposedly "funny" lines.The actors deliver their lines, and react to events in the film, in a way that can only be described as "corny", ridiculous, and just plain irritating.
Instead of sympathizing with the characters, I found myself hoping they would be "removed" so as to save me from having to watch them any further on the screen.The ONLY actor that seems to know how to deliver a comedic line is Craig Robinson, but he is simply overwhelmed by the inferior comedic performances of the rest of the cast.
The latest Rapture Palooza brings together a great cast including Anna Kendrick, John Francis Daley, Ken Jeong, Thomas Lennon, Rob Corddry, Craig Robinson, and Tyler Labine to tackle the biblical end of the world, but does it have the story and execution to keep it all together or will it feel like the end of the world trying to get through it?
This movie had everything it needed to work and does entertain for the most part, but somewhere along the way things get a bit cluttered.
The first half of the movie is pretty entertaining and fast paced setting up this world, but as it moves forward it goes from clever to almost stupid.
Anna Kendrick does a great job with her character keeping the goofiness to a minimum while seemingly taking this world seriously.
The rest of the cast are hit and miss with a lot of their one-liners somewhat out of place, but a decent amount of them work as well.This is one of those films that will probably only entertain a select group which is most likely the only people that will check it out anyway.
With the exception of Anna Kendrick, the cast is peopled with comedic actors of "There's-That-Guy-From- That-Thing"-level renown which is about the right level for the material.
Although some of the proceedings are decidedly not funny including John Michael Higgins being crushed by a falling meteorite as the family looks on, drug- addicts pestering survivors for a hit as they leave their house and the deity of about a billion true-believers being burned to death with a laser as he rides a unicorn.
Rob Coddry, Ken Jeong, John Francis Daly and others in the cast could have rotated around their interchangeable characters during the filming with little loss of coherence.
ending, Kendrick inc increasingly comes to dominate the screen-time and brings an earnestness that keeps the movie at least watchable if not entertaining.
Just like the predicted Rapture of 2012 (as prophesied by Ronald Weinland of the apocalypticist COG-PKG), end of the world comedy Rapture Palooza proves to be something of a non-event.Despite a potentially very funny premise, and a promising start (the slo-mo credits sequence is surprisingly stylish), the film is extremely hit and miss, with the majority of gags being misses.
Much of the humour relies on smut and profanity, which I have no problem with, but when I fail to find a vagina joke funny, we definitely have a problem!To make matters worse, the whole production has an air of cheapness about it, particularly the special effects scenes which look like someone knocked them out quickly in After Effects on their iMac (I suspect this may not be far from the truth).Overall, this is very much like that other terrible rapture themed comedy of 2013, This Is The End, only none of its stars are anywhere near as obnoxious as Seth Rogen.3/10, plus an extra point for getting Anna Kendrick into that white dress (which distracted me slightly from the dire comedy)..
It pairs Anna Kendrick and John Francis Daley as a couple left behind after the Rapture occurs on Earth, literally summoning all of the good religious people and devout Christians into the sky, while leaving non-believers stranded on a less-populated Earth.
In the time of destruction and mass-hysteria, the only way to get out of this predicament is to defeat the new world leader, the Anti-Christ, played by Craig Robinson.
So, the two try to stage something of a date between Kendrick's Lindsey and Robinson's Anti-Christ in order to hopefully try and make a better tomorrow by riding the world of the evil dictator he has grown to become.This is the satirical premise of the year, surely equipping itself with enough fuel to pilot hilarity on religion, science, phenomenons, logic, and biblical characters.
More like a raised eyebrow and look of bewilderment before the next set piece or sight-gagged commenced.But take out all the vulgarity and look at Rapture-Palooza as a lighter, more flexible R-rated comedy and this isn't such a bad movie.
Now replace all the vulgarity and senseless four-letter words and you have an indie-comedy that's just about on the same level as The Hangover: Part III and Identity Thief as a humorless, plastic diversion in the field of comedy.Rapture-Palooza's title even comes from the realm of desperately uncreative movie titles, and falsely indicates a sense of fun and excitement.
This isn't just one of the worst films of the year; it's also one of the saddest.Starring: Anna Kendrick, John Francis Daley, Craig Robinson, Rob Corrdry, and Ken Jeong.
Long time IMDb user, have created an account just to rate this with a scarcely deserved 1 little, shineless star and to let everybody know how bad this movie is.
The performances were excellent; I actually only watched the movie for Anna Kendrick, and she definitely didn't disappoint.
The whole film was just funny, it pretty much just took the mickey out of Christianity and it did it proudly.Would definitely recommend for anyone who doesn't take things too seriously and knows how to have a laugh..
From foul mouth crows telling you to go **** yourself to grasshoppers biting you and yelling suffer to Anna Kendrick telling God **** you, this movie has all of the dumb comedy that makes it so special.
'RAPTURE-PALOOZA': Three and a Half Stars (Out of Five) The second religious apocalypse film, in the same summer, co-starring Craig Robinson (after 'THIS IS THE END')!
Robinson plays the 'Anti-Christ' in this movie and Anna Kendrick and John Francis Daley play the film's central two survivors.
The film also co-stars Rob Corddry, Ron Huebel, John Michael Higgins, Ana Gasteyer, Thomas Lennon, Paul Scheer, Tyler Labine and Ken Jeong as God. It was written by Chris Matheson (who co-wrote both 'BILL & TED' movies) and directed by Paul Middleditch (who's previous directing experience is only in serious dramas).
That and the fact that it wasn't that funny; the premise was great but for the first 15 minutes or so I wasn't digging the jokes or the movie.
I don't know if it's Matheson's script that wasn't working before that but the movie got a lot funnier once all these great comedic actors entered it.
The directing was pretty weak as well but watching all these comedic pros chewing up the scenery and working the crap out of that crazy premise just made the movie so much better.
It's definitely hit-and-miss but when it does work it's hilarious!Watch our movie review show 'MOVIE TALK' at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jJalgBjCCrg. The rapture is coming, be prepared to laugh.
Where God has left a lot of people behind: namely, Lindsey (Anna Kendrick), her boyfriend Ben (John Francis Daley), and her family.
That's a common complaint about this movie, but when you have so many random things to make fun of, how is it not going to appear random?The plot introduces Craig Robinson as the Beast, aka the Antichrist, aka the devil.
The film pits our everyman heroes, Lindsey and Ben, versus the Beast and they're either going to save the world (what's left of it) or destroy it in the process.In the long line of end of the world movies, this one is closer to "This Is the End" (2013) at least in terms of the humour, but religious ideas have probably never been as relentlessly attacked as they are in this film.
If the movie just stopped there, it would already be a comic hit, but the jokes come dangerously non-stop with the evil Earl at the helm of the Rapture's aftermath.
The rapture finally happen but Anna Kendrick, her boyfriend and her family didn't get sent to heaven.
The Beast A.K.A the Antichrist played by Craig Robinson wants to marry and basically sleep with Anna Kendrick.
He gave her a choice to marry him or kill everyone she knows so she and her boyfriend came up with a plan.A decent satire about the rapture with sarcastic humor by Anna Kendrick and Craig Robinson raunchy humor.
A good cast and cameos, it could of been better but the movie did have moments especially with Craig Robinson and Anna Kendrick together.
There are a couple of uncomfortable moments in the movie that are awkward and unnecessary but thankfully they are few and far between.Overall Rapture-Palooza was a pretty good movie and was much better than I expected..
The one thing that I didn't like most is the fact that Ken Jeong is an above title character on many sites even though he is only in the movie for a couple of minutes....
Lindsey Lewis (Anna Kendrick) and her boyfriend Ben House (John Francis Daley) are left behind.
So, when the faithful are lifted into the heavens, the "meh about Jesus" crowd are left on Earth to deal with those truly sinful as well as the droves of wraiths (zombie-like drones), foul-mouthed locusts, falling meteors, evil henchmen, as well as their master, the lord of the underworld himself, Craig, or "the beast" as he prefers to be called, personified by Craig Robinson (who is also in 'This is The End,' just not as Satan).
The story focuses on Lindsey Lewis, Anna Kendrick, and Ben House, John Francis Daley, a young couple left behind who decide to use this opportunity to finally start their own business.
"Rapture-Palooza" wasn't as funny as I hoped it would have been but it has its moments...even if most those moments are shown in the trailer.There's a lot of performers I really enjoy in this movie.
Comedic actors like Thomas Lennon, Rob Corddry, John Michael Higgins, Rob Huebel, Paul Scheer, Craig Robinson, etc.
However, the script didn't feel as developed as it should have been and there's only so much these people can do to make it work.Craig Robinson jumped back and forth from being entertaining and annoying as the The Anti-Christ.
Anna Kendrick and John Francis Daley are decent as the couple out to stop The Anti-Christ but they didn't really feel like they were attempting to shine or lead the film in any way.
They were directed beyond any pale of restraint to yell their expletive-laced lines and, 1) view scenery, 2) chew thoroughly.The few mildly funny elements - crows cawing expletive-filled torments at those left on Earth after the Rapture and the nasty, pot smoking wraiths - are not lifesaver enough to save this excrement from a trip to the sewer.The story is simple enough: Rapture; Kendricks and boyfriend are left behind; the biblical plagues and the Anti-Christ follow; Anti falls in love with Kendricks and picks her to bear his children; boyfriend leads assault to get her back; poolside battle between God and Satan.
Simply meant to upstage "This Is The End," (also featuring Robinson) there should not be any expectation of entertainment value or a laugh to be milked from viewing the nasty and mean-spirited "Rapture-Palooza." The failure is not in the concept, it's in an unfunny script solely using consistently gross humor as the grease to move a poorly directed tale.
The movie Rapture-Palooza will probably most appeal to those between the ages of 9 and 25 and for those who may not be Christians.
All God-fearing men and women are sucked into Heaven and the rest of us are stuck on Earth - tormented by annoying locusts, torrents of blood raining from the sky, burning rocks that hail down from the sky, and then there is The Beast; Mr. Antichrist himself (played by Craig Robinson).
Lindsey (played by Anna Kendrick) and her boyfriend Ben (played by John Francis Daley) finds themselves having to confront The Beast in order to thwart his wicked plans.Now, I am not a Christian, but I found the things that took place in this movie hilarious and tremendously enjoyable.
And I was laughing a lot through most of this movie - this was just simply brilliant comedy.
And the scene where Jesus descended from the Heaven upon the winged horse, that just had me laughing myself to tears.The people hired for the roles in this movie were doing great jobs.
I enjoyed seeing Craig Robinson playing the role of The Beast/the Antichrist, and also the hilarious appearance of Ken Jeong as God. But aside from them, then the cast list was really impressive and had a good amount of talents to it.I found it surprising that this movie would make it out of Hollywood, given the seriousness of religion in the USA.
And if you are easily offended by such jabs at your faith in God or your religion, then quite simply don't watch this movie."Rapture-Palooza" gets a 7 out of 10 stars rating from me, because it was hilarious, well acted, had good special effects, and most importantly, had a wonderful comical approach to religion..
This leaves the non-believers stuck living through the plagues before we meet the Beast the Anti-Christ himself, taking over the world making everyone do what he wants.
The couple have to come up with a plan to stop The Beast's plan.What tries too hard to be funny ends up being a pretty plain story that offers nothing original and most of the time it just ends up being awkward comedy.
(3/10)Actor ReviewCraig Robinson: The Beast the Anti-Christ who takes over the world after the rapture.
(5/10)John Francis Daley: Ben House boyfriend of Lindsey who along with her takes a very laidback comical look at the apocalypse.
In the end they all just take up screen time the leads needed to evolve their characters.Director Review: Paul Middleditch – Fails to create any laughs in this comedy along with a dull story and poorly created characters.
Too little of the heaven and hell and why the rapture happened.The anti Christ was played so badly that I was embarrassed.
But when The Beast decides he wants to take Lindsey as his wife, Lindsey and Ben come up with a plan to defeat the Anti-Christ....If there ever was an example of a missed opportunity of a high concept movie, then this is the baby.
This story centers around Lindsey (Anna Kendrick) who has caught the eye of the portly foul-mouthed Anti-Christ (Craig Robinson) who prefers to be called "The Beast." Her complaining mother has returned from heaven, having been kicked out of the rapture.The idea was clever, especially how man learns to calmly deal with the various plagues thrown his way.
Those left behind have a lot to deal with: wraiths, molten rocks from the sky, blood rain, locusts who talk, crows that verbally abuse everyone, and the like.Worst of all is that a one-time politician, Earl Gundy, becomes the anti-Christ.
------Scores------Cinematography: 10/10 Just fine.Sound: 8/10 The actors are well-miked, but the music could have been better.Acting: 7/10 Craig Robinson, Anna Kendrick, and John Francis Daley (Bones) were the best.
very funny movie with great acting by craig and anna.
ken jeong irritated me to no end and john francis looked like he had boobs throughout the movie.
Just some good, irreverent fun.Even the irreverence isn't overwhelming - but be warned that if you consider yourself a fundamentalist Christian or otherwise believe in the reality of The Rapture - you will almost certainly be offended.I enjoyed Anna Kendrick's mostly deadpan acting.
The Rapture happens while Lindsey (Anna Kendrick) and Ben (John Francis Daley) happen to be out bowling.
There are some great funny moments and the film does entertain, just not as much as it could have given a little more polish to the script.
There are some great funny moments and the film does entertain, just not as much as it could have given a little more polish to the script.
The ending is as predictable as one would come, but in a way the film gets out of hand within the last act..
Anna Kendrick and John Francis Daley were very good together.
Anna Kendrick, looking as stunning as she can be, fights the Antichrist, played by Craig Robinson, who apparently was the mayor of Idaho and poisoned everyone in the White House when the ishh hit the fan.Marry me, Lindsey. |
tt0067594 | Point of Terror | Lounge singer Tony Trelos is approached by a woman on a beach one afternoon. Her name is named Andrea Hilliard, and she is a wealthy woman whose crippled husband Martin owns a record label. That night, Andrea goes to watch Tony perform at his regular oceanside California club. She offers to cut him a record deal. Tony begins a sexual relationship with her, and begins ignoring Sally, a former flame of his. Unbeknownst to Tony, Andrea murdered Martin's former wife in their home after having begun an affair with him nine years before.
One evening, Martin confronts Andrea, saying he witnessed her having sex with Tony in their swimming pool earlier that night. In a tussle, Andrea pushes Martin into the pool, and watches him drown. After his death, Martin's daughter, Helayne, arrives from Europe where she has been attending college. After the funeral, Tony is told by Andrea's alcoholic friend, Fran, that Martin's ex-wife was murdered by an unknown intruder, and that Helayne was sent to boarding schools throughout Europe after Andrea and Martin→ married.
Tony seduces Helayne, which drives Andrea mad. One evening, on a cliff near Andrea's home, the two get into an argument, and she attempts to kill him, but Tony throws her over the edge to the rocks below, killing her. Helayne witnesses the event, and the two embrace. Upon returning to the house, Tony is confronted by Sally, who shoots him to death. He then awakens on the beach, where Andrea approaches him; all that has occurred has been a premonition. | murder | train | wikipedia | The film is, rather, a sexploitation melodrama about a ruthless, ladder-climbing lounge singer, Tony Trelos (Peter Carpenter) who gets involved both intimately and professionally with Andrea (Dyanne Thorne), the sex-starved, alcoholic wife of a wheelchair-bound music industry mogul.
Tempestuous blonde bombshell co-star Dyanne Thorne is a force to be reckoned with (and how!) with a rack that won't quit, and her buoyant topless scene in a swimming pool is one of the film's highlights (along with her many excursions into overacting).
The film's cinematography is often laughably blurry when "focusing" on Carpenter during his lounge act at The Lobster House (yes, The Lobster House, I kid you not), or else it's bizarrely "creative" (as happens during a moonlit, beach-side sex scene involving select points of view shown in split-screen).
But if you're like me, and get sick chuckles out of films that tried really hard but totally missed the mark, then rent this one immediately or buy it (Rhino DVD released POINT OF TERROR as part of a multi-film set titled HORRIBLE HORRORS in October of 2004).
This one gets a whopping 8 out of 10 just because its so terribly awful that it's engagingly entertaining in repeat viewings (and how cool is that!?!) -- how often does a "bad" film come along that still yields new stuff to ridicule on repeat viewings?
BLOOD MANIA and this one, POINT OF TERROR (I haven't seen "LOVE ME LIKE I DO" but with such a great title, I'm dying to see it).
Carpenter stars as a lounge singer who sounds/looks like Tom Jones.
Basically, people using people because of money and greed kinda of story.With better production values than BLOOD MANIA, POINT OF TERROR sometimes looks/sounds like a Russ Meyer film, without the extreme excess that's usually found in Russ Meyer's films.
It's Russ Meyer-lite.I love everything in POINT OF TERROR: the music (did Carpenter really sing those songs?), the fashion, the sudden sporadic bursts of violence, the focus on sex, sex, sex.
Though not as memorably over-the-top as BEYOND THE VALLEY OF THE DOLLS, POINT OF TERROR is, IMO, much more entertaining than the over-baked BTVOTD.Favorite scenes: the opening credits, with Carpenter singing/dancing in a red fringe get-up.
The main reason Weldon (and other fan boys) dislikes POT and BLOOD MANIA is probably because the focus is mainly on hunky Peter Carpenter (both films were produced by Carpenter himself...ah, narcissism).
Not another tired, early 70s slasher film by any means, this riot is about a sleazy side-burned lounge singer (Peter Carpenter) picked up by a sleazier female record promoter (Dyanne Thorne) who sees something special in the guy.
Like its earlier companion feature "Blood Mania," 1971's "Point of Terror" was plainly a vanity piece for writer-producer-star Peter Carpenter, a Vegas hoofer whose death remains shrouded in mystery to this day, dates as varied as late 1970, late '71, even the late 70s-early 80s (this last posted by actress Leslie Simms).
Imagine a singer so bad he has nightmares on the beach about his singing, and his apartment looks like his decorator was 'Bela Lugosi!' Another surprising name prominently featured in the opening credits is future Oscar winning editor Verna Fields, who earned her Academy Award for her work on Spielberg's "Jaws" just a few years later.
Leslie Simms fondly recalls her working with Peter Carpenter, who may have been a likable fellow off camera, but insisted on playing lowdown sleazeballs in his own films.
Dyanne Thorne (whom I first saw in STAR TREK's "A Piece of the Action") had already appeared with Carpenter in 1970's "Love Me Like I Do," here playing the man hungry wife of wheelchair bound record mogul Joel Marston, best remembered by genre buffs for 1957's "The Disembodied," plus his film debut in the 1949 Charlie Chan finale "The Sky Dragon" ("Blood Mania" had featured Jacqueline Dalya, from 1941's "Charlie Chan in Rio").
For all the wildly misleading ads depicting this as a horror film, the only scene that qualifies is Dyanne's bloody murder of Marston's first wife, just a brief flashback.
"Point of Terror," being part of Crown International's television package, debuted on Pittsburgh's Chiller Theater on Feb 26 1977, paired with second feature "House of Horrors" (1946), broadcast twice more over the next 4 years ("Blood Mania" earlier debuted on Nov 27 1976, paired with 1972's "Gargoyles")..
Vanity project for B-movie actor Peter Carpenter, who co-produced and co-authored the original story for this, his final starring feature before his death.
A horrendous musical intro kicks off the film as the opening credits roll, with the lead character Tony Trelos aping about on stage in a blazing, red suede suit with waterfall fringe.
It's the EastWestDVD edition that pairs it with James Earl Jones' Blood Tide.After reading the other reviews here, I feel the need to warn people away from dollar store versions of this film because the nudity has been completely edited out and this movie has nothing else going for it.To give an example of just how shoddy a product the EastWestDVD print is, there's a section that's five or more minutes long that repeats in its entirety.I don't know what annoys me more, that the print was mutilated, or that I'm going to have to track down a uncut version and suffer through it again.
Point of Terror (1971) BOMB (out of 4) I need to admit that I have no idea what this film was about or what it was trying to say but here's the so-called plot.
Tony (Peter Carpenter) is a nightclub singer at the Lobster Lounge where he's hoping to catch a break but most of the time he ends up in the beds of older women.
Soon, one of these older woman (Dyanne Thorne of Ilsa fame) offers him a record contract.
Tony, thinking he's going to get popular, starts acting like a star, which upsets the older woman.Make any sense?
I really don't know what the horror elements are doing in this film because it's mostly about Tony and his record contract.
I kept watching this movie and expecting it to turn into a horror film but it remained a record contract film with a few doses of mystery, which were just downright boring and hard to follow as well.The director at least knew to make the women get naked and yes boys, that includes Ilsa herself.
Tony's involvement and exploits with her are more dangerous than he's aware of, however, as she's guilty of a murder, and capable of another.The second piece of celluloid sleaze that Peter Carpenter wrote and starred in after the atmospheric (and underrated) "Blood Mania," "Point of Terror" is a significantly less thrilling picture—far more talky and significantly less moody.
It also seems to be cribbing elements of "Blood Mania" in a lot of ways, as it follows borderline identical plot arcs that have been minutely tweaked: Man becomes involved with wealthy woman.
The film is peppered with some of the most ridiculously "seventies" musical numbers you'll ever see, and also boasts a significant amount of skin from a buxom Dyanne Thorne and the hunky Carpenter.
There is a nice doubled-over twist at the end of the film that is clever but rather cheap, and the general impression I got after it was over was that Carpenter seemed to have wanted to do-over "Blood Mania," but this time invoke as much of Jess Franco's "Succubus" as he could.All in all, "Point of Terror" is a middling thriller that, while mildly amusing, is more or less a rehash of Carpenter's prior (and better) film.
It's a so-bad-it's-good piece of entertainment for sure, and not even a horror film really despite the title and plotting; a guy has weird dreams, but the on-screen horror element is kept to a bare minimum.Instead this feels more like a softcore thriller, with a bizarre lead role for Peter Carpenter, who seems to be channelling the spirit of Tom Jones (or he wishes to, at least) for the most part.
Carpenter plays a nightclub singer (the musical scenes are excruciating) who hooks up with a femme fatale, played by the frequently topless Dyanne Thorne.
Thorne, of course, is notorious for her role as ILSA, SHE-WOLF OF THE SS, and she proves to be a statuesque and arresting presence in every scene here.POINT OF TERROR has much in common with the psycho-thriller genre that flourished in the wake of Hitchcock's PSYCHO.
It made for a fun and funny opening scene.The rest of the film isn't all that bad, it's watchable, but it's not a good horror film.
If you want a laugh then you might like 'Point of Terror'.4/10.
Point of Terror has the funniest opening credits I've seen in a long while, with its writer and 'star' Peter Carpenter singing a god-awful song while gyrating crazily in a red, mega-tassled jacket and circulation-restricting trousers.
It's truly cringe-worthy stuff, boding well for fans of trash cinema, for whom horribly dated fashion, awful music and crap dancing is all part of the fun.As success-hungry lounge singer Tony Trelos, Carpenter doesn't disappoint, regaling the viewer with further diabolical warbling throughout while squeezing into more ridiculously tight fashion disasters.
Tony's unmistakable sense of style and rugged manliness doesn't go unnoticed by the ladies, with big-breasted queen-bitch Andrea Hilliard (Dyanne Thorne)—wife of wheelchair-bound music mogul Martin (Joel Marston)—soon digging her claws in, promising Tony fame in exchange for sex.Their special arrangement soon begins to go awry, however, with Andrea dragging her heels in getting Tony his record contract and Martin becoming suspicious of his wife's unorthodox business arrangements.
An unfortunate pool-side 'accident' puts paid to Martin's jealousy, but when Andrea's sexy step-daughter Helayne (Lory Hansen) shows up at her father's funeral, catching Tony's roving eye, and the singer's ex-girlfriend announces that she is pregnant, the stage is set for further acts of lustful violence.Deceit, death, money, greed and sex: Point of Terror features all the expected ingredients of a regular murder/mystery potboiler, but distinguishes itself with a glorious excess of trashiness; not only do we the get all the gaudy early-70s trappings, with strong primary colours and some groovy split screen editing accentuating the tastelessness, but there's gratuitous nudity (narcissist Carpenter taking any opportunity to bare his ass and Thorne, the one and only She Wolf of the SS, flaunting her impressive assets), alcohol and drug abuse, sexual harassment in the workplace, and random violence, including a frenzied knife attack and a high-dive onto some rocks.
"Point of Terror" is unendurably boring trash with a completely uninteresting plot (about a lousy pop-singer trying to screw together a record contract), bleak characters, absolutely no tension and the most redundant and overlong flashback sequence in the history of horror cinema!
The story becomes even more inept halfway through the film, with the introduction of totally new characters but, if you're smart enough, you'll never reach this point (...of terror).
The Lobster House is decorated with tinfoil, Tony Trelos looks like a disturbing mixture of Tony Curtis and musician Herb Albert, and a lot of screen time is used showing him with his shirt off.
Intercut with his song and dance is what appears to be a woman's death (we'll see the actual scene towards the end of the movie).
He meets a woman who's a record producer's wife.Though this is in a box set called "Horrible Horrors," it's barely a horror movie.
Essentially, this is more the story of a small-time lounge singer who's willing to do anything to rise to the top.The last scene of the movie involves someone waking up screaming.
I knew what this film was going to be like right from the beginning when Pete Carpenter, the male lead, dances in the foreground of a ridiculous bright red background ala a poor man's Tom Jones in red attire from head to toe.
Things then move to Carpenter, perhaps having one of the biggest self-inflated egos I have seen in any film, play with a girl who loves him but can not offer him any career advancement.
Carpenter then lies on a beach, finds an older but beautiful woman(the lovely, buxom Dyanne Thorne), realizes she happens to be married to the man in charge of a recording company that could give him his big break, and you can imagine where things go from there.
Despite all of this film's problems - and they are legion, Point of Terror is easily very watchable, laughable, and fun in a so bad its good way.
Terror surely was misused in the title as there is virtually no horror at all in this film - a couple of rather tame deaths, though one is with a man in a wheelchair being goaded like a bull with "Ole" into a pool.
The inimitable Dyanne Thorne is in it, and that fact alone makes it worthy of investigation.A tacky Tony Bennett-style lounge singer abandons his pregnant girlfriend when he becomes intimately involved with the bitchy, high-strung wife(and soon-to-be widow) of a bigshot record industry mogul.
Lounge singer Tony Trelos (Peter Carpenter) thinks he has hit the big time when he hooks up with Andrea (Dyanne Thorne), wife and talent scout for wheelchair bound music producer Martin.
Throw in her bizarre past (Martin's wife was murdered mysteriously & his daughter hates Andrea) and it looks like Andrea is one tough femme fatale.Pushed as a horror flick (check out the poster), this is actually a pretty bland thriller-sexploitation melodrama.
The film's only fantasy type element is that Trelos wakes up at the end and discovers it was all a dream...right before meeting Andrea for the first time.
Lead Carpenter sure seems to like himself as he produced and co-wrote the screenplay in which he sings and shows of his muscles a lot.
I am not sure what the point was, and I am not too sure about the terror except for maybe that one scene.Tony Trelos (Peter Carpenter) is a "Tom Jones" style singer at The Lobster House.
This masterpiece of sexploitation opens with nightclub singer Tony Trelos (Peter Carpenter) in a fringed red suit, lip-synching to a bombastic pop song that makes Tom Jones seem understated.
He becomes involved, both professionally and sexually, with Andrea (Dyanne Thorne), the buxom wife of Martin (Joel Marston), the wheelchair- bound owner of a major record label.
Andrea is both alcoholic and sex-starved, of which Tony takes full advantage in the hope that it will advance his singing career.Peter Carpenter, who co-produced, must have had a whale-sized ego.
One seems to feature the lyric, "Life beans turning into lima beans." (I probably heard it wrong.) Incredibly, the music was produced by veteran songwriter Hal Davis, and a closing credit states that the recordings were "Courtesy of Motown Records." Were Marvin Gaye, the Jackson 5, and Stevie Wonder not bringing in enough cash to satisfy Berry Gordy, Jr?Some of my favorite parts of POINT OF TERROR: a sex scene on the beach using split screens to show the fornicators at different angles (I counted six); Andrea topless in a swimming pool--with a rack so big, it's amazing she got her head under the water; Andrea's husband Martin, who can't seem to keep still, even though he's crippled from the waist down; when Martin becomes so angry that he tries to beat the crap out of Andrea from his wheelchair (it doesn't go well); when Tony goes home with Andrea's drunken pal Fran (Leslie Simms); when Tony goes horseback riding with Andrea's stepdaughter Helayne (Lory Hansen) and gives her a horsey-ride of his own; Tony also knocks up his main girlfriend Sally (Paula Mitchell), but dismisses the pregnancy as her problem.
I like POINT OF TERROR better though, if for no other reason, that there's no male character who shows himself as having female breasts and changes his name to "Superwoman." (I wish I had made that up, but no.).
Screaming and waking up from a nightmare (of his own terrible, terrible nightclub act) on a secluded beach he meets evil- looking and decadent Andrea (Dyanne Thorne) who's wearing a tasteless bikini.
Screaming and waking up from a nightmare (of his own terrible, terrible nightclub act) on a secluded beach he meets evil- looking and decadent Andrea (Dyanne Thorne) who's wearing a tasteless bikini.
Tony screams and wakes up at the beach (it was all a bad dream), Andrea comes up to him, and highlights from the movie follows, only to be topped by Tony waking up and screaming once more!!!
Tony screams and wakes up at the beach (it was all a bad dream), Andrea comes up to him, and highlights from the movie follows, only to be topped by Tony waking up and screaming once more!!!
The Lobster House is decorated with tinfoil, Tony Trelos looks like a disturbing mixture of Tony Curtis and musician Herb Alpert, and a lot of screen time is used showing him with his shirt off.
I think time has erased any and all good will that the filmmakers had, which considering how dull boring and jaw droppingly awful this film can be wasn't much to begin with.
Smarmy and ruthlessly ambitious, but handsome and sexy lounge singer Tony Trelos (a perfectly slimy portrayal by hunky beefcake Peter Carpenter) works at a local nightclub in order to keep himself afloat.
Still that does not mean it's a good movie in fact it's god awful, with laughable acting,and an amusing, but confusing ending.
Peter Carpenter gives a lousy but amusing performance here, he has charisma, and was likable, but his performance is terrible, and the script does not help matters much,still i liked him, he had a lot of charisma.
Dyanne Thorne, is extremely laughable, she's decent looking, but her performance is god awful, and she cracked me up in a lot of scenes.
Lory Hansen, is also decent looking, but her performance is rather terrible as well, and she had no chemistry with Peter Carpenter. |
tt0210740 | I Zombie: The Chronicles of Pain | The film opens in mockumentary style with a woman, Sarah, talking about her boyfriend Mark in the past tense.
Mark skips Sarah's event for his research field trip, and she is very displeased with his decision. Mark travels out to the woods to collect moss samples when he stumbles across a rusty decaying station wagon. Intrigued, he continues down the path and eventually finds an abandoned farmhouse. He enters the house, explores the rooms, and stumbles across an injured man propped up against a wall. When he hears a woman scream, he rushes to her aid and finds her having a seizure on a dirty mattress. He brushes her hair out of her face to comfort her and sees that she has the same sort of scars and deformities that the man had. He picks her up and carries her outside, and she bites his neck. He promptly drops her and runs away, eventually collapsing in a nearby field.
Back at home, Sarah calls an investigator to report Mark missing for three weeks. Mark wakes up, thinks to himself about how he doesn't know how long he's been unconscious, and admits to killing his first victim, a camper in the woods. He recalls how he had no control of the situation. He decides he has to hide and rents a new apartment. He looks at his bite wound in a mirror and notices it is beginning to look worse. He collapses, suffers a minor seizure, and reports it in his digital log, along with how he has not eaten in six days and has to find another victim.
As his condition worsens, he begins to accept and study it, keeping everything recorded in logbooks or his digital recorder. He still appears normal and continues to live and function in society, although his bite wound will not heal and the surrounding tissue is starting to decay. He picks up a hitchhiker, knocks him out with chloroform, and eats most of the man's chest. He then burns the man's body and possessions.
Meanwhile, Sarah begins seeing another man named David. Late one night after a date, someone rings her doorbell, but she sees no one. Mark attacks her with chloroform and brings her back inside her apartment to look at her one last time. Mark continues on his hunting spree as his appearance slowly becomes more ghastly and his behavior more erratic. He begins losing a lot of weight and becomes weaker. His leg breaks during the disposal of a victim's body, and he is forced to attach a metal rod to support his ankle. Mark also begins to lose his grip on reality and suffers from hallucinations. His decomposition becomes so severe that he can no longer bear to look at himself, so he overdoses with a bottle of chloroform. | violence | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0107756 | Orlando | The film begins in the Elizabethan era shortly before the death of Queen Elizabeth I. On her deathbed, Elizabeth promises an androgynous young nobleman named Orlando a large tract of land and a castle built on it along with a generous monetary gift which she will only bequeath to him if he consents to her command, "Do not fade. Do not wither. Do not grow old." Both he and his heirs will keep the land and inheritance forever. Orlando acquiesces and resides in splendid isolation in the castle for a couple of centuries, during which time he dabbles in poetry and art. His attempts to befriend a celebrated poet, however, backfire when the poet ridicules his verse. Orlando then travels to Constantinople as English ambassador to the Turks, where he is almost killed in a diplomatic fracas. Waking up the next morning, he learns something even more startling: he has physically transformed into a woman overnight.
The now Lady Orlando comes home to her estate in Middle Eastern clothing, only to learn that she faces several impending lawsuits arguing that Orlando was a woman to begin with and therefore has no right to the land or any of her/his royal inheritance.
The succeeding two centuries tire her out; the court case, bad luck in love and the wars of British history eventually bring her up to the 1990s, with a young daughter in tow and a book in search of a publisher. The editor who judges the work as "quite good" is, ironically, portrayed by Heathcote Williams – the same actor who denigrated her poetry as a different character 200 years earlier. Having lived a most bizarre existence, Orlando finally finds a tranquil niche within it.
=== Differences from novel ===
Director Sally Potter said: "My task with the adaptation of Virginia Woolf's book for the screen was to find a way of remaining true to the spirit of the book and to Virginia Woolf's intentions, whilst being ruthless with changing the book in any way necessary to make it work cinematically. [...] The most immediate changes were structural. The storyline was simplified – any events which did not significantly further Orlando's story were dropped."
The film contains two anachronisms not in the novel. On arrival in Constantinople c1700 England is referred to as a "green and pleasant land", a quote from William Blake's "Jerusalem", written post 1800. And Orlando receives a gift to celebrate the new century from Queen Anne, who in fact had not yet succeeded to the throne.
Potter argued that the more pragmatic medium of cinema called for reasons to drive the narrative, over the novel's abstraction and arbitrariness, especially as the story itself is based on a kind of suspension of disbelief. Thus it is Queen Elizabeth who bestows the long life upon Orlando. The change of sex is a result of Orlando reaching a crisis of masculine identity when he is unwilling to conform to what is expected of him as a man. Nor as a woman can Orlando conform. Unlike the novel, the film ends with Orlando having a daughter, not a son.
Potter also adds: Orlando's words and looks to the camera [were] intended as an equivalent both of Virginia Woolf's direct addresses to her readers and to try to convert Virginia Woolf's literary wit into cinematic humor
The film's last scene takes place in present-day 1992, just as Woolf's novel ends in its present day of 1928. | psychedelic, historical | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0177769 | Fever | The movie starts with the protagonist, a man named Armin Salem (Rajeev Khandelwal), recovering in the hospital after a car accident and is diagnosed as suffering from retrograde amnesia. There are only a few things that he remembers - his name, that he is originally from Paris and furthermore that he might have committed the murder of a woman named Rhea Wagner (Gemma Atkinson). He wants to know who he really is and he keeps repeating the same question to different characters. The answers are finally revealed.
He starts getting flashbacks and remembers the identity of a woman identifying herself as Kavya (Gauhar Khan) who keeps reappearing in his hallucinations along with Rhea. She then starts stalking him. Kavya’s role in Armin’s life is quite hazy but eventually the truth is revealed as to why she is too close to Armin. Things become interesting when Armin meets Rhea, and remembers that he is Karan who is a writer and all the clips that he sees are the hidden shades of the writer himself. After losing the memory of Karan, the writer, he adopted the memory of Armin who used to work as a contract killer in his book. He is shown to be very smooth with the ladies and is also very quick with a gun.
He also finds out that the woman named Kavya is none other than his wife Pooja. When Pooja finds out that Karan has lost his memory, she introduces herself with a fake identity to regain her husband as they were going through a rough patch in their marriage. She ends up killing a woman named Grace Soni (Ankita Makwana), who is revealed to be Karan’s girlfriend. She then manipulates him into thinking that someone is trying to trap him and that she will help him in every way possible. Finally, Pooja's motive is revealed when she helps Armin dump the dead body of Ankita and flee from the scene. Pooja admits that it was the fever of her inner rage that gave her the courage to love someone despite not being loved back. | murder | train | wikipedia | Extremely atmospheric thriller starts out great, as young artist (Thomas) living in hellish urban apartment grows more and more paranoid as other tenants end up dead.
The high production value and Thomas' performance maintain the interest, but the script -- reminiscent of other, better pictures -- goes nowhere fast, with a been there, done that "surprize" ending you can predict 20 minutes into the film.
Winter doesn't seem to have his head around the screenplay for "Fever", a dark and morose drama about a young, disturbed NYC slum dwelling artist (Thomas) who is caught up in a trio of murders .
Henry Thomas plays a neurotic urban artist, barely eking out a living and refusing the help of friends and family.
A murder in his squalid apartment building knocks the artist off kilter and begins an increasingly paranoid and hallucinatory chain of events.
The film does not set out to ask "whodunnit", rather to make us experience the singular nightmare of a struggling and sensitive young man alone in the modern world..
It took me 14 years since the movie's theatrical release in November 2000 to sit through and watch this film written and directed by Alex Winter (best know for starring as Bill in the two film set Bill& Ted's Excellent Adventure and the movie sequel Bill & Ted's Bogus Journey).
For the greater percentage of films that make it out to a general release if the director is also the primary writer, the film will not do well at the box office, and for good reason.
Quite frankly, the audience does not want to see a unique "artistic perspective", we want to be entertained.I read the majority of complimentary reviews of this film that were written a dozen years or so ago, and they all said how talented Alex Winter was as both a writer and director, some comparing his style to Alfred Hitchcock.
Oh please, were these reviews written by Alex Winters' close friends and family?
If not then roll forward to 14 years later in 2014 and look at Alex winters body of work as either a writer or director and you will see that Hollywood has not been banging down his door with financial backing for any subsequent films.I rated the film as high as a 4 out of 10 only because of the strong performance of the lead actor Henry Thomas.
Unfortunately although Thomas's performance was very real, his face appeared in 95% of the film and his psychotic and delusional behavior was irritating.
I also found the lack of any notable musical score presented the film more as a documentary style (which it was not trying to be) than as a thriller.
Alex Winter kept throwing in scenes that attempted to provide a film noir, "Hitchcock" approach, but in my opinion the film suffered even more so as a result.After 14 years since its release and over 500 viewers scoring this films average rating of 6.1, I believe this is a very generous IMDb score.
I will not be recommending this film to anyone to waste their time watching, even with the attractive Teri Hatcher playing Henry Thomas's sane sister.Some viewers may enjoy this type of film premise of a disturbed young man who experiences dream sequences (or are they real?) and coming in and out of reality but it certainly is not my cup of tea.
I give it a 4 out of 10 and this is generous only due to the good performance of Henry Thomas..
To put it plainly, the movie revolves around this artist, who is so deeply disturbed by the gruesome murders of his landlord and his (landlord's) mother, that he becomes pallid and starts hallucinating.
Much of the credit for what the movie is, should be given to the acting, mainly of the prime two characters, Nick' and Will', played by Henry Thomas and David O'Hara respectively.
While Henry Thomas does a pretty good job of a person spooked' by the murders in the movie, it is David O'Hara, who puts up a splendid performance, by acting as a mentally deranged, psycho' Irishman, who is a sailor, and is a staunch believer of Nazism.
Along with good acting, the direction is pretty decent, too, maintaining just the right amount of the funereal atmosphere throughout, without going overboard with gory details.
Either this scene should have had more attention paid to the minor details, which are seriously flawed, (and do much damage to it) or else, it could've done without the backdrop of an underground train-ride, and could have done with a much less complicated backdrop.The movie has all the elements of a spook-thriller, and is scary from the beginning to the end, building up to a good suspense.
The overall feel of the movie is also well maintained, without trying to give too much detail to gore, and primarily paying attention to maintain the stolid and chilling atmosphere, in a very subtle manner.
Fever is a difficult film, and I mean that in a good way.
I think the director is creating a story about the raw emotions and desires in a young man caught in the modern world.
Like Lynch and Cocteau, Winter forces us into this man's subconcious, and asks us to feel the terror and despair that affects this confused mind.
Anyone who imagined Alex Winter to be as dull-witted as Excellent Adventure's Bill (or Keanu Reeves for that matter) is in for a surprise.
He has created a film that is incredibly haunting and disturbing, and this is his directing debut.
**SPOILERS** Deep psychological suspense/drama set in the Greenpoint section of Brooklyn with a murder of a landlord that later escalates into a world of insanity as well as the unknown for one of the tenant's in the building.
One of the tenants in the building art teacher Nick Parker, Henry Thomas, was a witness to the fight between Sidney and Wooley and is later called by the police as their star witness in the murder.
At first you think your watching a murder/police drama until Nick goes upstairs to talk to his new neighbor Will, David O'Hera.
Nick asks Will, the night of the murder, that he's disturbing him in doing his work by making load noises and to please stop.
Later that morning when the police are called to investigate Sidney's murder Nick tells NYPD Det. Glass, Bill Duke, about Will living upstairs and being a possible suspect and is shocked to find that Will doesn't live there and In fact the upstairs apartment is empty!
We keep seeing Nick go upstairs and talk to Will, who supposedly is not there, and Will comes across as a man totally out of touch with reality.Will feels that the Nazis are in control of the world and that the ancient Gnostics are the real power behind every government on earth.
This makes Nick, like those of us watching, feel that this guy is a can or two short of a six-pack when it comes to his mental reasoning.
As the movie goes on it becomes apparent that Nick is suffering from some kind of breakdown but what exactly is causing it?
Later Mrs. Miskowitz, Sidney's 80 year-old mom, is also found dead by Nick who's now sure that Will murdered her just like her son Sidney.
Nick is now certain that he must have murdered Mrs. Miskowitz, as well as her son Sidney, and is trying to escape from being arrested by the police.
Scared almost to death himself Nick thinks that he was seen by a witness in the adjoining subway car stabbing Will and then makes his way outside on the street only to be picked up by the police!
It's not until the very last few minutes in the film that you realize just what's wrong with Nick; His past has finally caught up with him.
It was that dark and deadly secret that Nick kept hidden so deeply from himself all that time that in the end, when it finally resurfaced, drove Nick to lose not only his mind but later even his life..
The films stars Henry Thomas as Nick Parker a struggling painter living in a realistically terrible New York Apartment building.
Early in the film a terrible murder occurs in his building and Nick and the audience spend the rest of the film coming to terms with what may have really happened.The film was written and directed by Alex Winter, most famous as the star of The Bill and Ted films, from this effort he has great promise to become a major director.
He works extremely well here with the actors getting good performances from Thomas, Teri Hatcher, Bill Duke and David O'Hara.
DeSalvo manages to capture shots of the New York skyline that seem unprecedented in American film and his interior work is remarkable evocative and reminiscent of the very best work of Gordon Willis and John Alonzo.
A young artist, Nick Parker, (an excellent, sensitive Henry Thomas) teaches drawing in a run-down area of the Bronx.
A murder in his apartment affects him deeply and attempts by his sister (a well-judged performance by Teri Hatcher) to communicate with him are offset by his growing mistrust of his own senses.
The cinematography is responsible for much of the film's impact and the high level of acting all round builds the tension nicely, together with Alex Winter's splendid screenplay.
I was really impressed with the way the film looked, and the quality of the acting.
Alex Winter is from my home town (St. Louis) and I was surprised by how different this film was from his older comedy work.
It's a deeply thought-out film, different in a lot of ways from everything else that's out there in the indie scene right now.
Alex Winter has come a long way....
I'm quite familiar with the name "Alex Winter," and it actually has very little to do with "Bill and Ted." I remember "The Idiot Box," and I loved "Freaked," although few people I know have ever even heard of it, and I hope that now, with the release of "Fever," more people will remember Mr. Winter for something other than the "Bill and Ted" movies.
"Fever" is a haunting film, sparked by excellent performances from Henry Thomas and David O'Hara, as well as by Winter's brilliant direction.
Alex Winter seems to know New York pretty well - and as a native, I should know.
For example, the shots of the N.Y.C. skyline looking dusky, seared and ominous rather than, as in so (too) many films, impossibly grand and inspiring, help us to see Nick's surroundings in the same skewed and frightening way he does, which in turn gives us a better understanding of his paranoia.I waited months to see this film, as it was never released in Boulder theaters.
The only letdown is knowing that I will have to wait awhile for Alex Winter to write and direct another film.
This film proves that you don't need a huge budget and a slew of special effects to scare the audience.
The film is dark and creepy, very claustrophobic.Nick is an undiscovered artist living in a rundown building in Greenpoint, Brooklyn.
His life is spiraling downward.Somebody is murdering people in Nick's building.
The film feels sort of like "Eraserhead" meets the "Sixth Sense".
When I came out of the theater I took a big gulp of fresh air and looked all around me to reassure myself that real life was nothing like this movie..
This film rocked like Elvis and David Bowie rockin' in New Orleans!
Although some of the elements have cropped up in other movies, "Fever" is original enough to make it quite unique.The film is set in New York.
Nick Parker played by Henry Thomas, an art instructor at a local community centre, lives in a run down apartment block.
We learn that Nick is a troubled man, haunted by events from his past.
Nick becomes more unhinged when the old landlady of his apartment block and her janitor husband are brutally murdered.
When Nick becomes more agitated and encounters Will on an eerie train ride, it precipitates the climax of the film where some, but not all the questions are answered."Fever" has a great story, convincing performances and no shortage of style.
There seems to be some interesting influences: the death of the old Polish landlady smacks of Dostoyevsky's "Crime and Punishment", while the beautifully shot scenes of New York with cityscapes contrasted with the dilapidated interiors of Nick's apartment block, have the same mysterious, static quality as Edward Hopper's paintings - the exterior of the apartment block has a character all it's own.Interestingly, the relationship between Nick and Will, although treated with a certain amount of ambiguity until the end, has similarities with the Russell Crow and Paul Bettany characters from "A Beautiful Mind", made a couple of years later.As for the cast, Teri Hatcher lights up any movie she is in and gives this one a touch of class.
Henry Thomas is fine as the troubled Nick, and David O'Hara is unsettling as Will.Although Hitchcock and Polanski come to mind, "Fever" is its own movie, and for those who like a thriller that is edgy, with heaps of atmosphere, then go no further than this stylish film..
Being a big fan of bill and ted back in my teen years, I was very interested to see what sort of writer/director Alex winter had become.
While this wasn't brilliant, this was a very atmospheric dark film about a guy trying to make ends meet and living in a slumflat.
Henry Thomas was great in the lead role ably directed by Winter who keeps the suspense for the whole movie so that even when the credits roll, many questions still remain.
Fever is an exceptionally well-crafted film which creates its own, dream-like world.
The story is sparse, but revolves around a struggling young painter who lives in a run-down apartment building in New York City.
He is already suffering from many anxieties and hardships, and when a murder occurs in his building, he begins to come completely unhinged.
The other actors are excellent as well, particularly David O' Hara as an enigmatic drifter and Teri Hatcher as the artist's sympathetic sister.
The look and sound of the film are totally unique.
I don't know when this film is going on general release, but I hope it's given a good distribution because it's a powerful, uncommonly sophisticated little gem of a movie..
Alex Winter's "Fever" is one of the creepiest independent thrillers I have ever seen.Nick Parker,a struggling young painter,is suffering a mental and physical breakdown.When a violent murder occurs in his apartment building,Nick begins to suspect that he may have committed the crime himself.From this event begins the downward spiral of paranoia and illness that ends in the horrifying climax.The film is extremely atmospheric as it looks almost like painting.The hallucinations of Nick are undeniably creepy.The photography by Joe DeSalvo is excellent and the production design adds a lot to the atmosphere.The film is pretty tough to find,but if you get a chance watch it.Highly recommended..
The acting is very good on Henry Thomas' part as well as the direction by Alex Winter (Bill from the infamous Bill & Ted films) but the storyline has a few out-of-place moments and enough awkwardness to make even the sleepiest of viewers cringe.
Pro's & con's:+ Henry Thomas' performance (you'll have trouble believing that it's the kid from E.T.)+ Alex Winter's high quality and sometimes colorful directing style (including some nice, steady camera work which was more fitting for a film like this)Very cheap visual effectsBy the time it ends you'll feel like you've wasted your time.
Man this movie is a great ride.
The man behind Bill from Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure steps behind the camera for the second time and offers us Fever.
Now Nick Parter (Thomas) must prove that he is not the killer before he loses his freedom and sanity.
A great film all the way around.
Fever is a movie that appears very shallow at first glance, but is actually quite complex.The plot is a little confusing, but after a close look; not all that difficult to get.
An artist (Nick Parker) is struggling to keep his job as an art instructor.
After a grisly murder at his apartment, he begins to slip slowly into insanity.Henry Thomas was OK as Nick Parker.
David O'Hara (The Departed) was really good as Will, Nick's neighbor and new slightly insane, creepy friend.
Teri Hatcher was very good as Charlotte Parker, Nick's worried, caring sister.
Bill Duke (Predator) was also very good as Detective Glass.The lighting was what really set the mood for the film.
This is an amazing little film.
Now we are trying to find other films from this director.
A great, dark thriller in the Hitchcock style.
Alex Winter has done a fantastic job portraying real life characters, and weaving a dark, intriguing plot.
This film is far from average- and quite shocking, when you realize it comes from the mind of Alex Winter.
Especially gripping are his "sleepwalking sessions" in which you wake up right along with him- a bit in shock as to the new surroundings & sensations.Our little boy has grown up, Henry Thomas' performance as a grown man, dealing with deep seeded emotional issues, far surpasses any role he has played thus far.
He surrounds our main character in darkness as if he is incapable of creating even a glimmer of light in his world.
We will never know.I was intrigued by the murder plot of course, but at times I found myself wondering if the ending would prove it all to be a "dream" in the mind of our lost confused teacher.
Wake up & smell that audiences are screaming for some creativity in movie making and new stories to enjoy!
FEVER is certainly a new albeit "surreal" movie experience. |
tt0155110 | Ri¢hie Ri¢h's Christmas Wish | It's Christmas Eve and Richie Rich, the world's richest kid, is all excited to spend the day with his friends. While racing wildly with his friends in the snow, Richie's butler, Herbert Cadbury, controls the cars using a remote and guides the children back to Richie's house. He then reminds him about his responsibilities that are due to be executed on Christmas Eve, and instructs him to change his clothes and get ready for tea. Before going to do so, he visits his home scientist, Professor Keanbean, who shows him his recent invention, a wishing machine which works only on Christmas Eve. The day being that, Richie wishes for a "big pie" from it, and is given a "pig sty" instead. Cadbury is disgusted seeing this, and sends him off to change his clothes. He meets his parents, Richard and Regina Rich, to ask what they would like to have for Christmas. While with them, he also tries out his father's new fishing rod invented by Keanbean, which hooks on to a tuna sandwich in the vicinity. He then goes on to change his clothes.
During tea, Richie meets his spoiled cousin, Reggie Van Dough, who wishes that he was as rich as Richie. Later, he dresses up like an elf with Cadbury as Santa Claus to distribute Christmas presents to the orphanage. While getting ready, Cadbury tells Richie about how he was a rock star in his youth days, in a band called Root Canal. When they take off in the sleigh with Richie driving it, Reggie takes control of it using a remote invented by Keanbean. He guides it through streets by shops, houses, and people, thus nearly destroying everything in the whole process. Richie and Cadbury end up in an accident in which the sleigh falls and literally explodes along with the presents, while Cadbury hurts his ankle badly. Richie runs off to fetch help, but once he enters the city, he sees that the situation has changed dramatically. Reggie is cooking up rumors about him, and all the people have turned against him.
Devastated, Richie goes into Keanbean's laboratory and squats in front of the wishing machine. While fretting over his ill luck, he accidentally wishes that he was never born. The machine at once grants his wish, following which he is transported to another world in which he was never born and hence nobody recognizes him. Reggie has taken over as Richard and Regina's son, and is now the richest kid in the world. He bosses around everyone. Roads and buildings are named after him. This world is very sad, and hunger and misery are seen all over. This makes Richie realize that things would not be better if he was not born, and hence decides to go back to the world in which he is Richie Rich.
Though his parents do not recognize him anymore, he is happy that his dog, Dollar, does. He takes Dollar with him, only to enrage Reggie, who is his current owner. Reggie orders policemen to search for Richie, who is falsely called the "dognapper", and also announces a reward for catching him. After outsmarting various policemen who try but fail to catch him, Richie finds Cadbury, who is still part of Root Canal, and Keanbean, who runs his own laboratory called "Keanbean's World of Wonders". Richie questions Keanbean about the wishing machine, which he says, requires a Pegliasaurus wishing bone in order to be complete. Along with his friends who decide to help him, Richie goes to the city museum to retrieve the bone from the dinosaur skeleton. After passing through laser detection systems successfully, they get it, using the fishing rod invented by Keanbean. Before they get out of the museum, Richie and his friends spot Reggie's parents, who are now working as night guards there.
Once they reach the lab, they get the machine to work properly. However, before Richie could wish himself back, Reggie arrives there with the policemen. Richie, Cadbury, Keanbean, and Richie's friends are put in jail, while Reggie takes the machine home. At home, Reggie wishes that he could fly, and then when Irona, his robotic servant maid, accidentally turns off the machine, he tries to make a wish again. When it does not work the second time, he leaves the room in a huff, and retires. In jail, Richie and his friends are bailed out by root canal. They all rush to Reggie's house, and while he is still sleeping, Richie tries to wish himself back. However, they find that the machine is no longer working, as Reggie had kicked it in anger earlier. While Keanbean is fixing it, Reggie wakes up and comes flying in, only to be attacked by Richie and his friends. They defeat him and everyone quits working for him, with the police chief refusing to work for someone who would cancel Christmas. After that, the machine starts working again, and Richie wishes himself back as Richie Rich.
Richie sets right all the things that had gone wrong since his vanishing act, and is now much more grateful to be alive. As everyone is glad to have him back, they gather around the Christmas tree and sing.
=== Extended TV Ending ===
Reggie is caught red-handed with his actions against Richie, and apologies for all the trouble he caused to Richie, admitting that he was the one who took control of the sleigh and ruined the event. Richie realizes that it wasn't his fault and he made that wish for nothing. They forgive each other. | alternate reality | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0388377 | River Queen | The film takes place in New Zealand in 1868 during Titokowaru's War between the Māori and New Zealand colonial forces. Sarah O'Brien (Samantha Morton) has grown up among soldiers in a frontier garrison on Te Awa Nui, the Great River. Pregnant at 16 by a young Maori boy, she gives birth to a son. When, 7 years later, her son, Boy, is kidnapped by his Maori grandfather, Sarah is distraught. Abandoned by her soldier father, Sarah's life becomes a search for her son. Her only friend, Doyle (Kiefer Sutherland) is a broken-down soldier without the means to help her. Lured to the ill rebel chief Te Kai Po's village by the chance to see her child, Sarah finds herself falling in love with Boy's uncle, Wiremu (Cliff Curtis) and increasingly drawn to the village way of life. Using medical skills she learned from her father, Sarah heals Te Kai Po (Temuera Morrison) and begins to reconcile with her son (Rawiri Pene). But her idyllic time at the village is shattered when she realises that she has healed the chief only to hear him declare war on the Colonials, men she feels are her friends, her only family. Her desperation deepens when she realises that Boy intends to prove himself in war, refusing to go back down river with her. As the conflict escalates Sarah finds herself at the centre of the storm, torn by the love she feels for Boy and Wiremu, anguished over the attachments she still has to the white man's world, and sickened by the brutality she witnesses on either side. And when the moment comes, Sarah must choose where she belongs; will she be forced back into the white man's way of life, or will she have the courage to follow the instincts that are telling her where she truly belongs? | dramatic, romantic, action | train | wikipedia | I also found the first half hour or so really hard going, it seemed disjointed and felt more like a long short film.
Overall the film is worth a look I'm sure everyone will get something out of it.Note, If your a fan of Kiefer Sutherland.
River Queen was a beautiful movie.
The unique beauty of the NZ scenery was stunning, the music, which seemed to be an amazing mixture of Maori and Irish influence was very moving and added a great deal to the energy of the movie as a whole.
I don't think the acting was brilliant, although the boy was superb in the one scene where he's telling his mother off, but the actors themselves were attractive and enjoyable to watch.I would highly recommend this movie if you enjoy stunning scenery, visual artistic effects with water and color, a good story based on history, and nicely placed and original use of music, or if you enjoy learning the history of a very unique culture that so few people know of..
It really got under my skin, it's a historical drama, but dream, desire, and vision saturate the story, making it like no other.Also being from Aotearoa and with Maori blood having been mixed into my veins, it was fantastic to see such a good film finally being made of that clash of cultures.
The landscape and the Wanganui River were filmed to perfection.This movie haunts me.
It's great to finally have another Vincent Ward movie.
Peter Thompson, on this morning's Sunday show, gave River Queen a very favorable review; the review's timing was perfect because last evening Diane and I watched this new Kiwi film and drove home with mixed feelings about what we had just seen.Thompson's reviews are usually spot-on for us but in this instance we are still not sure.
Yes, Vincent Ward's story was superb: huge amounts of recognizable human drama, multidimensional characters, a gigantic historical background and everything framed by New Zealand's natural beauty.
This last comment will take on meaning with the watching of the film because certain Maori characteristics play a huge visual as well as plot role in the film-perhaps unexpectedly for some viewers more than others.
Alun Bollinger's cinematography beautifully captures Ward's shot selection; it is impossible to leave the theater and not have been captivated by the physical beauty of the New Zealand landscape.I think the question must be asked: If I thought the film was so good, why did I only give it a rating of eight?
I suppose that is just a matter of cinematic taste particular to one person and should not be used to paint an entire film.River Queen is definitely worth seeing.
The subject matter alone is worth the effort, with excellent acting by all concerned and magnificent scenery beautifully captured in thee film.
The scenery was stunning, the acting superb, the story brilliant, and the music was a hauntingly beautiful match to an incredible film.
I always thought it would be great if a film was set during the Maori wars that was similar to Michael Mann's "The Last of the Mohicans".
The chemistry between the main actors is powerful and moving and keeps the people of the story to the fore, stopping them from being engulfed by the powerful images of the war.I always thought it would take our own Peter Jackson (should be Sir Peter) to make a film of this quality in New Zealand and about New Zealand.
River Queen demonstrates that there is an amazing depth of movie making talent in this small country that time and again punches way above it's weight..
An intense and unforgettable movie experience about a mother's search for her lost son, at a time of wars over land and racial misunderstanding..
To his always uniquely beautiful images (filmed by Alun Bollinger, one of New Zealand's greatest cameramen) he adds an enthralling story not only about a mother's search for her lost son, but also about a time of violence in 19th Century colonial history when Maori and Pakeha were inextricably mixed on both sides of a war about land and racial misunderstanding.
Moving performances by the great Maori actors Cliff Curtis and Temuera Morrison and by Samantha Morton.
It is lovely to look at, the scenery is lush, but the detail of the story, in particular the characters, are totally unbelievable.
All in all, this is a clear case of commercial interest over quality and when you're trying to be The Mission, this kind of thing wrecks your chances of success.Speaking of accents, there were a couple more problems, one being the striking modernity of Boy's accent which acted to dispel the feeling of being transported to another time.
Perhaps a lot has been lost in editing, perhaps this was meant to be a three hour film or a mini series where these things could've been fleshed out, but I can only judge what I've seen.Now the biggest problem, Sarah's (Morton) relationship with Doyle (Sutherland) is incomprehensible.
The fact is that her affection for him is not conveyed in any way until her having to choose between him and her son, the conflict she goes through at this point was frankly ridiculous and killed the movie for me.
this movie didn't work at all for me, but it is top notch to look at, you really won't see anything more stunning in terms of scenery, there are some good performances and my wife liked it..
Certainly happy enough to watch it again.On second viewing, familiar with the story and characters and confident in the knowledge that I was indeed looking at the Whanganui, the pace seemed good.
I particularly appreciated the recreation of warfare in the New Zealand Wars.Others have suggested that the movie was unduly biased towards the Maori.
This film was great as i'm still buzzing about the movie weeks later recommending it to heaps of others.
For a New Zealand film it was wonderful, it really showed how beautiful New Zealand is and identifies how Our Maori people are unique and watching it makes me feel even more proud to be Maori.
All the critics need to remember how little New Zealand is compared to other Countries and at least the most important people believe in the movie and thats all that matters..
I noticed in the reviews, one comment saying that none of this movie makers films have become blockbusters.
I was really looking forward to this movie but sadly it didn't live up to expectation.A good movie has the audience identifying/empathising/sympathising with the main actor.
Unfortunately this was very hard to do with Samantha Morton.The storyline seemed very disjointed and didn't flow as it should/could have done.Keifer Sutherland appeared to be little more than window dressing and made me wonder why he agreed to play what appeared to be a bit part.
Beautiful scenery and the acting of Tem Morrison and Cliff Curtis was about the only plus.Maybe by being a kiwi I set the bar higher for locally made films.
With an interesting premise (in the conflicts between Europeans and indigenous peoples sometimes the battle lines were not so clear), this should have been a good film.
But the story is sabotaged by the director's overriding infatuation with his own cleverness twinned with a very poor script.Yes, the natural setting is beautiful and, yes, the movie is authentic to its 19th century historical setting.
But the filmmaker keeps gilding the lily over and over again, adding layer upon layer of over-the-top musical accompaniment, not to mention a completely unnecessary voice-over, to the soundtrack, that ultimately overwhelm the viewer and, by calling attention to themselves, take away from the story.To me, it was clear the director, with his microscopic closeups and the endless recurrence of the musical motif of "Danny Boy" (of all things!) was trying to make a New Zealand version of an epic Sergio Leone film, something on the order of Once Upon A Time In The West.
Apart from the beautiful imagery thanks to New Zealand cinematographer Alun Bollinger, this film is not worth seeing.The storyline is so fragmented and lost that it's hard to know what is going on at any given time, and just when you think you're following then the direction changes again, like a lost bi-polar puppy dog.The musical score is awful, relying too heavily on extremely emotive pieces that try to force the audience into feeling a certain way, as if the instruments were acting as an emotions queue sheet 'feel sad here'; 'feel shocked here'; 'feel scared here'.
On top of that, the repetitive samples used over and over again leave the audience on the verge of laughter.Gone are the days of silent film, where musical instruments were the sole portrayal of voice but you wouldn't think so while watching River Queen.The voice-over was so over-utilised that one has to wonder if this film really even needed any accompanying imagery.
I thought so.All in all I cannot recommend this film for viewing, unless you wear some ear-muffs and just go with the scenery in mind..
I remember back when it first hit the Silver Screen and all the negative reviews and bad luck during the making of the film, and couldn't see what all the fuss was about.The War scenes could have been better, yes.
1 for Samantha, who is a great actress, too bad the production made everyone look like amateurs out there.the other 1 goes to cinematography, which was indeed good.Other then that my friend, this is one bad movie.I don't even feel like making an elaborate post on this, it was just horrible production.
I'd just like to make note of the dramas around the filming of 'River Queen'.
Vincent Ward was fired - thankfully Alun Bollinger replaced him, so his artistic vision wouldn't have been altered drastically - until post-production, or until Samantha Morton left the country.
And if you don't believe me go ahead and watch it for yourself.The movie starts of slow, the storyline makes no sense at all.
However, the film did suffer from some poor leads - Samantha Morton (Sarah) especially came across as unconvincing.
On the other hand, Cliff Curtis, Temuera Morrison and Rawiri Pene (as Sarah's son "Boy") were well rounded and believable.The last 20 minutes of River Queen came across as particularly compressed and rushed.
The anticipation of seeing Temuera Morrison, Cliff Curtis AND Keifer Sutherland all in the one movie had me salivating!
On the positive side the Maori fight scenes were raw, real and raunchy (well Temuera had a great time!)but again I was not totally convinced.
Look, it was a good movie, easy to watch,and entertaining in its own way.
Good enough for me to enjoy the characters, feel something for them, and be suspended for the duration of the story.No, I tell a lie there...
i think the scene where the native chieftain is making love to his newly acquired beautiful young wife while his tribe is engaged in a bloody battle against the European settlers is pregnant with symbolism .also when the Irish woman sneaks out of her home with her fellow-countryman to be with the brother of her dead boyfriend and the adopted father of her son only to come back to find that her Irish friend has died , i think that was an unexpected twist in the woman's story ,i thought she would eventually marry her Irish friend especially after she appeared to "lose" her son again, after finding him, to the savage ways of his father's people .
For weeks I had been looking forward to seeing this movie only to find myself hugely disappointed after wards.
In my opinion, the only good thing 'River Queen' had going for it was the amazing scenery used as backgrounds.
The story line was all over the place, Samantha's character Sarah was very difficult to understand and what on earth were all the many close ups of her face for?
It brought absolutely nothing to the story-if there was one at all!A better actor for the part of Boy could also have been selected, to me it sounded like he read his lines straight of the script while shooting his scenes.Overall, a real shame as it could have been such a good movie..
There are lots of truly incredible scenes of the natural beauty of New Zealand's north island.
And the music is haunting and is still running through my head 24 hours after seeing the movie.Even after traveling to Mauri (native) territory and saving the Mauri chief's life, our heroine is presented as very Pakea (white) in culture and outlook, telling her son she wants to take him to "our home" with the settlers.
We found it less than plausible that she wouldn't have expected her 13-year-old son's identification with the Mauri life after 6 years of living with his Mauri grandfather, and by his wanting to go to war (had she never met any teenage boys before?).But that said, one thing we appreciated about this movie is that it didn't glorify the warfare.
The ending, where the heroine looks back on the futility of the wars, is moving and poignant.We found some of the Irish accents hard to follow, but the DVD offers subtitles.My wife and I have no problems giving this a 10/10..
Throughout the whole movie, at least I for one, never felt invested in journey, and it seems that this is the main struggle of the movie – engaging the audience.The movie tells the story of Sarah, an Irish medic in the English army on New Zealand.
Mothering a half-caste with a native Maori, a young man who quickly goes on to die of the fever, Sarah raises their boy in the colonized ways.
Sarah sets out on a journey to find her son again, and while it is a decent premise for a plot, as mentioned the movie struggles telling the story in an interesting way.Much to my begrudging side, the director is guilty in heavy use of shaky-cams, creative zooming and hasty editing.
In River Queen, the method isn't used to the irritating degree, it isn't as dizzying as how the Hunger Games used it, but still I would definitely enjoyed the movie more had they decided to shoot it in a normal way.If there is one thing the movie does get right it is scenery, music and effects, with these three factors done almost flawlessly.
New Zealand no doubt has an amazing nature and wildlife, and the movie succeeds in portraying the rivers and forests as a last frontier between the European civilization and the native tribes.
There's little CGI, and since I'll never get my stop-motion robots from the eighties back, I would say it's refreshing to see a movie that is a little bit real and authentic.More mediocre, if not disappointing, is the acting, with the main actress of Samantha Morton coming across as quite bland and uninteresting, with acting rather dependent on the different situations.
It's a shame, because Irish accents really are smashing, and there are times when Sarah isn't that bad a character.
Better, if also quite bland, are the other main roles of Rawiri Pene as Boy, Kiefer Sutherland as Private Doyle, Cliff Curtis as Wiremu and Temuera Morrison as Te Kai Po. All of these are men of different meaning to Sarah's life and journey, and with the exception of a mediocre romance with a certain native, and the rather good performance of a certain chief, the actors are okay.If there is one thing I would say about this movie though, it is that the war between the Maori and the Europeans is portrayed in a very good manner.
(If a tad moralistic, but hey) I guess I would recommend it to you if you're interested in the time period, as the movie is quite good at portraying the era.
However, if you're looking for a deep and emotional story of family, love and strong heroines, you would probably find it somewhat, well, mediocre, at least when it comes to engagement.
I'd say Aliens would be a good choice, if not just for the reason that it is a badass movie I would rather watch than this.
A troublingly good film, trying too hard.
The plot issue of the film is simple: in the midst of the Maori/British conflict over land use in the late 1850's, a young Pakeha (in this case Irish) woman (Samantha Morton) becomes pregnant by a young Maori.
Morton (who plays Sarah) has the difficult task of acting out her conflictedness between her Pakeha world and the Maori world of her son.
Keifer Sutherland (who plays the Irish soldier Doyle)plays a limited part in the film.
Director Vincent Ward gives us great location shots from the central North Island area of New Zealand - mostly long-lens river shots, a few gorgeous aerial shots, supported by action shots in the battle scenes.
The film is rushed and disjointed in places, but at 114 minutes long, Ward may have felt he was working against the clock.
The daughter of a British army surgeon, Sarah(Samantha Morton), falls in love with the son of one of the Maori leaders.
By the age of six, "Boy" is kidnapped by his father's family and Sarah will begin her search for him with a man(Kiefer Sutherland),who is deeply in love with her.Two-time Oscar nominee Morton is definitely the star of this movie.
I find the title RIVER QUEEN very misleading and the DVD cover with Sutherland only and making you believe he is the leading star should be a crime..
The story had potential and I feel sorry for the overseas actors who must have known they were on a turkey shoot while they were filming.
I noticed a few shortcuts taken on the Maori protocol side of things, but this was probably due to movie length time restraints etc. |
tt0098904 | Seinfeld | Many Seinfeld episodes are based on the writers' real-life experiences, with the experiences re-interpreted for the characters' storyline. For example, George's storyline, "The Revenge", is based on Larry David's experience at Saturday Night Live. "The Contest" is also based on David's experiences. "The Smelly Car" storyline is based on Peter Mehlman's lawyer friend, who could not get a bad smell out of his car. "The Strike" is based on Dan O'Keefe's dad, who made up his own holiday—Festivus. Other stories take on a variety of turns. "The Chinese Restaurant" consists of George, Jerry and Elaine waiting for a table throughout the entire episode. "The Boyfriend", revolving around Keith Hernandez, extends through 2 episodes. "The Betrayal" is famous for using reverse chronology, and was inspired by a similar plot device in a Harold Pinter play, Betrayal. Some stories were inspired by headlines and rumors, as explained in the DVD features "Notes About Nothing", "Inside Look", and "Audio Commentary." In "The Maestro", Kramer's lawsuit is roughly similar to the McDonald's coffee case. "The Outing" is based primarily on rumors that Larry Charles heard about Jerry Seinfeld's sexuality.
=== Themes ===
Seinfeld broke several conventions of mainstream television, with the series often being described as "a show about nothing". However, Seinfeld in 2014 stated "the pitch for the show, the real pitch, when Larry and I went to NBC in 1988, was we want to show how a comedian gets his material. The show about nothing was just a joke in an episode many years later, and Larry and I to this day are surprised that it caught on as a way that people describe the show, because to us it's the opposite of that."
It became the first TV series since Monty Python's Flying Circus to be widely described as postmodern. Several elements of Seinfeld fit in with a postmodern interpretation.
The show is typically driven by humor interspersed with superficial conflict and characters with peculiar dispositions. Many episodes revolved around the characters' involvement in the lives of others with typically disastrous results. On the set, the notion that the characters should not develop or improve throughout the series was expressed as the "no hugging, no learning" rule. Unlike most sitcoms, there are no moments of pathos; the audience is never made to feel sorry for any of the characters. Even Susan's death elicits no genuine emotions from anybody in the show.
The characters are "thirty-something singles with vague identities, no roots, and conscious indifference to morals." Usual conventions, like isolating the characters from the actors playing them and separating the characters' world from that of the actors and audience, were broken. One such example is the story arc where the characters promote a TV sitcom series named Jerry. The show within a show, Jerry, was much like Seinfeld in that it was "about nothing" and Seinfeld played himself. The fictional Jerry was launched in the season four finale, but unlike Seinfeld, it wasn't picked up as a series. Jerry is one of many examples of metafiction in the show. There are no fewer than twenty-two fictional movies featured, like Rochelle, Rochelle.
=== Catchphrases ===
Many terms were coined, popularized, or re-popularized in the series' run and have become part of popular culture. Notable catchphrases and terms include:
"Yada, yada, yada"
"No soup for you!"
"These pretzels are making me thirsty"
"Not that there's anything wrong with that!"
Festivus
spongeworthy
double-dipping
re-gifter
The lexicon of Seinfeldian code words and recurring phrases that evolved around particular episodes is referred to as Seinlanguage, the title of Jerry Seinfeld's best-selling book on humor.
=== Music ===
A signature of Seinfeld is its theme music. Composed by Jonathan Wolff, it consists of distinct solo sampled bass synthesizer riffs (played on a Korg M1 synthesizer) which open the show and connect the scenes, often accompanied by beatboxing. The bass synthesizer music eventually replaced the original music by Jep Epstein when it was played again after the first broadcast "The Seinfeld Chronicles". The show lacked a traditional title track and the riffs were played over the first moments of dialogue or action. They vary throughout each episode and are played in an improvised funk style. An additional musical theme with an ensemble, led by a synthesized mid-range brass instrument, ends each episode.
In "The Note", the first episode of season three, the bumper music featured a scatting female jazz singer who sang a phrase that sounded like "easy to beat". Jerry Seinfeld and executive producer Larry David both liked Wolff's additions, and three episodes were produced with this new style music. However, they had neglected to inform NBC and Castle Rock executives of the change, and when the season premiere aired, the executives were surprised and unimpressed, and requested that they return to the original style. The subsequent two episodes were redone, leaving this episode as the only one with additional music elements. In the commentary of "The Note", Louis-Dreyfus facetiously suggests it was removed because the perceived lyric related closely to the low ratings at the time.
In the final three seasons, the bits were tweaked slightly with more frantic rhythms; a bass guitar was added in addition to the sampled bass from earlier seasons. Throughout the show, the main theme could be re-styled in different ways depending on the episode. For instance, in "The Betrayal", part of which takes place in India, the theme is heard played on a sitar. | humor | train | wikipedia | I caught a few episodes of Seinfeld over it's final two seasons run on public channel, and made it a point to catch a lot more of Jerry and friends during it's reruns.
I found it very amusing on first viewings, but as time wore on, I began to like it more and more, and to eagerly borrow taped episodes from friends, and to hunt for re-runs on syndicated channels.Of the two comedy TV series in the history of television, I would choose both Seinfeld and Monty Python as the cultural landmarks of the medium.
Characters do not hug each other on Christmas, fall in love, wax on and on about family and friends, there is no faux-cathartic season ender so favoured by the writers of, say, "Friends".Instead, we have the narcissistic Jerry, constantly mining the minutiae of everyday detail for every bit of situational comedy; we have the hyper-aggressive Elaine, whose strings of breakups with boyfriends are as impressive as her petty neuroses leading up to the breakups themselves; the ultimate schlub-loser George, who lies to every single woman he dates, sells faulty equipment to the handicapped and muscles off women and children when fleeing an apartment fire; and the impossibly inventive physical comedy of the entrepreneur cum schmooze Kramer.Over and over again, week in and week out, the quartet discuss trivialities with unbridled zeal, as the non-descript narrative pings from one mundane setting to another.
That is where the brilliance of Seinfeld lies, in the ability to go to the most bizarre ends to fulfill the potential of a less than hopeful comedic premise; and the endless, pointlessly smug and nihilistic banter that almost invariably escalates into some of TV's classic lines, such as when George shouts triumphantly after winning an argument that "there is no bigger loser than me!".Surely, we won't find something like this again, for many more years to come..
The characters are fantastic, the actors performed so well that you can't think of them like anything but the character they played, maybe this is the reason because they couldn't success in other shows.
like 4 children in adults' bodies.Jerry Seinfeld played himself and surrounded himself with an ex-girlfriend (Julia Louis-Dreyfus), a childhood friend (Jason Alexander), and a neighbor (Michael Richards).
you name it, they harpooned it.Great supporting cast over the years included Jerry Stiller, Estelle Harris, Barney Martin, Liz Sheridan, Wayne Knight, Patrick Warburton, John O'Hurley, Len Lesser, Heidi Swedberg, and others.And so many brilliant actors who only showed up once or a few times: Steve Hytner as Bania, Mark Metcalf as the Maestro, Megan Cole as Peggy the germophobe, Sheree North as Babs Kramer, Charles Levin as the mohel, Elmarie Wendel as Helene the actress, Philip Baker Hall as the library detective,
To think of people like Jerry, George, Elaine and Kramer.
You obviously don't have the intelligence to grasp the humor of the series, content only with the easy-to-understand slapstick of today's comedy; but nonetheless, in your blatant stupidity, you cannot grasp why it ISN'T funny, either -- so you pick the standup.Nice.In any case, despite the negative reviews or even the positive, Seinfeld stands the test of time, and is the greatest sitcom ever made.
Even TV Guide's compiled list of the "greatest television series' of all time," not at all exclusive to comedy (20/20, I believe, made the list), put Seinfeld right where it belongs: NUMBER ONE.The last and greatest juggernaut of comedy, I know I'll be watching the untiring reruns that never seem to get old when I'm old and gray and long since committed to a retirement home.And do you know what?The intelligent viewers of humanity's next generation will be doing the same thing..
I mean, I LOVE the show Friends but every time the guys have a new turtleneck or sweater, and the girls always have a new dress or a new pair of pants, which is totally unrealistic (for the guys anyway).This show had consistent humour all the way up to the last season, which is unusual for many shows.
I LOVED George styling his hair to look like the bald guy from NYPD Blue, Elaine buying the JuJubes on the way to the hospital, Uncle Leo yelling "STOP THE SHOW" on the PBS special--these were just some of the great moments!
I was sitting in my apartment tonight watching the end of a sitcom era with the last "friends" episode and it brought me back to 1998 when we all said goodbye to "seinfeld".
"Seinfeld" gave us all so many catch phrases and we all continue to enjoy these characters and episodes six years after the show ended.
The others just fall way short of making any noticeable effort to put on some truly original humor.I think that in a couple of years, one of the Turner cable stations will have the syndication rights to "Seinfeld".
And yet, its humor reaches closer to universal than local in status as it's a series that's not only had lots of success within that East Coast, but all of North America as well as in other parts of the world.The characters are written with depth and excellent consistency over nine full seasons, and while they're awfully realistic they're also utterly fictional: in a sense more realistic than actual reality as they're each given a distinct personality laden with all the detailed annoyances and pettiness of the real life individual, but made so extreme they're caricatures, like half-real half-cartoon characters.
Very few shows will achieve such an eerily close to reality connection while maintaining quality TV writing: excellent story telling (brilliant in fact, Larry David's ability to knit an episode together with elements of the plot at the beginning linking up with the later stages is completely outstanding, at times real gems of maze-like complex interconnections), great pacing, a rich variety of funny ideas throughout a same episode as well as from one episode to the next.So at a macro level the episodes are brilliantly structured and conducted, but the show's got a whole panel of quality items at the micro level: whether it's the Jerry Seinfeld standup segments earlier in the series or the little bits of detailed content that fill up the gaps between the main scenes in the dialog and what not, or the hilarious secondary characters that'll tag along every once in a while to bring their own individual cringy flavor to the whole, there's never ever a dull moment to be had, not even if one's chaining up episodes in industrial quantities at a time - it's just constantly fresh, full of content, uniquely creative and perpetually hilarious.Seinfeld is the "show about nothing": it's superbly orchestrated, and yet, it's filled often with the most ridiculous humor, and manages to get away with not being self-indulgently repetitive or stale.
Whether you like them or not and for whatever specific reason, the genius of Seinfeld and David combined has produced a most potent combination in TV comedy history, and probably 'the' most potent.
The humor is prolific, the show oozes with it, but it always kept it together and stayed true to the formula: never gave an inch in originality, never strayed from what the show was about (it never went relationship-y for example when it would've benefited greatly from it given its commanding favorable position), never changed the characters to fit a more profitable agenda and the great thing about it is while it's certainly a very liberal-leaning show it doesn't make a definitive political statement: both creators were about the humor, making people laugh - and that was the very motor that drove the whole show, it never set out to deliver a message, it was just humor for the sake of humor, and that is objectively in that field incredibly rare and by definition the very nature of humor.
Just about everyone knows the Seinfeld setup, four loser friends (Jerry, George, Elaine and Kramer the nutty neighbor) who pour over the minutiae of everyday life, whose storylines (however abstract and different they are) always come together at the end.Although by the later seasons the show had gotten more wacky and bizarre, the quality of the comedy never dipped in all it's nine seasons.
Where shows like Cheers and Friends (even Frasier) rely almost entirely on one liners and emotions, Seinfeld's characters had practically no emotions (George once pulls the plug on a hospital patient's drip, and pretends to be disabled to use the spacious disabled bathroom) and the one liners were all part of the conversation.It really is difficult to say anything negative about Seinfeld, there's no episode where you could say the writers weren't trying or had given up, even in it's last season the show performed the ambitious "Backwards episode" where the story finished at the beginning and started at the end.
I'll never forget that ridiculous episode where we're supposed to laugh because Jerry and Elaine spend all their time in line at a bakery and because George and Kramer spend all their time whining about being boxed in by an illegally-parked car at a liquor store.
what is the big deal with this show?jerry seinfeld is anything but funny and the situations in this show are absolutely ridiculous ( not in a good way thought ).
the acting is pathetic , even for a sitcom , and seinfeld's stand up in the beginning of the episodes are as annoying as the rest of the show .
I was excited to begin watching Seinfeld, the great ratings, the reputation, the quotes, everything around me was giving the impression that I'm about to watch the greatest sitcom ever, the I'm about to experience an hours of non stopped laughs..
I watched Seinfeld intermittently during it's original series run in the 90's, mostly because the people I happened to be around back then loved it, as did most everyone else it seemed.
Jerry Seinfeld has started the tradition of bad comedians telling man jokes that just aren't funny.
I don't find the set-up, or the characters funny.It was a cult hit in its day but here in the UK it didn't really air much and is more of the sort of show you think you should like but really can't get into.The less said about the rubbish series finale the better.
I have tried watching the show on several occasions and I've found problems with it: Seinfeld is not remotely funny, the writing is of poor quality, the characters aren't likable, the acting is fairly poor (then again, the quality of acting is mainly dependent on the quality of the writing) and instead of a plot, it has a poorly-conceived concept.
I just recently finished watching Seinfeld in its entirety after years of sporadic episodes and it is without a doubt the best and funniest show that was on TV.
Nothing specific: just what happens in the lives of Jerry Seinfeld, George Costanza, Elaine Benes, and Cosmo Kramer.
It has been over nineteen years since the show about a stand-up New-York City comedian, "neat freak" named Jerry Seinfeld, and his three colorful friends, a loser, a doofus, and a neurotic ex-girlfriend aired its final episode on May 14, 1998 but still no sitcom on TV has come close to its incomparable brilliancy which lies in the ability to make somehow a viewer addicted to the narcissist and selfish characters that constantly put themselves into the pointless and absurd situations.
In its best episodes, "Seinfeld" is perfection that no other show would ever achieve.Even now after all these years I keep asking myself why the show about four rather selfish, egocentric, immature, often back-stabbing and outrageous characters who are afraid of commitments has been so universally loved and admired?
Even Curb Your Enthusiasm, Larry David's baby in all its greatness is not as enjoyable as "Seinfeld." Curb Your Enthusiasm is about George Costanza whose dreams came true - he is rich and had for several seasons a beautiful loving wife but he does not have Jerry, Cramer, and Elaine in his everyday life.
Larry David and Jerry Seinfeld set up the premise and structure of the show with such great finesse and panache, it had everything from compelling character to classics eps and wonderful interweaving storylines that could be cunningly linked into a whole half hour, Now this was comedy unlike Friends which relied on cheap predictable gags, perhaps the subtle dark humour in Seinfeld was too intelligent for some people.
After seeing the complete first season and some of the series of the second one, I must admit that it is not ELR or even "Friends" that's the most overrated sitcom of all times, but it is Seinfeld instead.
I guess their were a few funny things most of the stuff was just stupid.Watch a much better show like friends for instance because that is a good show..
The laugh tracks don´t bother that much when the sitcom´s actually a very good one, but there are just very few American sitcoms worth watching: Seinfeld, Just Shoot Me, The 3rd Rock From The Sun, Frasier...
You got some good ones likes MASH, friends and 3rd Rock from the sun, but then you get the mother of all American comedies SIENFELD.Sienfeld is by far the most hilarious and best sitcom that America has to offer.
I think Kramer and George steal the show but Jerry is still a good comedian and hands down to him.There hasn't been an American comedy as good ever since Seinfeld left us, sure friends was big but it was 2nd class compared to Sienfeld.
The only reason many post here is that they came here in the first place because they are fans of the show, so I think you can take the fact that most of the posters think Seinfeld is "the greatest sitcom ever" with the proverbial "grain of salt".Well, I didn't come here because I'm a fan of the show - I came here to see if anyone else thinks what I do of the show: somewhat funny at times, but mostly badly written with many situations or story lines that barely tickle your funny bone at all - I mean how much brains does it take to think up some of the nonsense on that show (like dropping a toothbrush in the toilet).
Jerry Seinfeld would do his comedy routine which was based on an incident which occurred in his life, this was what the weekly series was about!!
What a superb continuity work, i mean, every character actually lives in the city, they just don't disappear in the next episode, they have the chance to come back later if necessary, personally, i have to say that this is my favorite show, its so cleaver, funny, hilarious, it makes me cry of joy even in the reruns, what a great sitcom, this is what comedy means: SEINFELD.
They would never make a show like this today in the new P.C. Western World, someone somewhere would be offended by Jerry's offbeat humor(& then sue him for damages on top of that) :( And mostly true to life comedy, many of the people I worked with were like the show's greatly funny cast of characters.IMO, it's still funny seeing this now on DVD, but by the same token, it makes one sad because they will never make another show like this in today's P.C. unfunny climate.
The story follows the life of the comedian Jerry Seinfeld from a fictional point of view ,and his relationship with his friends ,George (Jason Alexander ),Elaine (Julia Louis Dreyfus ) and Cosmo Kramer (Michael Richards ).The group keep talking about relationships ,love,movies ...and also causing a lot of problems around them .This was a great show that was always faithful to his style and I don't agree that the last episodes were bad .Many shows try to imitate the brilliant humor of this show ,and all fail."Seinfled " is unique ..
After having watched almost every episode of Seinfeld it is clear that it paved the way for the single camera comedies of today.
Not just does it influence a few shows such as Curb Your Enthusiasm, which is by mostly the same people so would obviously be similar, and Scrubs but almost every comedy owes it in some way.Seinfeld cleared the way for finding humor in a television show outside of the situation but just in the banter between characters, who chatter about inane topics with pitch-perfect delivery, or having episodes derived out of the minutiae of everyday life.
Characters like George or Kramer really carried the whole thing for me, or even Elaine's boss.
Jerry Seinfeld is an unfunny comedian who somehow got popular enough to get offered a starring role (or maybe he came up with the idea, I never bothered to find out because I never cared) in this hilarious "show about nothing" featuring the daily grind of a small group of friends in New York City.
jerry seinfeld, george, kramer and elaine are all good friends and they don't seem to be very concerned with anything that happens outside that bubble.
Set in New York, episodes from the lives of friends Jerry (played by Jerry Seinfeld), Elaine (Julia Louis-Dreyfus), George (Jason Alexander) and Kramer (Michael Richards).
Or what about George's classic Ahab-like confrontation with the ailing whale with George proclaiming."The sea was angry that day!" or what about an early episode where Jerry & Elaine try to work out an arrangement where they can remains friends but have sex too or as they put it."How to combine 'this' with 'that'..." Of course, like most series finales, Seinfeld fell prey to the need to wrap up, close story lines etc, making the last show perhaps their worst show ever with the possible exception of, ironically enough, the very first show.
The writing (some of it the best ever by Larry David and Jerry Seinfeld).
I like Jerry Seinfeld as a comedian, but my personal favorite was Julia Louis-Dreyfus.
Watched a classic and an old sitcom SEINFELD season 1.
Its a sitcom starring and co-written by Jerry Seinfeld. |
tt0286598 | Doom | In the year 2046, a heavily populated research facility on Mars is suddenly attacked by an unknown assailant. Following a distress call sent by Dr. Todd Carmack, a group of marines, led by Asher "Sarge" Mahonin, is sent on a search-and-rescue mission. One of the marines, John "Reaper" Grimm, accompanies his sister, Dr. Samantha Grimm, to one of the labs within the devastated sector to retrieve data; here he learns that the dig site where their parents were accidentally killed was reopened and ancient skeletons of a genetically enhanced race were discovered.
While searching for survivors in the facility, the marines find Dr. Carmack, who is taken to a medical room for examination, but later disappears. The marines find a creature that leads them down to the facility's sewer. Marine Eric "Goat" Fantom is killed during their pursuit, along with the creature. The corpses of Goat and the creature are taken to the medical room. Marine Gregory "Duke" Schofield stays with Sam as she starts an autopsy, when they are attacked by a second creature. After trapping it, Sam continues the autopsy on the first creature, finding that its organs are human. Goat suddenly revives, and then kills himself by slamming his head against a glass window.
The squad tracks a third creature down into the dig site, where it kills three more marines. Sam and Reaper try to convince Sarge that the creatures are humans from the facility, mutated by the addition of a Martian chromosome (called C24) they found and synthesized from the bones discovered, and that not all of those infected will fully transform into creatures. Regardless, Sarge orders his team to sanitize the entire facility. Sarge kills the creature in the medical lab (revealed to be a mutated Dr. Carmack) and executes one of his marines for defying his commands. Sam and the surviving marines are then flanked by the infected, partly mutated, humans. Only Sam and a wounded Reaper escape. Sam injects Reaper with the C24 serum, enhancing his abilities so he is able to kill the infected humans and fully mutated creatures. Reaper then battles an infected Sarge and kills him. Having survived, Sam and Reaper enter the elevator to leave the facility. | violence | train | wikipedia | Doom and its sequels are some of the greatest games ever created!
It has a good story, incredible action, great music, awesome enemies, very fun, really interesting levels, and more!
Below is an In-depth review of the game called Doom!The Story: The toughest marine that ever lived just arrived on the red planet Mars which is the planet that is home to the UAC (Union Aerospace Corporation).
He goes in with his bravery, very little fire power and now he finds an unspeakable evil that he must fight or he will be doomed!Game Play: This game has excellent game play.
You really play everything through a camera view which is an excellent way of shooting enemies and monsters!
In Doom you basically walk through level by level shooting and trying to escape each obstacle!The weapons that you are able to obtain are the following:1.
Fist - Being a powerful guy with much courage and able to punch holes in walls why wouldn't he want start a fight with somebody even if they are legitimately from hell?
One blast from this and it'll fry anything in its path!The monstrosities in the game are the following:Former Humans: These guys were once buddies with the great marine but since they are now the living dead they despise the living and he has no other choice but to gun them down into tiny pieces!Former Human Sergeants: They are also the living dead!
With their razor sharp claws they can rip a person's face off like it was nothin!Demons: Large pink colored gorilla shaped horned monsters with kissers like bulldogs that has a mouth full of teeth and a hunger attack for flesh!Spectre: These guys are invisible demons and seem even harder to kill!Lost Souls: Flaming screaming skulls come flying out of no where!
They hiss with anger and are extremely tough!Barons of Hell: Huge muscular minotaur like monsters that throws green plasma.
This big daddy's rocket launcher and speed is no cool surprise for the good marine so he is going to give all hes got and more if he wants to survive because this living skyscraper is nearly impossible to destroy!The Spider Mastermind: Arguably larger than the Cyberdemon, the Spider Mastermind is as tough as him with her huge metal legs and a massive chain gun that'll make puny humans into tiny rubble!Graphics: The graphics are spectacular in most of the versions!
If you like shoot em up games then I strongly recommend you play Doom today!To purchase this video game on many game formats check out Amazon.com!.
Doom is the legend, the game that started the computer gaming genre.
Doom single-handedly made the computer the most powerful gaming system on the planet.
Doom not only set the standards for graphics and fps, it set the standards for Computer Games everywhere.Although the game is old and cheesy now, upon its original arrival it was horrifying and well built.
Doom 3 will be the next game to define a generation...
First there were first-person-shooters like Wolfenstein 3D.
A game where you're not only running and gunning, you've got switches to pull and secret doors lead you to the key to get to the next level all the while dodging fireballs and demons and flying flaming skulls.
Games like Quake, Duke Nukem, Star Trek: Voyager-Elite Force and Clive Barker's Undying all owe their existence to DOOM.
Before Doom there was Wolfenstein 3D, but this game focused on an invasion by demons on a military base, placed on the moon Phobos.Every single one of your comrades got killed, and alone you had to fight yourself through an army of former humans and of course the hideous packs of demons.
DooM: The legendary game that made FPS games a mainstream genre.
Back in the early nintey's FPS games were usually just bland walk in the same halls a billion times and shoot things.
Then a small group made a game along with Apogee called "Wolfenstein 3D" it had texture mapping, and people loved it, but it still never got it's claim to fame.
Then, one year later, on December 5th 1993 "DooM" was finished by ID Software, exactly 5 days later, they released the shareware along with the final game.
DooM redefined the genre, from underground shareware games, to full blown action games.
The game has lost none of it's impact today, it's maze like corridors, horrific demons, gore and death everywhere, all of it is still an amazingly fun experience.
Doom will always be one of the best FPS games ever, the community is still strong even 11 years later!!!!.
The True Classic of FPS Games.
Doom, like my title suggests, is a true classic.
I still remember playing Doom on my computer at work with my beloved PC speaker; my boss heard, and you can guess the outcome.It is hard nowadays to get hold of, but check any old shareware CDs and you might just find it...10/10!.
The greatest video game of all time..
Most guys around my age (17 or so) played DOOM in their childhood and remember it fondly.
Although it is extremely outdated and does not run well with Windows 98, it is the video game ever made, and placed ID Software on the map.
Back in December 1993 people awaited and were unleashed what was going to be a new era in Computer games.
Doom set the standard, a simple objective based around a superb story line, kill or be killed!This game made history, and it continues to.
now, almost a decade later, and after two sequels lots of different computer platform versions, we are about to be unleashed with Doom 3, Which the producers claim is gonna scare the living day lights out of everyone.
They'll do it again!Doom Lives, and will always, thats what games that make new eras do!.
I got my first taste of "Doom"-style hyper-violence eight years ago when I was in sixth grade via some kids who loaded the game onto our teacher's PC.
Later that same year, I got "Doom" for PS1 and I still play it religiously.
It's the greatest first-person shooter I've ever played (since as I stated earlier, this game made the genre - even if it wasn't necessarily the first).
"Doom" rocked my world the first time I played it, in much the same fashion as it did millions of others.
The experience is literally wall-to-wall in its intensity, and doesn't die once."Doom" - literally all hell breaks loose, just as it did when unleashed on an unsuspecting populace 13 years ago.10/10.
Proper title for a game that had people running out to buy two thousand dollar computers, probably causing a cornering of the technology market.Yeah, Doom wasnt really the first FPS (first person shooter), but it got everything moving.
Just assume that the millions of people who have played this game are right for once and check it out.My Rating: 9.
One of the best first person shooter games ever made.
Doom was a revolution in first person shooters.
In Doom, instead of just shooting everything, you also have to hit switches and make your way to the next level.
It's fun and challenging, the graphics are cool(though a bit dated now), the music in the background is top notch, being some of the best music I've ever heard in a game, and the monsters are cool.
The levels in this game are very hellish, and frightening at times.
Some rooms are dark, some are dirty, sometimes a monster will jump out from around the corner, the sounds in the game are realistic and creepy, and sometimes the music is creepy too.As a kid, my friend and I used to play this game for countless hours.
Other games we played were Duke Nukem and Quake.
Those games are very similar to Doom.
Doom is a great game, I hope you can get the chance to play it some time..
An undisputed classic and the most jarring interpretation of Hell I have ever seen in a video game..
DOOM, id Software's successor to WOLFENSTEIN 3D, really broke new ground in the world of 3D gaming back in 1993.
Among other things, it was the first ever first-person shooter to feature multiple floors per map, different levels of lighting, varying wall heighth and width, and the ability to play with up to four friends over a dialup modem or network connection.
Of course, we all know what REALLY made it popular: the astonishing amount of violence, gore, and heart-pounding action.DOOM took the world by storm, causing millions of users worldwide to become hooked to their PC's as they blew away demon after demon for hours at a time.
I burned away hours, days, and even months of my life pumping rounds into various Hell-spawned creatures.DOOM still has its flaws, however.
The lighting is much too dark at way too many points in the game, causing you to bump blindly into walls and be attacked by monsters you can't see.
You never had problems like this with WOLFENSTEIN 3D.Even the most excellent games of all times have a few errors, though.
A beacon of excellent design philosophy with pinpoint focus and self awareness to the game play that make it still stands out in today's industry among all the other shooters.
Just carnage from the excessive gore and great environmental and monster design and style, the satisfying weapons and combat, Atmospheric and metal soundtrack, deep level design with many secrets to find and a story that knows no one is there for it so it takes a back seat so the raw game play can unleash and provide a blast of entertainment and with constant mod support years later its a game that will possibly never age or at least never stop being an icon of the genre and gaming in general..
because the original shareware is so hard to find.Unfortunately when you mention doom to someone they will immediately think of doom 3 which is a shame as no one remembers the cult classic doom.This game is and always will be the greatest game of all time so just face it 10/10.
First, if Doom were never released, video games simply would not be what they are today.
Second, if you have never played Doom before, then you are NOT a gamer!
You know what those statements mean: Doom is a revolutionary classic and one of the best games of all-time, on any console or computer.
Where Wolfenstein 3-D was limited to running through hallways and rooms that usually looked the same, Doom is a realistic environment with things like stairs, ledges, windows, variable ceiling heights and wall angles, non-repetitive wall and ceiling textures, radioactive slime, lava, floating monsters (such as cacodemons)...the list goes on!
It all made for a truly immersive experience that actually felt like real life (at the time, of course).
It sucks you in and refuses to spit you out.Of course, a technologically advanced game is nothing without solid gameplay, and Doom really delivers in the gameplay department.
Considering how fun Wolfenstein 3-D was, you already know that you'll be staying up all night playing Doom...or not getting enough sleep because you can't get Doom off your mind.
One of the main reasons why the action is so satisfying in Doom is because of the (at the time) over-the-top violence.
However, Doom is actually less gory than most first-person shooters today.
Weaponry is also more varied than in Wolfenstein 3-D: here, you'll also have a shotgun, rocket launcher, plasma rifle (shoots out beams of electricity), and the BFG-9000 (the ultimate weapon of mass destruction).Doom is just one of those games that's so incredible that it's hard to describe what makes it so great.
When you consider how revolutionary Doom was when it came out, it's just hard to imagine the fact that today's games have improved leaps and bounds beyond Doom in nearly every category!.
My personal favorite game is GTA San Andreas, but Doom is still awesome.
I wouldn't classify it as the best game ever made like some people do, but Doom is still one of the greatest video games ever..
and 3d model and new graphic like evil dead batman etc etc.in the old dos version you must have ipx to play muti player but in windows 95 you can have icp/ip to play and you can play cooperative in quake you can also play cooperative but in newer games there are almost no cooperative some of us don't have fast internet so then is super fun to play cooperative and they have improv the graphic the the newer windows 95 verison when you play mutiplayer you bare mask but in the window down there you show your face and gets smiles when you pick something up great game i have complete first and second and ultimate doom..
And no other game I'd played up to that point had the same sense of horror and fear as DOOM did, in terms of kill-or-be-killed action and run-for-your-life reflexes.
DOOM had it all, and after all these years, it still does.
I can honestly say that DOOM is one of the greatest games ever made, in more ways than one; not only did it pretty much invent the concept of the FPS (First Person Shooter, for the laymen), it opened up a new cohesive world for the gamer to explore.
DOOM held those ideals fast, and each successive sequel (even the D Enhancer with the THOUSANDS of new levels) continued the tradition with stellar results.
One of the greatest games, if not THE greatest, I've ever played.
All of these games have a common root: the Doom Series, starting with DOOM itself.
Doom was the first good FPS (First Person Shooter) game.
With 6 weapons that the player could pick up, as well as four different ammo types, Doom was incredibly advanced for its time, although by today's standards it is low-res, poorly rendered (It uses sprites, like most older FPS games), and a pain in the ass (to get used to the controls, which are very difficult to change).
No reason not to buy this game, you should be able to buy it at Wal-Mart or Best Buy, in like a collectors edition containing Doom 2 and Final Doom as well, it was about $10.
I played this game all my life and this game is one of the best first person shooters ever, well...Er...half life is better because its a really big story.
This game is all about marines going inside a gate way to hell to make sure nothing comes out.
After that, you hear a gun battle with your allies fighting some creatures but then there all dead and all the hell demons are after you.
Doom 2 and final doom is good because they have better weapons and monsters but they have to much creatures in this game and they have confusing levels.
I will always play this game until I'm 80 years old because this is a cool game, folks!
I will give this a 10 out of 10 for good levels, weapons, sounds, designs and of course monsters!!!!.
The greatest first-person shooter game of all time!.
When I was a kid in the 90's, I remember watching other kids (and also teens & adults) playing "Ultimate Doom" on their computers.
Now, more than 7 years later, I finally had the chance to play the game (I bought the Doom collector's edition CD-ROM earlier this year, which includes the next 2 Doom games).It's an excellent first-person shooting game.
The first monsters are very weak zombie soldiers, whom were once just like you, but they were killed by the Hell demons and then became possessed by Hell's evil.
As you advance further through the levels you fight more types of monsters such as the annoying Imps, the balloon-like Cacodemons, the fiery Lost Souls, and more.The maps in the game are pretty good for its time of release.
And let's not forget the all-powerful BFG-9000; this weapon is extremely strong and can be used to clear a room full of demons (although you may need to fire more than one shot to kill all the demons in the room.To conclude, this is the best shooting game of all time!
Despite the game being about 10 years old, it is still being played by many gamers worldwide.
The most influential game of all time...
My favourite weapon has to be the Chainsaw though.I like the classic shooter and this falls under the character and sometimes it feels like a survival horror even by todays standards, I wasn't scared in it just felt like it was a survival Horror because sometimes the "DOOM guy" as many fans call him is trapped in some dark room with many of those monsters trying to kill him...
This sounds like fun the biggest challenge you are likely to face in the game is killing those demon/devil-looking monsters on the last level (unless I missed something) they were so hard to beat I kept on dying when I went through every other level without dying.This casts my vote as best first-person-shooter game I've completed...
somewhere in mid-1995 I got a CD with lots of shareware games ...
including DooM.The game had things that no other game had: while 3D FPS were already there, most of 'em were like the corny Area51 that were basically "your character moves, shoot, reload and pray they don't hit you".
First thing I found out with this game was that some lights flickered, some other lights turned off, like level 1-3 or some other nice traps.
I mean "I'm scared like hell" kind of Dark.
(Cultural Note: Phobos means "fear").Even though it may look like cheesy by today's standards, this game set standards back in its time, mocked by Duke Nukem, and well set the bar until Quake for graphics, and Half-Life for game-play. |
tt0039768 | Ride the Pink Horse | Lucky Gagin (Robert Montgomery) arrives on a bus in San Pablo, a small rural town in New Mexico during its annual fiesta. He plans to confront and blackmail money from a mobster named Frank Hugo (Fred Clark) as retribution for the death of his best friend Shorty. He unpacks the Colt 45 pistol from his luggage, sticks it in his waistband, places the check in question in locker 250, and secretes the locker key with a piece of chewing gum to the back of the framed map in the bus depot waiting room.
Because of the fiesta, Gagin cannot find a room at the hotel by the bus station. He is directed to the non-tourist side of the town. At the merry go round there, he meets Pila (Wanda Hendrix) who takes him to the La Fonda Hotel and gives him a charm of Ishtam that she says will protect him.
At the hotel, Gagin uses a ruse to find out that Frank Hugo is in room 315. Gagin comes, uninvited, into the hotel room, and proceeds to knock out Jonathan (Richard Gaines), Hugo's private secretary. Marjorie Lundeen (Andrea King), a sophisticated female acquaintance of Hugo's, comes in and uses her wiles trying to learn more about him. When the telephone rings, Gagin answers and impersonates a bell boy. Speaking with Hugo, he learns that Hugo will not be there that day. Gagin leaves the room and in the hotel lobby, he is accosted by FBI agent Bill Retz (Art Smith). In his conversation with Gagin, Retz recounts the plot so far. Retz takes Gagin to lunch and tells Gagin to lay off with his plot for revenge on Frank Hugo.
Still looking for a room, Gagin ends up at the Cantina de las Tres Violetas, where Pila is inexplicably sitting outside. Going inside, Gagin finds himself to be the only non-Hispanic in the bar. He buys himself a large whiskey and pays for it with a twenty dollar bill. The barkeep can only make change for ten dollars and the situation is resolved by Pancho (Thomas Gomez), who proposes that Gagin buy ten dollars worth of drinks for everyone in the bar.
Gagin, having spent twenty dollars at the bar, accompanies Pancho back to his tiovivo (carousel) where Pancho puts him up for the night. Pila arrives at the merry go round and ends up sleeping in one of the seats on the carousel. Retz also shows up and warns Gagin of the toughs and tells him that if he could readily find Gagin, so will the toughs.
The next morning, Gagin goes back to the hotel where he meets Frank Hugo, who wears a hearing aid. Gagin tells Hugo that he has check number 6431 and proceeds to layout the blackmail. They agree to meet that evening at the Tip Top Cafe, where Hugo will pay Gagin the thirty thousand dollars for the incriminating check.
Retz meets Gagin and "officially" asks for the evidence, which Gagin refuses to hand over. Gagin takes Pila to lunch and they are interrupted by the arrival of Marjorie Lundeen. She lays out a scheme for how to shakedown Frank Hugo for even more money, but Gagin does not go along with Marjorie's plan.
After the lunch, Gagin returns to the bus depot where he retrieves the check and follows the fiesta crowd to the Tip Top Cafe. He meets with Hugo, who is having dinner with his associates. Hugo tells Gagin that the bank messenger with the money will be late. Marjorie invites Gagin to dance with her, and in order to not be seen by Hugo, she walks Gagin outside to a dark alley. There, she tells him that there is no messenger, but someone else. The response to Gagin's query as to who is coming is two toughs who jump him. In the ensuing fight, one of them stabs Gagin in the right shoulder with a knife. Retz finds the two toughs in the alley, one dead and one with a broken arm, and confronts Hugo at the dining table. While the police search the area, Pila finds Gagin in the bushes, pulls the knife out of his back, and together they make their way back to Pancho and the merry go round.
Gagin gives the check to Pila, who hides it in her bustier. Two toughs come to the tiovivo. With Gagin hidden in one of the seats by Pila, and children riding the carousel, the toughs proceed to severely beat Pancho, who does not divulge the presence of Gagin. Gagin, whose health and mental state are failing, agrees to go with Pila back by bus to her village of San Melo. While they are waiting in the Tres Violetas, they are found by Locke (Edward Earle) and Lundeen. When Locke approaches the now passed out Gagin, Pila hits him with a bottle and they make their escape, leaving Marjorie to find Locke lying on the floor the cantina.
Gagin makes his way back to the La Fonda Hotel, where Pila finds him outside room 315. The door is opened by one of Hugo's toughs and the duo is brought into the room,where Frank Hugo, Marjorie Lundeen, Jonathan, and the two toughs are present. Hugo begins to question the now incoherent Gagin, who does not remember where the check is. He is beaten by one of the toughs, who then proceed to also beat Pila. Retz arrives, disarms the toughs, breaks Hugo's hearing aid, and ultimately gets the check from Gagin.
At a two dollar breakfast the next day with Retz, Gagin refuses to eat. Retz tells Gagin that he should say goodbye to Pila and Pancho, and together they return to the merry go round. Gagin bids adieu to Pancho, and then, uncomfortably, to Pila, to whom he returns the Ishtam charm. As Retz and Gagin leave, Pila, who had been somewhat of an outcast with her peers, is surrounded by them. She recounts the story of her adventure and realizes that now she is the center attraction among her group.
=== Adaptation ===
In the novel, a character named "Sailor" rather than Frank Hugo has managed to obtain a deferment from military service. The film makes many details, including those of the blackmail scheme, less sordid, and adopts different names and occupations for the principal non-Mexican characters. Although Gagin's first name is never mentioned in the film, the opening credits read: Robert Montgomery is Lucky Gagin.
The character Frank Hugo, as portrayed by Fred Clark, has more than a passing resemblance to Zozobra, the god of bad luck, who burned as part of the fiesta. | revenge | train | wikipedia | null |
tt1016090 | The Cursed | Two high school students arrive at the Mitusya convenience store. One of the students, Yuko, proclaims she cannot enter the shop. However, she backs away too far and is killed by a truck.
Some time later, Ryouko Kagami, a representative of the Cosmo Mart chain, seeks to purchase the store on behalf of her boss, Tejima. She explains to the shop owners, Mr. and Mrs. Kitura, that Tejima could not be present because of an accident in which his feet were amputated, to which the Kituras react with amusement. As Ryouko begins doing an inventory of the store, she befriends a part-time employee named Nao Niigaki. A customer in a hooded coat comes in and starts reading a magazine. Nao tries to get a good look at his face, but can only see darkness.
Later, a man comes in and makes a purchase for 666 yen. While walking home, the man encounters a white ball which has rolled from a dark alley. He picks it up and walks into the alley where a voice asks him to return the ball. He walks into the darkness, disappears, and the ball is bounced outside again.
While Nao sorts the drinks in the freezer, she sees a pair of eyes staring back at her. Meanwhile, Ryouko finds a product that expired three years previously. She questions the Kituras, who blankly continue staring in a CCTV camera. Two crows crash into the window, killing themselves. Nao and Ryouko go to outside to investigate, where the Kituras are somehow already present and hosing away the crow remains, laughing madly. That night, a man and woman make purchases for 699 yen and 999 yen respectively. On the way home, the woman is stalked by a man with a sledgehammer, who eventually appears inside her apartment and attacks her.
The next day, Ryouko receives a call from Tejima, who tells her "everyone has feet" before the signal cuts to static. After dark, the night clerk, Komori, serves the hooded man. The till registers 44.44444 yen, and Komori looks up to find only blackness in the hood. The man then forces Komori's head inside the hood. Komori comes out in shock and panic. Ryouko arrives and sees that one of Komori's eyes has monstrously bulged out of his sockets. Ryouko takes over Komori's shift and charges a woman 666 yen. A man is initially charged 907 yen until he is hypnotized by steamed buns; he buys one and the price changes to 999.
That night, the woman cooks food for her boyfriend when a blackout occurs. She opens her fridge to find a long corridor from which a pale girl emerges. The girl approaches the woman and tricks her into fatally stabbing her boyfriend, before the woman is suffocated by a bag over her head. Meanwhile, the man visits a bathhouse. Witnessing strange phenomena in the bath, he attempts to leave when he slips on mysterious hair and is knocked unconscious. When he wakes up, the man is attacked and killed by the elderly clerk of the bathhouse. He grabs the man's steamed bun and eats it while watching the television.
That same night, Nao is standing at a railroad crossing when the hooded man appears and tries to pull her toward the passing train. She resists until the train passes and the hooded man disappears. The following day, Nao finds a homeless woman who tells her to come with her to learn more about the store. Nao and the woman are joined by Ryouko at the park. The woman reveals that the store's owner mistreated his contractor when it was being built. The contractor, in anger, broke apart the tombstones of people without families and used the fragments to build the store's foundation, resulting in its haunting. Ryouko tells Nao to stop working there.
Nao comes to the store and saves Komori from a ghost in the bathroom. Komori, regaining his sanity, runs out of the store where, in the sun, he baptizes himself in the river. He throws away his jacket, regains his composure, and leaves with Nao. Ryouko, walking toward the store to work, finds a wheelchair rolling down the hill. Her boss Temija tells her every ghost does not have feet and he is happy. Ryouko thanks him and walks away. The movie goes back to the beginning, now shot from Yuko's point of view, where she sees the tortured souls inside the store. | murder | train | wikipedia | An old curse is killing people and our animal friends.
Bummer, I know..
After losing his job and his girlfriend Denny travels to Tennesee to spend some time with a friend and do some research on some of it's history; specifically matters concerning unsolved murders of people and animals.
Shortly after his arrival, more murders of people and animals occur.
The sheriff is suspicious of him (never mind that the town has had a history long before Denny showed up) but at this point it's only an "interesting coincidence".
More stuff happens, and it turns out that all of it is connected to an ancestor of Denny's, Charles Dellington, who was a former slave owner in Tennessee.
Seems that after the slaves were liberated old man Dellington couldn't get anyone to work for him because of his bad reputation.
So he tried to work the land himself, but that failed.
He tried raising cattle; that too failed.
He prayed to God for help, but it seems God was busy, or something.
Desperate, Dellington tried "the other guy" (yeah, the Devil).
He draws a large pentagram, strips down to his underwear, and lies down at it's center and offers the devil his soul.
This is some old guy, folks, so we know the Devil couldn't have been too pleased with that maneuver.
He cursed the poor bastard.In my mind this is at best a 4 star movie.
The acting could have been a little better on the part of some of the cast members.
And the story (as usually is the case) could have been more imaginative though I did like the form the ghost took.
There's also some very bad "old man" make-up in here so the make-up artist should go back to school.
Lastly, I never really understood the reason for all the killings; animals, people, WTF?!!!
If you see the movie let me know.
Love, Boloxxxi..
This ain't no SALEM'S LOT.
The Mandylor brothers, Louis and Costas, who aren't getting any younger or better in the acting department, costar in this no-budget demon-hunting tale set in a Steven King-type small town.
The demon has been awakened from a long sleep by the arrival of a young writer, whose family was from the town and who is connected to it somehow.
It starts off by killing some cattle and then tears up a whole bunch of people, including most of the cast, which isn't all that large.
The script is pretty bad, the acting is wooden, and the special effects are just so-so.
The demon itself isn't all that bad-looking and wisely is kept in shadow most of the time -- and frankly it could just as easily have been a werewolf.
I think the filmmakers were influenced by the TV show, SUPERNATURAL.
The ending is lifted from both John Carpenter's THE THING and THE FALLEN..
Low-budget, but serious and atmospheric.
Although "The Cursed" was shot in 2007 it wasn't released until early 2010 on Syfy.THE PLOT: A writer (Brad Thornton) comes to a small Tennessee town to complete a book and strange things start happening – animals and people mysteriously disappear or are slaughtered.
He hooks up with a good-looking librarian (Francesca Cecil) and they trace the problem to a satanic curse from the post-Civil War era.
Meanwhile the sheriff (Louis Mandylor) is at his wits end trying to figure out what's going on and increasingly suspects the writer's involvement.Although this is a low-budget, independent film it's considerably better than Syfy's usual fare, e.g.
"Gatorade vs.
Mega-Cleavage." How so?
For one, it maintains a serious vibe, which is important in an age when most mystery/horror films belong in the comedy section.
Secondly, the film creates a mysterious ambiance throughout, akin to "The Fog" but with a Stephen King plot minus the cartoony characters.Speaking of the atmosphere, I really liked how you can hear the distinctive Eastern forest sounds, like the crickets and peepers, etc.
I realize it's odd to point this out but the movie did this better than any that I can remember.
The film was shot in McMinnville, Tennessee, by the way (and it's nice to see a film of this ilk shot somewhere other than Bulgaria, Romania or British Columbia).Another positive is the monster's appearance, particularly when it opens its mouth (when it's closed it doesn't look very impressive).Negatives include too much obvious dubbing and plot elements that simply don't make sense (why would the killer of the demon become the monster?
And how would the old black guy know this with any certainty?); in addition, I disapprove of two important people biting the dust and the very end is lame.FINAL WORD: Although it's nothing to get overly excited about, "The Cursed" is effective for a TV horror film.
The filmmakers and actors take the material seriously and the film evokes a cool creepy atmosphere, but the negatives cited above force me to give it a fairly mediocre rating or "almost good".GRADE: C+..
Trite thriller inspired no doubt by Stephen King type of stories....
BRAD THORNTON and LOUIS MANDYLOR star in what feels like a Stephen King story about a sheriff (Mandylor) trying to solve the mysterious deaths of townspeople and farm animals in Tennessee who have fallen prey to a blurry dark figure who seems to be impossible to kill.With phony Southern accents for some cast members and CGI effects that are unworthy of even a made-for-TV thriller, none of it appears to be the least bit convincing.
It doesn't help that none of the principal roles are played with any distinction.Director Joe Bender must be partly to blame but the script is trite, shallow stuff with cardboard characters that have no dimension whatsoever.Apparently, the scriptwriter ran out of ideas for the ending and leaves everything pretty much unresolved as to the fates of our hero (Thornton) and the town sheriff..
Sci fi starting to get a little more clever.
This is a fairly trite story line, about the unkillable evil, the same old super evil that cannot be killed.
The treatment of the topic here is fairly clever, however.We get more than one main character.
In essence, we get an impression that the writer was alluding to "Lifeforce" in many ways, with one man a hands on operator battling demons in his life, and the other man an official who comes in to clean up.
However, these characters are much more credible and identifiable than the ones from "Lifeforce".The minor characters are plentiful.
Some are three dimensional, but there are many who seem to be mere plot devices.
These are minimal, and come across more credible, since they are demographic enough.
For instance, there is one old demon battler, and three vigilantes who do the doomed vigilantes in the woods theme (which has become popular the past 10 years, but not trite yet).
These are a minority, even in the small town, as there are nearly a hundred who meet to discuss action.
Therefore, they seem a little more credible as a demographic.The logical course of action is well thought out by the writer.
Much of this is cleverly done.
Near the beginning, a rancher tells the lawman that his cattle have been mutilated in a very unexplainable way.
We soon learn this is not an isolated case, and the writer shows us very much in a few scenes.
Someone is actually learning how to write at Sci Fi.One hero has a lot of credibility, but the story seems to want to make him a cigarette smoker very badly, even though he is physically fit, lean, and a writer.
Most of us have never even met a man who smokes who is lean, physically fit, and creative, nor one who is a jogger or writer.
Also, he begins the day by waking up and jogging.
Any one who jogs knows that this is unrealistic.
Any one who did this would pull a muscle almost every time, and lose out on weeks at a time.
The military purposely has GIs warm up with calisthenics before their jog.But these are nit picks.
Obviously one of the sponsors is involved with tobacco, so we can overlook this if it isn't overdone, and if the story is well done.
This one passes the test, although the ending is a bit trite and over the top for this otherwise well written piece..
Decent entry, if not overly spectacular.
Arriving in a small town, a recently divorced man accidentally unleashes a demonic curse with a supernatural entity that is descended from a Satanic curse in his bloodline dating back centuries, forcing him into a deadly battle with the dangerous creature.This turned out to be quite the decent and enjoyable monster movie.
One of the better elements here is the rather impressive amount of suspenseful, enjoyable attacks in here which make this one highly interesting.
The ability of having the attacks be mostly based on the fog-enshrouded locations that so prevalent in here so the opening attack in the woods where the guy searching for his cat only to stumble upon the creature in the darkness, or a later attack on the highway with all the different creatures getting involved in the incident both manage to incorporate those rather chilling elements to maximum impact.
Other attacks, such as the ambush on the hunting party in the foggy woods as they prowl through the under-brush or the encounter in their house also showcase the film's penchant for creepy sections loaded with atmosphere so that tends to bring an overall chilling effort that has a rather frenetic pace to it due to these really chilling scenes.
This one tends to go along at quite the great pace here which accounts for quite a few action-packed scenes that move the rather enjoyable plot along incredibly well.
That has a lot to do with the concept of the curse here as well, coming off as a really different take on the whole cursed- bloodline angle and makes for a rather pleasing effort overall.
Along with the creatures' look and the build-up in here to the finale, there's enough good parts here to make this quite entertaining.
There's a few flaws here that do pop up, mainly in the few small attacks here that no mean nothing to the film as a whole.
A couple of these attacks are just so short that it's impossible to get a sense of what happened, unlike past Sci-Fi Channel efforts where they played a fine role in the course of the film's events while others are edited so haphazardly that the disorienting nature of what's going on throughout here makes for some pretty troubling times with this.
The other big flaw in this one is the fact that a huge majority of the attacks, fun as they may be, have an underlying sense of stupidity on the victims who continually wonder long into the traps and ambushes by their inability to recognize the danger of the situation.
Add in some rather lame kills and a lot of off-screens ones as well and these do hold back the few flaws here.Rated Unrated/R: Graphic Violence, Graphic Language, Brief Nudity and sexual content..
The excitement wore off..
I'm originally from McMinnville, Tennessee, where this movie was filmed.
I was an extra in a few different scenes and spent a lot of time watching while they were filming it.
At the time, and while waiting for the movie to finally come out, I was very excited to see it on the big screen.
Unfortunately, that excitement wore off quick.I'm glad that small towns such as mine are starting to get noticed by the film industry, but the portrayal of the town was downright embarrassing.
From the horrible southern accents to the awful acting, it made it hard to get through this movie.The beginning of the movie started out very slow.
It seemed like every time a commercial came on I felt as if nothing at all had happened and I sat there wondering, "When is the action going to start?" Truthfully, there wasn't enough action in this film at all.
The plot is pretty much obvious from the start and you can guess what's going to happen next.Some general complaints about the movie: 01.
Way too many people die right off the bat and throughout the whole film.
It's as if literally the entire cast of the movie is killed by this creature.
Now I've always been a horror movie buff, so I know fear.
This film instilled no fear in me at all, probably because there was no guesswork involved; everything is laid out for you.
The special effects are cringe-worthy at best.
This seemed like one of those corny Syfy Originals and that disappointed me because I was hoping for so much more.
The movie was originally going to be called Tenebrous, meaning dark, shadowy, obscure, but it was changed to The Cursed after the co-producer died.
What a shotty thing to do!It was hard for me to gain a real interest in this film and be able to sit down throughout the whole thing because there was no mystery.
There was nothing in this film that kept me guessing or hanging on the edge of my seat.
Even the ending was disappointing for me.
It ended in a cliffhanger, which is okay if there's a sequel in the works but there's not.So if you haven't guessed already, I don't recommend seeing this film.
It's cheesy and guessable, and it's hard to imagine that Costas Mandylor, star of the Saw films, shared in the creation of this movie.
It's not a film that I would be interested in wasting my money on or watching again, even if I were paid to do it.
Believe me, you'd rather be spending your time doing something else..
Satan must be disappointed!.
This movie starts out interesting when the little girl is looking for her cat and wanders into the woods, something you'd think her mother would have warned her against.
When the mom finds only her hand you think this is going to be a bad ass movie!
Sweet!
Then it takes a U-turn and gets slow like a typical bad horror film.
A mysterious stranger comes to town and animals and people start dying off.
The sheriff tells him we don't want "no trouble"-which of course is what they get!
And it's all the stranger's fault, even though the town has a history of disappearances and bizarre things.
This movie has so many clichés that you and your partner can take turns saying them!
Like the sexy, young librarian that doesn't exist in real life!
The mysterious stranger just happens to be writing a book about murders in the south and comes into the library.
She gives him a book with all the history that she has just for that occasion!
As he reads, he begins to figure out what has alluded the towns people for hundreds of years!
His friend happens to have a rifle that shoots at "mock 20" (WTF is that?) And we all know that the creature is sooo fast a regular gun just won't do...
When the sheriff and his wife are murdered, the sheriff duties fall to his younger brother.
The townsfolk don't trust his abilities and want to form a vigilante group.
He doesn't believe this is a good idea-if nothing else to prove he isn't 100% redneck, but only 85%.
And we all know he has a "murder investigation to attend to!" We find that the mysterious stranger and the creature are related.
His ancestor turned to the dark side when all his slaves were freed.
Well, he was old and pathetic and Satan was bored, so he turned him into the "creature" who after hundreds of years wants "released" and has been "waiting" for the stranger, which is kinda like his salvation or something.
The ending is even worse.
You don't know who shot who and you don't really care..
Straight-to-video local horror.
THE CURSED is a very low budget, straight-to-video local horror production from America.
It was filmed in Tennessee and is notable for featuring real-life siblings Costas and Louis Mandylor who also play siblings in the movie.
Costas Mandylor is of course well known for his prominent role in the SAW sequels.
In this film they're sheriffs looking into a rural mystery involving supernatural horror.
The film is slow and occasionally atmospheric, but the demonic storyline doesn't really convince and the supernatural scenes are quite laughably over the top. |
tt0418455 | Adams æbler | Neo-Nazi gang leader Adam (Ulrich Thomsen) is granted parole from prison for participating in a rehabilitation program, where he joins the aggressive Saudi gas station robber Khalid (Ali Kazim) and the kleptomanic rapist Gunnar (Nicolas Bro). The community is headed by the priest Ivan (Mads Mikkelsen), who believes firmly and blindly in the goodness of man, and is seemingly oblivious to the ongoing misconduct and aggression of his charges.
Ivan tells Adam to choose a goal for himself to complete his rehabilitation. Trying to mock the priest, Adam chooses the goal of baking an apple pie. Ivan accepts, but stipulates that making the pie includes grooming and harvesting the churchyard apple tree. Adam is loath to complete his task, especially because at first crows attack the apples, and later most of those that remain are eaten by worms. The misanthropic Nazi is especially irritated by Ivan's joyful manner, excessive optimism and extreme forgiveness, and he sets it as his personal goal to break the priest's spirit and crush his faith.
Adam discovers that Ivan's life has been very difficult. Growing up as a victim of child abuse, he has terminal brain cancer, and is the widowed father of a severely disabled child. The cynical village doctor theorizes that Ivan discounts reality and sees all problems as tests from the devil, because his real life would be otherwise nearly impossible to bear. Adam psychologically attacks the priest by quoting the Book of Job, reasoning that it is God who hates the priest, not the devil. Ivan finally breaks down and renounces his faith.
Adam is gleeful at first, but soon realizes that without Ivan's influence, Khalid and Gunnar revert quickly to their criminal habits, and starts realizing the positive impact the priest had made. When several members of Adam's neo-Nazi gang visit the church and confront Khalid for earlier having shot two of their members, Ivan comes out of the church and demands to be allowed to die in peace. A scuffle ensues and the leader of the neo-Nazis accidentally shoots the priest in the eye.
At the hospital, the doctor predicts Ivan will be dead by morning. Suddenly guilt-stricken, Adam stays up all night baking a tiny, one-apple pie for Ivan, using the single apple surviving the sequential mishaps that happened to the apple-tree throughout the film. When he arrives at the hospital, he finds that Ivan's bed is empty. He goes to find Ivan's doctor, who tells him that the priest is in the garden - the bullet that hit him has neatly removed the tumour that plagued him.
In an epilogue, Adam remains at the church as an assistant to Ivan, and Ivan and Adam welcome two similarly troubled men recently released from prison. | comedy, psychological, murder, allegory, violence, thought-provoking, cute, good versus evil, psychedelic, romantic | train | wikipedia | Anders Thomas Jensen has with his earlier films, "De grønne slagtere" and "Blinkende lygter", convinced the audience of his scriptwriting talents, especially his distinct sense of dark humour.
Indeed, the film's central theme questions our central notion of good and evil without giving definite conclusions: whether there really exist absolute values is eventually left unanswered.
Jensen attempts to twist the basic setting by making Ivan appear rather unsympathetic: while he helps people as a priest, he doesn't seem to do it because of them but rather because of his faith alone.
It is often Adam, who notices this, not failing to observe (almost objecting to) the weaknesses of Ivan's behaviour, and yes, it is the cold-hearted, evil Adam who seems to care more and more as the story goes on.It is difficult to sum up the whole film with only a couple of words.
Mixing biblical allegories, especially the story of Job (the Fall being also an essential part of the film, yet not actually in the plot itself), with modern drama and dark comedy, Adams æbler does not fit into traditional categories.
Ulrich Thomsen gives perhaps his best performance to date as Adam (challenged only by his role in Festen), and so does Mads Mikkelsen as Ivan.
As in his earlier films and as many of his Danish colleagues have been doing, Jensen is examining the limits of comedy how far can one go in making fun of sensitive matters such as abuse, rape, violence, racism, disability and so on.
Ivan preaches about the distinction between good and evil, pointing out how much the modern world is in confusion with these terms and how much our common conceptions have changed with time.
On the other hand, by making Ivan absolutely blind to misfortunes in his life, it illustrates how it is possible to see good in everything, and close ones eyes from everything bad.Adams æbler is a very interesting movie.
This was a wonderful surprise at the (Cleveland) CIFF, a well-made dark comedy.Adam is a neo-Nazi on a sort of Danish "probation for reprobates", where society's sinners are given a gradual re-introduction to public life under the guidance of Ivan, a parish minister.
Adam needs to negotiate a "program" for his several weeks stay; despite his efforts at being arch and cynical Ivan takes him totally in seriousness, setting "baking an apple pie" as Adam's goal.
A battle of wills ensues between Adam and Ivan, with wonderful comedic support from Gunnar (Nicolas Bro in another wonderful role) the ex-tennis player and Khalid (Ali Kazim) as a not-yet-reformed terrorist.Everyone is coping here, but the central character is clearly Ivan (perhaps the funniest I've seen Mads Mikkelsen!).
This rational irrationality is perhaps the greatest challenge to Adam; no matter what he does Ivan retains his faith
to a point where the comedy simply takes another course.Not to give away the delight of this comedy's surprises, the characters cope with life, each other, are exasperated and exasperating, consistently inconsistent
the trials of Job are well played out in this barely disguised absurdist romp..
First, I'd like to say that Danish humor is rarely completely understood and some scenes of this movie made me feel somewhat bad.
I noticed that me and almost the whole audience laughed more during this film than anyone has laughed while watching Mr. Beans whole production.If you aren't too sensitive to black humor, I strongly recommend you to watch Adam's Apples.
Adam's Apples also comments strongly modern society's hectic pace of living.Watch this film.
And then, there's Adam's Apples.If you want to watch a movie that takes some of the most depressing, horrible things you can think of, and makes them absolutely hilarious, this is the movie for you.I won't spoil much of the story, as watching what unexpectedly happens throughout is one of the pleasures of the movie.
It begins with a priest named Ivan driving an unrepentant neo-Nazi named Adam from prison to the church where he will be performing his community service.
I recommend Adam's Apples to people with a dark sense of humor, who are fine with laughing at incredibly inappropriate (yet incredibly amusing) things.
With "Adams Æbler", Anders Thomas Jensen has made his, of my opinion, best movie yet.
His Last two movies, especially the first one, "Blinkende luger", was very entertaining, but this one moves beyond.With his brilliant authenticity in the character of the troubled reverend, Mads Mikkelsen ("pusher", "bleeder", "blinkende luger", "de grønne slagtere") rises up from just being a good bi-actor, to becoming a complete artist of performance.
Together with Ulrich Thomsen who plays the Nazi on re-socialization, he carries the viewers through a fresh, shocking, dark, utterly intelligent, and exceptionally both humorous and psychological experience.Being more than rich on nerve-shattering imagery, great performances, and a very well crafted story, this film also leads a sharp edged, underlying parallel to an ancient story that comes to life in the film, and ends in a brilliant paradoxical way.
I laughed, almost cried, was chocked, laughed again and got some new tools to handle life with =) It is what I would call a black comedy in the same way as Blinkande Lyktor or Old men in new cars, both of them great danish movies.
Anders Thomas Jensen may be the most interesting danish director/scriptwriter in recent times, and this movie certainly proves it.
The neo-nazi Adam (Ulrich Thomsen) is sent to resocialization at a local church with a priest who can't do anything but turn the other cheek.
In a religious context he relive the life and destiny of Job who's punished by God. This could very well have been an abstract and far-our movie, however Thomas Jensen has the ability to make it understandable, humorous and very entertaining, while keeping the love and respect of the religious story.
Following the success of Blinkende Lygter and the not-so-great De Grønne Slagtere, Thomas Jensen places this story in between, by providing a black comedy with a great mind..
Awkwardly, even though it forced me to acknowledge that my personality has an intently merciless side which I didn't know existed (meaning laughing at things you are not supposed to laugh at) I found the dark humour and absurdity of the film thoroughly refreshing.Every little scene, every conversation, every piece of music in this comedy-ish danish drama is spot on.
But we soon wonder if the pastor, or perhaps his few parishioners, are in more trouble than the prisoners are.The film is brilliantly inspired in concept and story, playing out like a fable.
Anders Thomas Jensen has refined his talent through his films, and with Adams Apples it is shining!
I have never come along any comparable story and this is not the only aspect making Adams Apples my personal favorite of all time.
You get a little piece of everyone's background-story so you cannot help but feel like knowing the people for a long time and so, you perfectly sympathize their changings.
I had no expectations going in to it, other than the fact that I really love Danish films and the actor Mads Mikkelsen.
I had no expectations going in to it, other than the fact that I really love Danish films and the actor Mads Mikkelsen.
The acting from all of the actor's is superb!You go out of the movie theater with a smile on you face at the same time you find yourself reflecting on some of the key questions on life itself..Go out and watch it as soon as possible!.
The acting from all of the actor's is superb!You go out of the movie theater with a smile on you face at the same time you find yourself reflecting on some of the key questions on life itself..Go out and watch it as soon as possible!.
"Adam's Apples" is one of the strangest movies I've ever seen--so strange that I am not even sure if I liked it or not!
It certainly IS a one-of-a-kind viewing experience!!When the film begins, Adam (Ulrich Thomsen) is being paroled to the custody of a very strange priest, Ivan (Mads Mikkelsen).
Despite Adam being a thoroughly unrepentant neo-Nazi, Ivan seems oblivious to the evil man who he's agreed to care for...as well as two other rather screwed up criminals he's already caring for at his church.
Through the course of the film, Adam is amazed that Ivan has the most horrible life on Earth...yet he is bizarrely optimistic and happy.
And, what does making an apple pie have to do with all this?!Technically speaking, the film is well made and the acting good.
Mix a Neo Nazi in "recovery", a country priest fighting Satan, a religious terrorist out his country of approved homophobic origins, an obese recovering alcoholic, a medical doctor all snarky science and bellicose cruelty, and a pregnant woman who may be giving birth to a genetically "problematic" child and what do you get: ADAMS APPLES.
Every single person in the film is confronting a force field of GOOD vs EVIL from their own point of view, as black comedy.
But the biggest surprise of the whole story, amongst many, is that Adam, the Neo Nazi, begins to look like the most sane person in the group.
The premise of this movie seemed simple enough, about Neo Nazi called Adam (Ulrich Thomsen) being sentenced to community service at a church.
A priest, Ivan (Mads Mikkelsen), informs Adam that in order to complete his hours of service, he must have a goal in mind.
And that goal actually turned out unexpectedly, as a passing remark, to be as banal as baking an apple pie, with apples found in the apple tree grown on the church's premises.Written and directed by Danish filmmaker Anders Thomas Jensen, Adam's Apples is a black comedy about God and the mysterious ways in which He works.
All these clue Adam that perhaps he wasn't meant to finish serving his time as soon as possible, but rather has to find meaning in the extended period of time of him being at the church.The story actually got more interesting when the audience is introduced to the host of quirky characters who seek refuge at the grounds, such as Khalid (Ali Kazim) the Pakistani with a thing for robbing petrol kiosks, and Gunnar (Nicolas Bro), the fat kleptomaniac.
Certain (violent) scenes stood out and made you think about how those shots were actually achieved.Watching the movie actually made me wonder about the existence of an omnipotent being, and actually had this uncanny feel good factor about it at the end.
A movie about two ways of looking on life: positive and negative, this is one part what Adams æbler is talking about.
I do not recommend to watch it if you are in a bad mood, but if you want to have a good theme for thinking, then Adams æbler is the right movie for you..
I guess there is a serious point being made about truth and delusion (rather than good and evil) though the director, who spoke after the film, seemed happy that we had mostly taken it as comedy.
But if you enjoyed "After the Wedding" and enjoyed Mads Mikkelsen's performance just as much as I did, Adam's Apples is a movie you must watch.
This might sound like a stupid idea, and I've seen films that screw it up, but Adam's Apples pulls it off.
Although it's underlying themes are biblical, there are actually a lot of biblical undertones, the film doesn't force you to have any kind of religion; you can watch the movie just for the sake of the humour, skillful direction, acting, writing and emotional depth.
1st watched 5/28/2009 – 8 out of 10 (Dir- Anders Thomas Jensen): Wonderful story about a tough ex-prisoner who takes up occupancy at an urban church(probably thru some government program) that is led by a man who appears to be on the up-and-up at first.
This is a rare find of a movie and should be watched and enjoyed by anyone interested in good character development and stories..
It seems Anders Thomas Jensen has now made the same movie three times.
Even Mads Mikkelsen repeats his role from Anders Thomas Jensens last film "The Green Butchers", actually repeating the same lines and acting out the same character - only now with a beard.
I however take off my hat for Ulrich Thomsen who makes this movie a 6 instead of a 5 or 4 as intended, THIS guy is great, and he is not one of those who keeps repeating himself.Sure there are fun moments, and a lot of them, I laughed admittingly, but the jokes falls flat as soon as you realize that handicapped and mentally retarded children are actually not very funny stuff.
Well, the director and screenwriter Anders Thomas Jensen is famous for strange films and Adams æbler is definitely shining in this row.But the strongest part of the film is the cast, it includes so many contemporary Danish character actors: Ulrich Thomsen, Mads Mikkelsen, Nicolas Bro, Paprika Steen, Nikolaj Lie Kaas...
Danish movie Adam's Apples gain your attention from the first minutes of watching it.
Written and directed by Anders Thomas Jensen Adam's Apples characters have no moral values, illustrating capital vices.
If you're looking for a non-Hollywood well-done drama and you don't mind Nordic, clever, dark humour Adam's Apples is the movie you need to watch..
Another movie written by Anders Thomas Jensen and this time he's also a director.
Like in most of his previous movies, he's assembling Danish best acting trio Mikkelsen, Thomsen and Lie Kaas(a minor role).A comedy that will make you laugh for 90 min and you could easily watch this movie 10 times and laugh at every scene over and over.
Nicolas Bro and Ali Kazim fit into very good and helped this movie to be one of the best if not the best Danish comedy..
And by the variety of themes he touched.In the present movie (which he also directed) he shows the world what a creative author can do with a handful of actors, one church, one hospital and a couple of carsThe film is original, catching and endearing.
Mads Mikkelsen is even playing the same part as he did in the previous movie (not the SAME part, but the characters speak and behave the same way), he almost uses the same lines.
This means that the story gets thinner and thinner until the great points that he could make in a movie with this theme (good vs.
Director and Writer Anders Thomas Jensen introduces us to a small-town Drama with lots of darkest comedy and great character actors like Mads Mikkelsen, Ulrich Thomsen and Ole Thestrup.
Danish black humour takes both a more sinister and thought-provoking turn with Jensen's mature directorial opus, Adam's Apples.Ivan (Mads Mikkelsen) is a village priest with an unquenchably tolerant and forgiving attitude.
Is Adam the devil tempting Ivan, or just a realist trying to get him to admit his hypocrisy?Adam's Apples boasts good production values and excellent acting.
Inspired by the Book of Job, this movie is set in a rural church with Ivan, the church's vicar, and Adam, a neo-Nazi on social service, as protagonists.
In and around this church, Anders Thomas Jensens unleashes an outright war of good and evil in a story full of black humor that leaves the viewer little choice but to laugh tears.
This story is told with perfect timing and moving gravity realised by great actors.Despite all praise, I have one problem with this movie: I did not get the pun about the "Adam's Apple".
We all know that a good sense of humor leads to a happier life, and, based upon Adam's Apples and other films I have seen from Denmark, the Danes surely lead the way in exhibiting a sardonic, biting humor that is often very dark but not the least bit destructive.This little film draws much of its inspiration from the Book of Job and places it in a modern context with a witty touch of dark, dark humor.
Adam is a neo-Nazi who has been released from prison to enter a work program run by Ivan, a country minister.
Mads Mikkelsen as Ivan has the looks that fulfilled the idea of a Danish minister and an off-the-cuff manner in his portrayal that is absorbing.Even with its dark comic nature, Adam's Apples is also a fascinating drama and an enlightening look at good, evil, and the power of faith..
On the surface it's just a truly insane circus of actions and characters how you won't find them again so easily.All actors are believable and do a great job, above all of course Ulrich Thomsen and Mads Mikkelsen.
The weirdness and the obscure acting is just outstanding - The 2 new actors Ali Kazim and Nicolas Bro does the job well..And who would have thought, that mixing comedy and religion could be that great - Anders Thomas Jensen you have done a fine piece of work.In this movie you will also see some special effects, and it's done perfect - as you can hear, i am devoted to this movie - and I know I can't wait until it's out on DVD, I just have to see it one more time - I have even seen the trailer several times, just to be reminded of some of the funny scenes..
Adam Appel is one the most beautiful movies which could make me laughing and at the same time sorrow.
Danish Job. It's a comedy, so needless to say, despite the presence of a minister amongst this motley group of misfits that live together at a church, the neo-Nazi is the sane one, the least likely to shoot a cat out of a tree.
Adam's Apples is an unusual film in that you instantly dislike all the characters. |
tt0076217 | It's Your First Kiss, Charlie Brown | It's homecoming at Charlie Brown's school, and Charlie Brown and Linus are among the escorts for the Homecoming Queen and her court. During the Homecoming Parade, Linus tells Charlie Brown that he (Charlie Brown) will be the escort for the Queen, but Charlie Brown is shocked when he sees the Queen is none other than the Little Red-Haired Girl herself (whose name is said to be Heather, though neither her name nor appearance were chosen by Schulz). He is even more shocked when Linus tells him about the Homecoming tradition—that he has to escort Heather and give her a kiss before the first dance. Hearing this, Charlie Brown hyperventilates and falls off the float.
The Homecoming Game begins with Snoopy as the referee and Charlie Brown on the team as kicker. But unfortunately, even in a real football game with many spectators (and Woodstock as a TV cameraman), Lucy, also on the team as the placekick setter, can't resist humiliating Charlie Brown, again pulling the ball away just as he tries to kick it. To make matters worse, even though Lucy is clearly the one at fault, the team (particularly Peppermint Patty) blames Charlie Brown for the failed kicks. With just thirty seconds left in the fourth quarter, Charlie Brown has a chance to become a hero and kick a field goal for the win, but Lucy again pulls the ball away, and the team loses by only one point.
Despite the humiliation, Charlie Brown still arrives at the dance to the surprise of his teammates (including, oddly enough, Lucy, the real culprit behind the team's loss), some whom think it would have been better if he didn't show up at all. But remaining faithful to his duty, Charlie Brown escorts Heather to the middle of the dance floor and somehow summons the courage to kiss her on the cheek. From that moment forward everything is a composite blur, with Charlie Brown having euphoric visions now that he has kissed the Little Red-Haired Girl—an accomplishment previously thought to be unattainable.
Charlie Brown wakes up the next morning, having no memory of anything that happened after the kiss. He walks to the wall, his usual hangout, and meets up with Linus, who proceeds to tell Charlie Brown that though he might have lost the game, he definitely took the honors at the dance. According to Linus, Charlie Brown surprised everyone when he kissed Heather, but even more so when he took to the dance floor with her—and even the other girls in the court—doing all of the latest dances. In essence, Charlie Brown was the life of the party according to Linus.
In disbelief, Charlie Brown replied saying "What good is it to do anything, Linus, if you can't remember what you did?" Regardless, Linus reminds him that at least it was his first kiss and the story ends with Charlie Brown smiling with quiet satisfaction. | psychedelic | train | wikipedia | Lucy should be thrown off the team..
It makes the huge mistake of showing the Little Red-headed Girl.
She is supposed to be a figure of mystery, the object of Charlie Brown's unfulfilled desires.
Sparky should have made them change this.The most amazing aspect of this is that Charlie Brown gets all of the team's ire, when it's that little b**** Lucy who keeps pulling the football away on every kick attempt.
I don't advocate violence against women, but Lucy deserved a swift kick in the tuckus!Stick with the classics, although it is fun to crank up the sound when Charlie Brown misses the football..
I'm not all that familiar with American educational traditions, but surely elementary school-kids don't have homecoming dances?
and the Peanuts gang are always supposed to be kids in elementary school.
So right from the start, I'm jolted out of my enjoyment of this special by that.Then we start adding other sources of incredulity.
Charlie Brown has, for some reason, been picked to be the escort for the Homecoming Queen (the Little Red-Haired Girl.) Yahbuhwha?
And the peanuts gang are playing football -- against much bigger kids, I might add -- while wearing helmets over their usual clothes.
Everyone knows that Lucy is going to pull the football out of the way when Charlie Brown goes to kick it.
And then they blame Charlie Brown for screwing up?
Doesn't anyone see Lucy holding the ball?
While Snoopy is, in our world, a big time celebrity, in the milieu of Peanuts, he's just Charlie Brown's dog (and to a degree a neighborhood mascot.) While I can suspend disbelief enough to have him driving the kids in "Bon Voyage, Charlie Brown", and being treated as human by most of the kids, the idea that he'd be the subject of cheers from people who probably don't know who he is strain my suspension to its breaking point.There's one good moment in this special, that being of course the raptures that Charlie Brown flies into after he gives the Little Red-Haired Girl a kiss on the cheek.
Another Predictable Peanuts Cartoon.
I remember seeing "It's Your First Kiss, Charlie Brown" when it first aired in the 70s and to me it was interesting to see the little red haired girl, who is named Heather but never, ever seen in the comic strip.But unfortunately like many of the Peanuts cartoons, it suffers from predictability, especially in the football game scenes when Charlie Brown is the kicker and Lucy is the holder who pulls the ball away.
The gag was funny in A Charlie Brown Thanksgiving but becomes repetitive.
And Charlie Brown, not Lucy takes the blame for losing the game.
It just shows that I never liked Lucy in the cartoons.
It gets worse when she ridicules Charlie Brown at the homecoming dance.However, the best scene is when Charlie Brown finally kisses the little red haired girl but unfortunately the next day, he doesn't remember anything that happened.
It's a result of years of being bullied by Lucy and suffering from low self-esteem.
It was something that he accomplished in his own life and he still felt depressed.Of all the Peanuts cartoons that have aired, I would give it a major "Good grief!".
Since I am not American, I have no idea what a homecoming queen is and I am not familiar with their football rules.
This Peanuts TV special is mainly about both so I was a little bit lost for most of it.The story has Charlie Brown struggle (and unfairly lose) a football match and then finally get to meet his wannabe girlfriend (the little red-headed girl who finally see and is called Heather) at the Homecoming Ball (whatever that is).
The build of dread as he approaches her is quite amusing and when he finally kisses her the reaction is brilliant.
Though the scenes with Woodstock pretending to be a TV cameraman and flying around on Snoopy (who's ear act as chopper blades) are typically surreal and undoubtedly the best moments..
How can Lucy get away with everything when it's obvious that everything is her fault?.
First of all, I don't think I have ever seen this before.
It's not bad, it actually has that charm associated with Peanuts.
Artwork isn't fabulous, but simplicity is a characteristic of Peanuts's artwork.The story focus on Homecoming at Charlie Brown's school.
Charlie and Linus are possible escorts for the Homecoming Queen and her court.
Funnily, during the Parade, when Linus tells Charlie Brown that he will be the escort for the Queen, Charlie gets shocked because the Queen (whose name is Heather) is the Little Red-Haired Girl (who looks a bit like Lila from "Snoopy Come Home") and his shock is even greater when Linus tells him he must give her a kiss on the cheek before the first dance.
By hearing this, Charlie feels very much like Linus without his blanket.A Homecoming Game is included in this story.
Charlie Brown is the team kicker.
Unfortunately, Lucy is the placekick setter, which is an enormous mistake.
Whenever Charlie Brown is about to kick the ball, Lucy pulls the ball away, sending Charlie Brown into the air.
She is famous for this infamous trick, just as much as her well known bad temper.Poor Charlie Brown!
And then, of course, he gets blamed for the failures, while Lucy gets away all the time.
They should chose someone trustworthy - like Linus, for example.Not even when Charlie Brown has a chance to become a hero can Lucy be nice to him.
No wonder Charlie Brown has such a shaky self-esteem.
He is too young to feel as miserable as he does, but Lucy contributes a lot for that.And yet, Charlie Brown still goes to the dance.
Peppermint Patty and Lucy maliciously mock him and Lucy even has the nerve of mouthing off «Who would want to be your date after today's game?».
Lucy annoys me.
Lucy is rude, aggressive, hostile, selfish, mean and unfair.At least Charlie has the chance to kiss the Queen on her cheek, which makes him smile and feel so good in a way we rarely see on him.
It's a pity, though, he doesn't remember this good thing that happened to him..
Not that bad, but not that good.
I'll hail for the traditionalists that love to see The Little Red-Haired Girl as an unseen entity.
Unfortunately (or fortunately), this would have jettisoned half of the show's plot of Charlie Brown trying to impress his heart's desire.
Pedestrian, but not bad.The other half, concerning the football game, is where a golden opportunity for karmic payback was missed for comedic effect.
Lucy, on the last play, decides to pull the ball away *yet again* from Charlie Brown trying for a field goal.
Savvy football fans should know that that ball is *still* alive, in the case of this being a *fake* field goal.
In Lucy's case, she would be the target of the defenders trying to sack *her* with the ball.
My humble rewrite would have Lucy, in full panic, run up and down the field in sheer terror, and despite herself, still end up scoring and winning the game!
Lucy the hero, after all this?
Well, it *is* still a Charlie Brown world..
One of the Weakest Peanuts Specials.
The fully-drawn figure of the Little Red-Haired Girl made its debut in 1977's It's Your First Kiss, Charlie Brown.
Here, the Little Red-Haired Girl is the Homecoming Queen, and the football team is serving as her escorts.
Linus explains to Charlie Brown that each escort must walk with her at the Homecoming Dance and give her a kiss on the cheek.
Because Charlie Brown is on the football team, he realizes that he has to kiss the Little Red-Haired Girl.
While this special is decent and it is a nice setup, it suffers from some big story blunders that viewers were able to point out when it first aired.
It's Your First Kiss, Charlie Brown drew controversy from the fanbase over the Little Red-Haired Girl.
In the comics and previous specials, the Little Red-Haired Girl was only mentioned, but never seen.
Here, it turns out that the Little Red-Haired Girl not only has a fully-drawn figure, but also a first name (Heather).
After already seeing The Peanuts Movie, the debut of her fully-drawn figure doesn't really bother me as it did to everyone else in 1977.But that's not the real complaint that I have with this special.
During the Homecoming game, despite the fact that Charlie Brown did make a few mistakes, it was Lucy that blew the game because she pulled the ball away from Charlie on not 1, not 2, not 3, BUT FOUR FIELD GOAL ATTEMPTS!!!!!!!!
In fact, even Lucy herself told Charlie that she has no need to pull the ball away from him.
So if you know that the game is on the line, and you know that you shouldn't do it, then DON'T DO IT!!!!!
Sure, this football gag has provided funny moments in other times when they were just practicing for fun.
They're not in that setup here, THEY'RE IN AN ACTUAL GAME!
Then after the game, when everyone's at the Homecoming Dance, Lucy and the girls gang up on Charlie and blame him for the loss.
I know it's part of your character to criticize him, BUT LUCY, LAST TIME I CHECKED, YOU PULLED THE BALL AWAY FROM HIM FOUR TIMES!
OWN UP A LITTLE!And here's another complaint that I have with this special.
After Charlie Brown gives a kiss to the Little Red-Haired Girl, he has a dream sequence where he's flying through clouds and hearts, and then he wakes up in his bed.
So, the Homecoming Dance, or even the game, was all a dream, right?
The next day, Linus told Charlie Brown that they lost the game by one point, AND THAT HE DID KISS THE LITTLE RED- HAIRED GIRL AT THE DANCE, AND THAT HE DANCED WITH HER AND EVERY OTHER GIRL THERE, AND THAT HE WAS THE LIFE OF THE PARTY!
I JUST SAW HIM WAKE UP FROM A DREAM!
HOW DOES THAT WORK?Overall, I don't hate It's Your First Kiss, Charlie Brown, but I was very disappointed by it, and the Peanuts have done better than this..
One of my favorite Peanuts specials of all time!.
This was one of my favorites, despite being also the most controversial of all the Peanuts specials.
This was also the first post-Vince Guaraldi special that aired since he died (the last one Vince scored was "It's Arbor Day, Charlie Brown" which aired a year earlier).
Ed Bogas (who also scored the third Peanuts movie "Race For Your Life, Charlie Brown" which also came out in '77) and Judy Munsen took over for Vince, even including "Linus and Lucy", although it sounded real different.
The music was real funky and the groove was down-pact.The special itself was a departure for Charles Schulz and company.
For the first time ever, The Little Red-Haired Girl was seen, AND given a name: Heather.
Plus, the Peanuts gang was on a Football team playing in a Homecoming game.
Heather is the Homecoming Queen and Charlie Brown is her escort (how lucky is he!!!!!!!!!).
He tries to impress her because he is the place kicker for the team (who was being coached by Peppermint Patty), but, alas, Lucy was holding the ball (CB even tried to use a kicking tee before being stopped by Ms. Van Pelt) and, in classic Peanuts form, pulls the ball away from Chuck, and you know the results.
Because of Lucy (NOT CHARLIE BROWN, WHO GETS THE BRUNDT OF THE BLAME) they lose the game by one point.
Then the Homecoming dance comes and CB must escort the Queen (Heather) and give her the traditional kiss (as pointed out by Linus throughout the program).
The kiss leads to Chuck in Dreamland.I like this special for many reasons: 1.
Some of the girls (Not the normal Peanuts girls) sported lashes (a Peanuts special first); 2.
Snoopy is all over the place on this special (Woodstock's helicopter, referee, cheerleader's squad man, band member); 3.
The Little Red-Haired Girl is finally seen (even though Schulz wasn't responsible for how she would look-Bill Melendez and co.
have that distention-however she would finally appear in the strip in 1998 in a Spring Dance story as a silhouette dancing with Snoopy).
She would appear in 1986's "Happy New Year, Charlie Brown", 1988's "Snoopy: The Musical", and most recently in 2002's post-Schulz special "A Charlie Brown Valentine"..
Charlie finally gets his girl.
In the tradition of the Peanuts Valentine's Day movies, "It's Your First Kiss, Charlie Brown" is, as the title already states, another love-themed Charlie Brown movie.
Charlie is basically busy during the entire 25 minutes drooling over the cute redhead girl from his class.
And the only thing that distracts us from it is a football game, in which Charlie, as usual, is the one that costs them the victory.
Well, actually it's Lucy's fault, but Charlie once again has to take the blame.
So was it just a dream or did it really happen?
I usually like the redhead girl references in these films, but a whole movie on the matter seems too much in my opinion.
Also this one totally lacked other story-lines or even scenes that do not involve Charlie with his crush.
It's always nice to see a bit about the other characters as well, but not so in this one.
In my opinion, it's no surprise this one wasn't Emmy nominated as these Peanuts half hour films usually were.
In the football game, Lucy repeatedly pulls the football away.
This is the long-running gag, but the second time, she asks if she would pull the football away in a game this important.
Of course, it happens again; they should have called this "You're A Moron, Charlie Brown," just for this point.
My main issue here is that this happens in plain sight of everyone, but they all blame Charlie Brown, booing him or making caustic comments at his expense, but no one seems upset with (Satan's daughter) Lucy.
If this were real, they would turn en-mass on Lucy in a kind of mob rule kind of way here.
To take this to unbelievable extremes, it happens for a total of five times, getting similar responses each time.I have been re-watching many of these childhood specials recently, and I've been struck at how outright nasty the kids are in them.
I mean, I know kids often are cruel to each other, but if any child grew up with this kind of torture, he or she would likely socially degrade to the point of becoming a columbine-style school shooter.
Yet in this one, the kids have very little reason to be angry with CB.
Again, these kids would be shouting for Lucy's blood.
Peanuts were apparently not as heartwarming as remembered from youth.
Additionally, the little red haired girl was supposed to be the girl CB never gets.
Apparently, even though he can't remember it (and we don't get to see it,) he supposedly sweeps her off her feet and is the life of the party at the ball.
This kind of blows the whole point of this unapproachable girl in the story-line..
Enjoyable Peanuts TV special.
Charlie Brown tries desperately to impress his redhead dream girl Heather at a football game only to have Lucy continually foil his attempts at kicking a winning field goal.
However, despite losing the game Charlie still attends the homecoming dance so he can be Heather's escort.
Schulz's bright and compact script offers the usual winning blend of well-defined characters, a pleasant sense of humor, and a little pathos mixed in with all the silliness.
The best and most inspired running gag has Snoppy popping up all over the place during the big game as the referee, a helicopter for Woodstock (his ears act as chopper blades), a member of the cheering squad, a member of the band, and even a doctor.
Charlie Brown once again makes for a likable hard-luck protagonist: You just have to admire Chuck for having the guts to go to the dance after losing the game and having the courage to confront his dream girl (it's a gloriously sweet and lovely moment when Charlie Brown kisses her).
Moreover, the football game is a memorably fierce and funny set piece, with Peppermint Patty giving vague instructions to her teammates and Lucy constantly pulling the ball away from Charlie Brown.
Worst Peanuts special ever.
I have to be honest, I was never a big Peanuts fan mainly because of specials like this.
This is one of the few shows which made me want to kick my TV because it made absolutely no sense.
The only good thing about it is Charlie Brown finally gets a chance to kiss the little red-headed girl he has been chasing.
But the events leading up to it I found were totally unfair to Charlie Brown.
The Peanuts gang are playing a football game and Lucy does what she always does to Charlie Brown: she pulls the ball away whenever Charlie has to kick a field goal or kick off, She even pulls it away when he has a chance to win the game.
What gets me mad is the fact that everybody blames Charlie Brown for losing the game.
Does no one on the team see Lucy pulling the ball away!!
To add more insult during the homecoming dance Peppermint Patty continues to belittle him and to make it worse Lucy joins in the teasing!
We know Charlie Brown is supposed to be the hard-luck loser but this time it wasn't his fault!
It was Lucy!
(Did I mention how much I hate Lucy.)It is a shame that Schultz passed away without letting Charlie Brown finally kick the football.
But this special is a disgrace. |
tt0097493 | Heathers | 17-year-old Veronica Sawyer (Ryder) is one of the most popular girls at Westerburg High School in Sherwood, Ohio. In addition to Veronica, the popular clique consists of three wealthy and beautiful girls with the same first name: the leader, Heather Chandler (Walker); the bookish bulimic Heather Duke (Doherty), and the weak-willed cheerleader Heather McNamara (Falk). Though they are the most popular students, the Heathers are feared and hated. Veronica has had enough of their behavior and longs to return to her old life and her nerdy friends.
When a new student, a rebellious outsider named Jason "J.D." Dean (Slater) pulls a gun on school bullies Kurt Kelly (Fenton) and Ram Sweeney (Labyorteaux) and fires blanks at them, Veronica finds herself fascinated with him. When Veronica attends a frat party with Heather Chandler, but refuses to have sex and throws up, Heather vows to destroy her reputation. J.D. shows up at Veronica's house and they end up having sex outside, after which Veronica tells J.D. she wants to make Heather puke her guts out. The next morning, Veronica and J.D. break into Heather's house. J.D. serves Heather a liquid he claims is a hangover cure but is actually drain cleaner, killing her. J.D. urges Veronica to forge a dramatic suicide note in Heather's handwriting.
The school and community look on Heather's apparent suicide as a tragic decision made by a popular but troubled teenager. Heather Duke soon steps into Heather Chandler's former role as clique leader and begins wearing a red scrunchie that had belonged to Chandler.
Several days later, Kurt and Ram spread a rumor about Veronica giving them oral sex, ruining her reputation. J.D. proposes that Veronica lure them into the woods with the promise to "make the rumors true"; then shoot them with nonfatal German bullets. J.D. shoots Ram but Veronica misses Kurt, who runs away. Veronica realizes that the bullets are real; J.D. chases Kurt back towards Veronica, who panics and shoots him. J.D. plants "gay" materials beside the boys, and a suicide note stating the two were lovers participating in a suicide pact. At their funeral, the boys are made into martyrs against homophobia. Although she keeps dating J.D., Veronica is alarmed by his behavior.
Martha Dunnstock, an obese, regularly bullied student known as "Martha Dumptruck", pins a suicide note to her chest and walks into traffic. She survives but is badly injured and is mocked for trying to "act popular". Heather McNamara calls a popular radio show one night while Veronica and Heather Duke are listening and talks of depression in her life; the next day, Heather Duke tells the entire school about Heather McNamara's radio call; McNamara attempts to take her life by overdosing on pills in the girls' bathroom but is saved by Veronica.
Veronica tells J.D. that she will not participate in any more killings. He climbs into her room with a revolver to kill her, but Veronica has used a harness to make it look like she has hanged herself. Assuming she is dead, he rambles about his plan to blow up the school during a pep rally. A petition he has been circulating via Heather Duke, to get the band Big Fun to perform on campus is actually a mass suicide note. Most of the students had already signed, so the mass murder would appear to be a mass suicide instead.
Veronica confronts J.D. in the boiler room, where he is rigging timed explosives. She shoots him when he refuses to stop the bomb. As J.D. collapses, he stabs the timer and it stops. Veronica walks out through the pep rally with everyone cheering. The severely injured J.D. follows her outside with a bomb strapped to his chest, offers what amounts to a personal eulogy as Veronica looks on, and detonates the bomb.
Veronica confronts Heather Duke, takes the red scrunchie, says "Heather my love, there's a new sheriff in town" and invites Martha Dunnstock to hang out on prom night and watch movies with her. Martha and Veronica walk down the hallway while Heather Duke watches them with disbelief. | comedy, dark, murder, bleak, cult, psychedelic, satire | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0097926 | Mujrim | Shankar (Mithun Chakraborty) was jailed at the age of thirteen, when he killed his uncle, who tried to sell his mother Yashoda (Nutan) to a rich and powerful man called Khan (Amrish Puri). He was imprisoned for ten years. When he comes back home, he finds his mother and sister in poor conditions. He tries to keep appropriate behavior and make amends, but all his attempts fail, as he is widely recognized as a criminal, and he joins a group of criminals, whose leader is a generous man called Malik (Sharat Saxena). His mother, who is an honest woman, refuses to accept him like this and decides she has nothing to do with him. He meets Malik's daughter Sonia (Madhuri Dixit) and the two fall in love. Malik appreciates Shankar's faithfulness and authorizes him as his principal successor. After Malik's death, Shankar takes over and gets into business terms with Khan. Shankar and Sonia get married and move into their new house. Shankar's one and only wish is to reunite with his mother, but she refuses, and requires him to leave the crime world.
The matters get complicated and Shankar loses his way. He loses his friends in endless fights with the police, and finally when Sonia finds out that she is pregnant, she leaves him and comes to live with Yashoda. Alone and neglected, he comes back home but then his previous life persecutes him. What will be his fate in life? The cult tamil film Nandha starring suriya has taken its basic plot from this movie. | romantic, murder | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0064350 | Fräulein Doktor | A woman spy and some male agents working for the Germans during World War I land at night near the British naval base at Scapa Flow, from a U-boat. The British, led by Col. Foreman, ambush the landing party, capturing two of the men, but the woman gets away. Foreman fakes the execution of one of the spies, thus tricking the second one, Meyer, into becoming a double agent in the hopes of using him to capture his woman accomplice, whom Meyer identifies under the codename Fraulein Doktor. Fraulein Doktor is portrayed as a brilliant spy who stole a formula for a nerve gas which the Germans used to great effect against the Allies on the battlefield.
Meanwhile, Fraulein Doktor seduces a laundryman to find out which ship Lord Kitchener will be sailing on to Russia, and when it will sail. She then helps a German U-boat to sink HMS Hampshire outside Scapa Flow with Kitchener on it, taking his life. For this, she is awarded the Pour Le Merite. Meyer re-appears in Berlin and courts her. The German intelligence service is suspicious of Meyer's escape from the British, but use him to poison Fraulein Doktor because of her addiction to morphine and their distaste for her having murdered Lord Kitchener. Meyer is shown her dead body and later makes his way back to the British to confirm her death.
However, Fraulein Doktor's death was faked for Meyer's benefit so she would be free of suspicion for her next assignment, getting Allied defense plans for a German attack in Belgium. Under cover as a Spanish contessa, she recruits Spanish nurses to staff a hospital train to serve the Allied front. During the trip from Spain to France, she brings aboard German agents who will impersonate Belgian officers to penetrate Belgium Army headquarters and steal the plans.
Col. Foremen is still not convinced of her death and shows up at the same army headquarters with Meyer in tow. The German agents steal the plans and in a deadly shootout with sentries, one gets away back to German lines. The Germans then launch their attack with great success, but Col. Foreman confronts Fraulein Doktor. Meyer kills Foreman but is in turned killed by the advancing German troops. Fraulein Doktor is then whisked away by the Germans, but suffers a breakdown as she is being driven off through all the carnage and death about her. | flashback | train | wikipedia | But this film shows for the first time a spy who sees first hand the results of her work.
Like others have mentioned, the battlefield scenes contain some of the most horrific scenes of war carnage ever shot.
This is also poignantly shown in a scene when a German general reluctantly pins a medal on "Fraulein Doktor" because she'd killed Lord Kitchener and Kitchener had been a personal friend of his.
One has to put aside some of the 60s-style make-up and hairstyles, but most of the acting is very good and the whole movie will keep your attention all the way through to to the riveting climax.
Id' rank this along with "Gallipoli", "Paths of Glory" and "King and Country" as one of the best WWI movies ever made.
It is, for its time, a reasonably well crafted story revolving around true events such as the death of Kitchener and the German offensives of 1918.It also has a female spy who is much more believable than Julie Andrews!
As with other reviewers the first and strongest memory was of the well produced battle scenes and of men and horses in gas masks.
Like other people who commented on "Fräulein Doktor" I stumbled by chance upon this little gem on late-night TV without having heard of it before.
The strange mixture of a pulp fiction story about a sexy but unscrupulous anti-heroine on the one hand and a realistic and well-researched portrayal of war in the trenches on the other hand had me hooked from the beginning.To me this is one of the five best movies about WWI (the others are "All Quiet On The Western Front", "Paths Of Glory", "Gallipoli" and the post-war "La vie et rien d'autre").
And the scene with the poison gas attack is really chilling; the horses and men appear like riders of the apocalypse with their gas masks.I only wish I had taped the film..
The most memorable and scary scene is when the German army attacks with yellow cross mustard gas for the first time.
The experienced British soldiers don gas masks (only) and once again await the clouds of gas and the German attackers.
Now you will know why I have remembered this scene for the last 30+ years and still shiver, I think that you will too!.
There are movies, and there are films.
Movies are more often than not merely cinematic "candy," whereas films are true works of art.
As most viewers, I was highly impressed with the battle scenes, but the poignancy of the portrayal of the central character is what I consider to be the most sterling quality of the film.
Having done everything possible to serve her country as a true daughter of Deutschland, all the while in the throes of morphine addiction, die Fraulein is treated very shabbily by the German high command despite all of her efforts.
The scene in which the Doktor is being conveyed in the rear seat of a Mercedes Benz command auto, alone, desolate, and sobbing is perhaps one of the saddest yet truest depictions of a "spy's" lot in life.
Fraulein Doktor is a far deeper film than one may realize upon a singular viewing.
I only wish that its producers would see fit to release it on DVD so that those who have never experienced it can, and those who have seen it can again (perhaps again and again)enjoy this exceptional motion picture..
It has a fantastic and chilling scene about poisonous gas.
show it again Sam. I havent seen that movie in 20 or more years but I remember the attack scene with the horses wearing gas-masks vividly, this scene ranks way up there with the best of them including the beach scene on Saving private Ryan, I recommend it strongly..
Anyone know where I can get a copy of this film from?.
I remember seeing this film years ago on, I think, BBC2.
As I remember, it was an especially powerful movie, in particular the scene that stands out is of the horses wearing gas masks.
It seems more than passing strange that such utter dreck as "Dukes of Hazzard" and "The Hills Have Eyes" (the new version) can find DVD distributors while older - and far superior works such as this film - are nowhere to be found.
With all the on-going debate about the morality (or lack thereof) of warfare, and interest in espionage (consider the multiple Jack Ryan, Bourne, XXX, and "Mission: Impossible" productions, this would seem to be an obvious choice for release on DVD.
The gas attack scene is impressive without a doubt...
The comparisons with later films such as Jacob's Ladder are fine as long as this one gets the nod as the superior one (no cheap letdown surprise in the end!).But what makes this film stand out for me is that it breaks a barrier - an important one even for the ''sexy year'' of 1969...For the first time ever to my knowledge we had two major female stars embrace in such a suggestive way it left nothing to the imagination and it was thus the first ''big'' sapphic display with two stars!
We would have to wait until the 80's for another such exhibition - Catherine Deneuve (the new Capucine?) and another Suzy (Susan Sarandon) in The Hunger.Capucine was a major star - bigger than Suzy Kendall at the time.
Both actresses perhaps paid with their careers for their daring avant-gardedness here, in this most unique war film, or so it seems....
Fräulein Doktor Pretty Good War Movie, Could Have Been A Lot Better.
After seeing again Fräulein Doktor on NetFlix streaming video (before I cut that service, thanks to its notifying me two days ago of its massive pricing increase in September), I realize that this movie was nowhere near as good as I thought for years.
So I am making a massive rewrite of my previous very positive review of this WWI spy movie.
As others here at IMDb have commented, that brief scene of soldiers on horseback marching onto a gassed battlefield is very impressive, the group of seven or so horses wearing horse gas masks and protective body covers.
The problem is the closing scenes in the final third of Fräulein Doktor on or near the battlefield wreck this movie.In the end, the character of Fräulein Doktor is pushed of the stage by scenes of trench warfare, scenes of soldiers with the flesh on their hands being eaten away by poison gas and a subplot tossed in about German soldiers posing as French soldiers to break into military HQ to copy battle plans.
While these goings on are happening, Suzy Kendall's Fräulein Doktor is busy running around in a nurse's uniform as part of a Spanish contingent of nurses on their way to the Western Front to treat wounded allied soldiers.
Somehow the Doktor speaks Spanish perfectly, with no German accent.Netflix's streaming video version of this movie seems to have included the full lesbian scene between Suzy Kendall and Capucine, a scene censored on TV airings of the movie.
Capucine plays Dr. Saforet, who is developing a new poison gas.
In the scene, Capucine kisses Kendall on the lips, hot stuff back then.
The scene does serve a real purpose, to show how Fräulein Doktor gets her hands on the poison gas.Another scene, not censored, shows Kenneth More, playing a British intelligence officer, telling a caught spy to either talk or the spy will play the Wall Game.
That sort of cynical attitude played well across national borders in the Vietnam War era.Fräulein Doktor is a demonstration of how, 40 years ago, the once great film industry in Western Europe could turn out movies that had broad appeal all over the world.
In the late 60s, while the big Hollywood studios were on the ropes, Italy, France and England were turning out movies to fill the void left by Hollywood's decline.
There were the James Bond pictures (Doctor No was a surprise hit in the USA, it was first released at the Century theater chain in NYC with a 99 cent afternoon admission price), the Clint Eastwood spaghetti westerns (with A Fistful of Dollars released by a distributor that never paid the Italian producers a dime) and French crime movies that usually went to art houses, with exceptions like The Sicilian Clan.
And there were European co-productions like Doctor Zhivago and, of course, Fräulein Doktor.
Fräulein Doktor was good enough that some viewers still remember the movie decades later, long after it was out of circulation.Trouble is, my memories of Fräulein Doktor do not include the badly photographed battle scenes, the poorly done model work showing a warship in a storm, the terrible ending of this movie and the unnecessarily graphic scenes of soldiers' rotting flesh.
Suzy Kendall, though, is just as beautiful as I remember her..
Fraulein Doktor should've long been on video.
Two films of the 1960s I want to see in their entirety but as time goes by I don't think I ever will.
Those films are Fraulein Doktor(1969) & Sands of the Kalahari(1965), both released by Paramount in the US.
I have a reasonably good copy of Kalahari taped off of TV with the expected commercial cuts.
I haven't seen nothing of Fraulein Doktor since I last saw it 25 to 30 years ago and as time goes by memory fades.
I remember two scenes in Fraulein Doktor distinctly, the horseback poison gas scene & Suzy Kendall crying her eyes out in the back of a military vehicle after having committed once last deceit and afterward she wanted no more of espionage.
I agree with the other posters that the major studios will give a goofy modern joke of a film a wide video release but will completely ignore these gems.
If I'm not mistaken neither Fraulein Doktor nor Sands of the Kalahari have had a home video release of any kind be it: Betamax, VHS, 8mm, Laserdisc or DVD.
five different formats from the last 30 years and these two movies cannot get a home video release of some sorts.
There are other films from this era that also have never seen the light of the 'video' day.
But time marches on, 40 years now, for the best print materials from films like FD & SotK.
Excellent film and not on video yet either to my knowledge.
But the other two films are wonderful and deserve to be on DVD..
Luckily, not knowing anything about this movie I was curious enough to tape it from TV.
And then the tape ran out just five minutes before the ending!But I'm glad I managed to get most of it because this is a really great spy movie.
And it's not just because of the two George's actresses.The gas attack seems to hit every viewer very strongly, no wonder, And it certainly did hit me.
This is not just a heroic war tale of one victorious side, but shows what lies behind the victory in good and bad.
And I think I have to try to catch more movies with Suzy Kendall.
Let's hope they get this on DVD soon, so I can have the entire movie in my collection and more people will become familiar with this very little known gem..
One scene that has always stayed with me is the German cavalry gas attack.
Like almost everyone else who has commented on this movie, I can only wonder why this has never appeared on video.I recall seeing it at about age 12 on the "The Late Show," circa 1972.
I too recall the poison gas attack and the weirdly garbed horses.
(I don't recall the more horrific bits I've seen described here; they were likely cut out for the TV audience.) But the scenes I REALLY liked were the ones involving the death of Lord Kitchener aboard the HMS Hampshire, almost exactly 90 years ago.
The scenes of the doomed cruiser approaching the minefield in the storm were really chilling, as I recall.Don't recall the musical score, but the comments of the others now have me curious.
The movie with the most memorable war scene ever..
When people ask "what's the most memorable movie scene for you", this is the movie I remember.
The mounted German soldier, he and horse in gas masks, emerging from the clouds of poisonous gas.
The rest of the movie was fascinating and enjoyable, but that scene stays with me.
well done giving the perspective of the other side fraulein doktor captures both the cost and the futility of war.
In my opinion to make a good war movie is quite difficult.
If you don't know much about WWI you will find a little bit difficult to get some references.
And German Uhlans and horses with masks and protections against the gas is something I remember since I was 14.
This is an excellent but hard to find trippy World War I spy thriller in the inimitable 60's Italian style.
From the psychedelic graphics of the introductory credits and the great score by Ennio Morricone to the lesbian love scene with Capucine and the elaborately produced apocalyptic no man's land battle scenes with poison gas and German cavalry in full gas proof 'storm trooper' gear, this is a movie that should not be missed.
It is a film that captures the horrors and cruelty of war and the ruthlessness of the players on and off the battlefield.
Apart from the battle scenes, some of the production and special effects are primitive, apparently because the bulk of the budget for this movie was saved for the battle scenes, but for lovers of 60's cinema it should not be an issue.
I first saw this movie on television many years ago and had the foresight to tape it on VHS.
I liked this movie, been trying to get a video of it..
This is a marvelous WWI movie.
It has U-boat scenes, a German gas attack in the western front trenches, and a multitude of other thrills.
I don't know why this movie isn't out on videotape.
I saw this movie once in or close to its release year 36 years ago (1969).
The parts I remember, rightly or wrongly, include Mustard gas in the trenches and Suzie Kendall as a German spy, offering some bloke sexual favours in the back of an enclosed truck to get military information from him.
A lot of good actors, Suzy Kendall, Capucine, Nigel Green, Kenneth More, Alexander Knox, James Booth, Giannarlo Giannini.
In short, a movie worth seeing, I've seen it several times.
It has a bit of everything: drama, war movie, action and suspense scenes, everything made credible and very dynamic..
Everyone talks about the famous and horrible noir devastating poison gas attack,one reviewer states that it is on the British troops, but actually I recall it is on the Belgian-held part of the line, small detail, whatever, the outcome would have looked the same.
Also, the thing with the ambush of Lord Kitchener, although the HMS Hampton carrying Kitchener in real life struck a sea-mine, I thought the movie had him being torpedoed by a U-boat acting on information about his movements by the Fraulein...perhaps the sub actually laid sea-mines in his path in the movie, Im maybe unclear.
If you like either noir or war movies, then you must see it to appreciate it..
"Fräulein Doktor" owes most of its fame to the fact that it's still difficult to find today; if you do find it and see it, however, you may end up wondering if it was worth the trouble.
The film's structure is far too episodic and the title character is far too remote to command interest the way a central character should.
Neither Suzy Kendall nor Nigel Green are convincing as Germans.
It looks like the beginning of a grindhouse movie or one of those Japanese entries in which human organs are flung around with abandon.
It's a World War I spy movie about a pulchritudinous agent.
The priest blesses you, you're marched out, stood against a wall, offered a smoke and a blindfold, the firing squad lines up and addresses you -- and then the whole thing is called off.This story is about a German spy, Suzy Kendall, a morphine addict who penetrates British intelligence in 1916.
That initial fake execution, staged by Colonel Kenneth More, has convinced another spy, James Booth, that he'd better play cricket with the Brits, so he spills the beans about Kendall's appearance and activities.
She's the one who gave the French poison gas formula to the Hun. Enough!
Kendall is a very adroit spy.
Capucine demonstrates to Kendall how the gas works in a disturbing scene that has a dozen white rats apparently dying and then dogs spinning around as if impelled by an internal motor, before expiring in a spasm of shivers.
I don't know if the animals went unharmed in the making of this movie.
Kendall makes off with the gas formula and returns to Germany, where she is decorated by a disapproving general.Booth, now turned by the Brits, is allowed to escape and report to his superior in Berlin, played by a delightfully hammy Nigel Greene -- hammy even for him.
Green informs Booth that Kendall, though once valuable, has now been spoiled by her morphine addiction and is no longer of any use.
And the murder of Suzy Kendall is another fake.
Now, being thought dead by the Brits, Kendall will no longer be looked for, so she can work more freely.
It gets complicated but ends up on the battlefield, with Kendall pretending to be a Spanish nurse.
Hundreds, maybe thousands, of men die when the Germans use the mustard gas that Kendall supplied them with.It's not often that some elements of the production are so poor that they draw attention to themselves, but in this case it has to be said that the sound stinks. |
tt0090930 | Dèmoni 2... l'incubo ritorna | The film opens as if the events of the first film took place in reality, but this is actually a film within a film, that the various residents of a high-rise apartment building are watching. Its story follows several teens trespass into a city that was deserted as a result of the outbreak. Finding the lifeless corpse of a demon, one of the teens revives it accidentally by dripping blood from a scratch into its mouth.
In reality, frustrated party girl Sally Day locks herself in her bedroom when her boyfriend doesn't attend her sixteenth birthday party. As her friends try to persuade her to return to the party, she watches part of the film on television. Suddenly, the demon notices her, climbs through the television and attacks her. Sally is transformed into a demon, then attacks her friends, turning all but two of them into vile, bloodthirsty monsters.
The creatures' bile begins to seep through the building, burning through the ceiling and into other apartments and shorting out the electrical system. In one apartment, a dog licks up the bile and transforms into a vicious beast that attacks and kills its owner. A young boy left alone by his parents manages to avoid Sally and her rampaging demon friends, but is ultimately poisoned by the bile and becomes a monster. The demon boy attacks Hannah, a pregnant woman waiting for her husband to come home. She manages to kill the demon boy, but a flying demon bursts out of his body to further terrorize her. Her husband, George, has been trapped in the elevator with another woman. They plan to escape through a service hatch, but a demon bursts through the elevator door and infects the woman. She in turn attacks George but he is able to kill her before making his way to his and Hannah's apartment in time to kill the flying demon with an umbrella.
Meanwhile, a group of bodybuilders led by gym instructor Hank have barricaded themselves in the underground car park, along with a group of tenants. Unable to break down the garage doors, they decide to stand their ground and try to defend themselves with makeshift weapons, such as Molotov cocktails and a few shotguns. The demons eventually make it down to the garage and force their way in. Although they heavily outnumber the demons, the uninfected are relatively easily defeated and are either turned into demons themselves or killed.
The infected start making their way back up the building. George causes a leak in the gas pipes and causes an explosion that kills all the infected except Sally. Hannah and George search for a way out and go into Sally's apartment, finding the original two partygoers that had hidden. The group make their way to the roof but are stopped by Sally. She infects the two partygoers but George manages to dispatch them. George and Hannah lower themselves to the roof of an adjacent building, fighting Sally as they go. Inside the neighboring building Hannah gives birth to the couple's child. George defeats the resilient Sally in mortal combat, and he and Hannah make their way outside with their newborn child. | paranormal, violence, cult, cruelty, sadist | train | wikipedia | The early stuff with the group investigating the ruins of the city is pretty creepy but this all gives way to some hilarious dialogue, and a classic bout between demons and fitness buffs in the building's parking garage makes me smile every time.
Apparently somebody made a movie about the first incident, and it is this movie that "infects" a new building filled with badly-dubbed Italian actors.The make-up effects are quite good, and the demons pretty unsettling.
Unfortunately the screenwriters arranged it so that all the windows are unbreakable, and the electric doors unable to be opened.The movie also breaks some horror movie taboos as children were surprisingly made into victims.On a lighter note, I would also say that this is the first horror movie I have ever seen (barring Antichrist/Second Coming films)in which a character goes into labor while fighting demons.An entertaining horror movie.....Never looked at my watch once..
In a residential building, demons are released though a television horror film, where two couples visit the forbidden area nearby the Metropol movie theater to seek vestiges of the demon infestation some time ago and accidentally resurrect one demon.
While in original picture the scary events occur when selected at random , people on the street are invited to an advance screen of a new horror movie , as a group of people are trapped in a large movie theater in West Berlin and then a prostitute is bitten turning into a lethal demon , here in ¨Demons 2¨, deeds happen in Hamburgo buildings .
This international hit smash allowed him to co-write, produce and direct this sequel, Demons II (1986) that was also successful and turned out to be a certain improvement here and there on previous film ; however, being inferior follow-up .
Lamberto Bava's "Demons" is easily one of the most popular Italian horror films ever made along with Dario Argento's gialli and Lucio Fulci's zombie bloodbaths.In "Demons 2" the action moves from a cinema to a high-rise block of flats;a documentary in which a team of archaeologists explore the ruins of the city besieged by demons in the first film is showing on TV.As the team are attacked by a resurrected demon,the creature forces its way out of a TV set and into the real world,infecting the unlucky residents of the building and transforming them into bloodthirsty demons."Demoni 2" is not as gory as "Demoni".It plays more like a campy comedy as it features some truly hilarious moments.The special effects are surprisingly tacky and amateurish(demon dog and demon baby look especially horrible),the script is silly,but the film is fast-paced and mildly entertaining.The score by Simon Boswell is sleep-inducing compared to the one Claudio Simonetti gave us in the first.At least we get some lovely songs by Dead Can Dance,The Smiths and The Cult.If you are a fan of "Demons" you can give this one a look,just don't expect anything as great as the original.7 out of 10..
Story= There is a party in an apartment complex, when people watch a horror movie on TV, demons start coming out of the screen and attacking people.
The plot is nonexistent, the music poor (apart from one Simon Boswell song), it's not scary in the least; it's just not that good.Easily the worst film Dario Argento has been involved with and Lamberto Bava's also (Bava has a cameo in this film, not a very funny one).Maybe 3 is too high a rating, but at least I could watch it all and didn't think of stopping midway.
Lamberto Bava's sequel to his cult classic Demons (1985) is one uproariously hokey horror movie, but it's certainly entertaining.
Also look for a young Asia Argento (Dario's daughter) in a small role.All around a fun camp horror film, best taken with no seriousness at all!*** out of ****.
Dario Argento and Lamberto Bava team up again from the first film and deliver exactly the same kind of badly-dubbed formula that we know and love from DEMONS.The acting is average but this time around the actors playing the demons are hugely over-acting - take for instance the main female demon, who contorts her face and pulls lots of stupid expressions in a vain attempt to be scary.
Production values are pretty good (that's where the three stars come from) but wasted since there aren't any characters to care about and no plot to speak of - just splashing a lot of blood around, lots of screaming and pace-killing cuts between the movie on TV and the victims in the building.
Making even less sense than its predecessor, this quickly produced sequel to the Lamberto Bava movie DEMONS (1985) is incredibly dumb; throughout the movie, I was unsure as to whether the makers had set out to make a scary horror and failed, or whether the silly, confusing crap-fest that they ended up with was intentional.
Either way, the movie is a disappointing sequel, but one which still manages to be quite entertaining due to its complete daftness.For reasons that defy logical explanation, a demon emerges through a television-set in a high-tech tower block.
Gathering together in an apartment building, guests are hypnotized watching a TV show about demons, and when the demons come to life and slowly picking off the remaining humans inside, it becoming a fight for survival against the bloodthirsty creatures to get out of the building alive.While the original was one of the best Italian horror films at the time, this one is just as good.
The attack on the party guests is an absolute blast with all sorts of stellar action as she rips them to pieces, the encounter between the lone woman and her transformed dog in her apartment is one of the best examples as it's a series of small sequences that is quite fun and the massacre in the parking lot is a perfect example as it occurs within a large amount of time and allows for several great sequences starting with them appearing in the weight room and chasing them down into the garage where the full extent of the fun takes place.
There's still a demon outbreak that results from watching a movie about the creatures, the disbelieving horde struggles to get a grasp on the creatures, there's a group of punks on the outside traveling to the location with the creatures and they even smash through a barricade set up to stop them which were all plot-points and ideas from the original.
It's therefore not entirely an original sequel but at least it manages to be just as much fun to watch as its predecessor.The first movie was set in a movie theater, this one in an apartment building.
The first movie did so many things right and this sequel is basically redoing all of those moments again, in a bit of a different fashion, to keep things at least a bit fresh and still good and interesting to watch.Nothing in its story is explained really and things just happen in it.
at the end of demons 1 was a great opportunity too make this great post apocalyptic zombie ghoul epic sequel,i think they should of followed up with,instead the sequel was in fact sort of the same premise from the first as this kind of reversed siege film.Lamberto Brava should of continued where demons 1 left off but this isn't bad at all!i enjoyed it a great deal and the gore is off the chain!big shout out too Bobby Rhodes,playing nearly the same character as he played in the original demons!i'm a huge horror film fanatic and this is one of the best horror sequels out there ands down.up there with evil dead 2!and not too mention one of the best out of the Italian gore film sub genre.if you like horror films,do yourself a favour and see demons 1 and 2 immediately!!.
One of the hotel residents watches a broadcast and sure enough,carnage ensues.Naturally most characters only exist to provide monster fodder, generally they're unmemorable.The "sequel escalation" trope is in effect here since both a demonic dog (Inuyasha's relative?) and some manner of gremlin-esquire critter make appearances, while the potential victims are more heavily armed.Essentially a mindless gory movie, "Demons 2" is a decent time waster and is likely more enjoyable to gorehounds..
Bava's sequel, 1986's "Demons 2," suffers from many of those same flaws but seems to be more successful, if only because we actually get to know some of the characters a bit better this time.
The story has a party about to start, a bunch of people exercising in a gym in the building and other people, then a strange program comes on the television chronicling a group of people determined to go into a restricted part of town, the place the demons overran in the first movie.
When a young woman named Sally Day (Coralina Cataldi-Tassoni) turned into a demon and affecting her guests after watching an horror movie on TV!
We also get treated with a bunch of the same actors you'll recognize from the original, as well as little Asia Argento in one of her very first roles!What leaves the movie with a mediocre rating, is the dialogue and "plot" aside from the demons taking over.
I may be wrong but to me you can see what Argento was trying to achieve.The obvious floor with the zombie movies was that you could run circles around them.Argento tried to keep you on the edge of your seat not by the intricate story lines nor by the gory effects but by the fact that these monsters aren't dead so therefore can catch you and all they have to do is knick you and you'll soon be one of them.I would agree with the good man before me that the first is better and does have a better atmosphere.And i do know what he means when he talks about the demon coming out of the telly,that takes it from possible reality horror to total fantasy horror.
This fast sequel to the great success of Demons is also right, but it repeats the same formula only that changing the cinema for a modern intelligent building.that´s almost the only difference and some special effects are worse than in the first movie, I refer to that demon which emerges from the back of the boy and which seems like a puppet from "Sesame street", but gore scenes are ok although there are much less here and there is one curious aspect: Some actors from the first part appear now again only that taking different roles.
This rather tiresome sequel to the 1986 Italian horror hit has some clever ideas (I liked the concept of a demon entering our dimension through a TV screen) and the special effects range from simply good to jaw-dropping, but the structure is awfully repetitive.
And Also Too Dario Argento's Daughter Asia Argento Starts in This Sequel As Sally The First Main Character That Gets infected By a Zombie That Comes Out of Her T.V. in Her Room And Spreads The infection To The Rest Of The Residence Peoples, And Also i Was impressed That Lamberto Bava Manage Get To Bring Back The Black Guy From The First "DEMONS" Movie Played By Bobby Rhodes And He Has a More Larger Screen Time This Time.
It turns out to be a film-within-a-film, with 'reality' taking place in an apartment block as loathsome teenage brat Sally Day (Coralina Cataldi-Tassoni) locks herself in a room during a birthday party tantrum to watch the movie on her television.
There's also the matter of the ending making little sense and a scene in which an unexplained demon monster thingy that looks like a discarded prop from Troll bursts out of the chest of an infected young boy, in a special effect so bad you wonder why on Earth the film-makers left it in.
what great fun this sequel was.it's as disgustingly gory as the original,and it's more campy,and faster paced.there is more intentional humour in this one.the dialogue is hysterical at times,as is the acting.many of the same people from the first one appear here,playing totally different characters.the hard pumping heavy metal score so prevalent in the first one,is noticeably less used in this movie.i think this is actually as good as the first,maybe a bit better,due to it's humour.it's not for the faint of heart though,because as i mentioned,it is pretty disgusting.the whole thing is mostly a preposterous mess,but who cares.this is just one bloody good time..
Demons 2 is standard sequel to a good horror film.
This time it has more of a story line and is much more fast-paced.Obviously it has its faults but what horror movie suits everyone?!This movie has it all for me - frights (a highlight is definitely the demon emerging from the t.v set and sally's transformation), surprises (a child-demon) and a little humour (the "demon-dog" is still one of my favourite characters, always makes me smile)If you like good old cheesy horror films then this is the film for you.
She is so pretty in Land of the Dead.On the real, even though this movie is a low budget film, all i can say that it wasn't that bad like everyone else think it is because i thought Dario did a good job on this film.
Director/co-writer Lamberto Bava shows a winning dearth of competence throughout as the story becomes more increasingly inane and gut-busting as it unfolds, with such gloriously inane highlights as a birthday party which degenerates into a bloodbath, a woman attacked in her apartment by her savage possessed dog, a hokey demon puppet bursting out of a little boy's stomach, whiny party gal Sally (the pretty Coralina Cataldi-Tassoni) taking a massive licking, but keeps on ticking, a gaggle of dim-witted male and female body builders with an appalling lack of intelligence, an underground parking garage littered with axes and a shotgun, and pregnant damsel in distress Hannah (the fetching Nancy Brilli) going into labor at a most inopportune moment.
This relentlessly absurd follow-up to Lamberto Bava's solid cult classic certainly doesn't boast as many top-shelf gross-out moments as the original, but if you're in the mood for a mindless blood-fest with loads of unintentional comedy, there's plenty of fun to be had here.The action unfolds inside a swanky high-rise apartment complex, in which seemingly every tenant in the building is raptly watching a docu-film about the aftermath of the monstrous infestation we saw in the first Demons.
Once she's finished slaughtering a roomful of friends on hand to celebrate her birthday, she begins oozing acidic blood, which melts through the floor into the apartments below hers, infecting all who come in contact with it and triggering a full-on demon uprising.The film then basically jumps back into the dynamic of the first movie, with creatures prowling their way through the building attacking everyone they find, and the panicked prey (who are trapped inside the complex because of a power outage, which makes all of the exit doors impossible to open for some reason) fighting back any way they can.
This sense of deja vu is bolstered by the presence of Bobby Rhodes, who also appeared in the original Demons, and even though he's playing a completely different character this time out, his function and actions as the order-barking de facto leader in Demons 2 are nearly identical to what we saw him do the first time the creatures struck.If you still intend to take this movie seriously after reading my brief plot synopsis, good luck trying because the whole film is pretty much wall-to-wall silliness.
Sally turns into a demon and it doesn't take long before the other party-goers do the same.Sure the story is a bit silly and there are quite a few more plot holes than the first one had but that doesn't mean it's bad, another factor I loved about this was that it has the same feel as the first It also has some of the same actors in it as well -- the guy that played the pimp in the first movie returns as a gym instructor, and the leader of the punk gang (Lino Salemme) returns as a security guard.
The demon then comes out of the TV and possesses Sally.The great thing about these movies is the transformation part.
A documentary is shown on TV of group of teens who investigate the legendary forbidden zone, in which a Demon infestation once took place.When finding a lifeless corpse of a demon, one of the teens causes the resurrection of it, by spilling some of their blood and the demon makes it's way into the nearby world by TV-broadcast.An unlucky girl, having her birthday-party at that time, gets possessed by the demon while watching the documentary and soon the entire building in which she lives turns into a living nightmare....It's exactly the same as the first one, only this time its set in an apartment block, ad a dog and a child get demonised.It's still slickly made, and of course the dubbing is truly awful, especially when you know half of the cast are talking English, but we watch these films for the sheer audacity of the whole proceedings.We have oiled body builders in a car park, one of the most boring birthday parties going,and some really weird little gremlin chasing after a pregnant woman.The main problem with the film is that it's just not scary, and the make up isn't as good as the first movie, but it's still watchable, just not memorable.But it does feature the most inappropriate music to accompany a birth scene I have ever heard, and that alone is worth watching the film for....
The first Demons is a great horror movie (See my review) so I watched the sequel and it was quite good.
The Demons then roam the complex killing anyone in sight as the people inside try to escape since the doors are locked during the attack.Not a bad film, the gore is good and the plot is OK. |
tt0439289 | Running with Scissors | The film is a semi-autobiographical account of Augusten Burroughs' (Joseph Cross) childhood. His mother, Deirdre (Annette Bening), who wishes to become a famous poet, suffers from severe mood swings and erratic behavior. Augusten's alcoholic father, Norman (Alec Baldwin), proves to be of no help. By the time he is a teenager, Augusten no longer feels safe in his own house because of his parents. Deirdre claims that Norman is the reason for her unhappiness, and that he desires to kill her. She ultimately places Augusten under the care of her psychiatrist, Dr. Finch (Brian Cox), the eccentric patriarch of an oddball family, which consists of his submissive wife Agnes (Jill Clayburgh), religious daughter Hope (Gwyneth Paltrow), and his rebellious youngest child Natalie (Evan Rachel Wood).
Augusten finds it hard to adjust to living with the doctor’s family, and is subject to irregular weekend visits by his increasingly unsound mother. After confessing to Natalie that he is gay, Augusten befriends Neil Bookman (Joseph Fiennes), Finch's adopted 33-year-old son. The two begin an erratic sexual relationship quickly after meeting, but Augusten finds it difficult to cope with their age difference.
Finch manipulates Deirdre into signing over her money to him. Deirdre finds temporary stability with her living companion Dorothy Ambrose (Gabrielle Union), but Augusten feels like his mother no longer wants him, and deals with the negative effects of Neil's schizophrenia.
At the end of the movie, Augusten leaves for New York to become a writer. He says goodbye to his mother and goes to the bus station. Agnes, with whom he has developed a caring relationship, arrives and gives him some money she has saved up. | romantic, comedy, psychedelic | train | wikipedia | Jill Claybourgh, Joseph Finnes, Brian Cox, Gwynneth Paltrow, Evan Rachel Wood and Joseph Cross with his literary future and his thing for hair, they all transform this stranger than fiction real life tale into something memorable, yes, memorable.
The Finch family seems to be no upgrade though, as Agnes (Jill Clayburgh), the mother, is first seen munching on dog kibble, Hope (Gwyneth Paltrow), the favored daughter, is known to talk to her cat Freud, and Natalie (Evan Rachel Wood), the second daughter, tries to open Augusten up by using electro-shock therapy.
Joseph Fiennes has a difficult time with a difficult character, another victim of the doctor's "treatment".I would agree with another commenter who stated that the director Ryan Murphy uses every trick in the book when it comes to film making and then some.
Brian Cox, Joseph Cross, and a great Jill Clayburgh really were amazing.Needless to say, I highly recommend this movie.
Augusten (Joseph Cross) lives between his mother and the psychologist, along with his quirky family (Jill Clayburgh, Gwyneth Paltrow and Evan Rachel Wood).
It does also contain one of the funniest lines of the year, concerning the doctor's private room, which he refers to as his "masturbatorium", read with aplomb by Brian Cox. The movie starts falling apart when the drama and comedy don't mix.
For a vastly superior film about dysfunction, please go see the excellent Little Miss Sunshine.I realize that this movie is based on a memoir, and is more or less a true story.
She's a wonderful actress but this is an unfortunately unbalanced performance, lacking that essential quality film actors must master of catching the cadence of the screenplay and maintaining it for the duration of the disjointed madness that is a film shoot.I don't really want to blame Miss Bening or most of the other performers (well, Gwyneth Paltrow has no excuse for her muzzy work), however, because this is a horrendous adaptation, a classic case of mistranslation (I am prepared to assume.
If Augusten didn't tell you at the beginning (of the book and movie) that what you are about to see (read) is based entirely on facts, you wouldn't believe it, and probably a lot of people don't!
Augustan also befriends the younger daughter (Wood) who seems to be the only one who has their head screwed on correctly.From the get-go you can tell this story is far from conventional, however director Ryan Murphy fails to bottle-up any consistent thread of drama or comedy, which makes the film really disjointed and cold.
It's rather unfortunate because there are some great performances here from Bening, Cox, Cross, and Joseph Fiennes, who plays the adopted son who lives in a shack in the back of the house..
The music was jarring did not do a thing for the film.I noticed Mr Murphy took three credits at the end of the movie (1st to appear) so I guess he was very proud but I have no idea why.
Why would you take a great book and turn it over to a Nip/Tuck director is beyond me.You know sometimes you go to movies with great cast and you truly want it to be good but no matter how hard the actors try it just is a bad movie.
The things that happen are not funny, they are disturbing; especially considering they are supposed to be true.This movie had the feel of The Royal Tenenbaums, another movie I hated, only Running With Scissors was even more dysfunctional and less funny.I will never get those hours back.
...but if she gets an Oscar nomination for RUNNING WITH SCISSORS I will kidnap every single voting member of the Academy and force them to actually watch the film, since there's no way they saw it.The part when her character dances in imaginary snow to "Blinded by the Light" is one of the worst moments in any film, ever.What makes this movie offensively bad is its almost arrogant insistence that it is a Meaningful Film.Alec Baldwin and Jill Clayburgh are the only ones who don't completely embarrass themselves, and they're not GOOD, but I'd almost give a nomination to Clayburgh just for not pissing me off by her mere presence at the end of the film.Ryan Murphy: the next time you make a film, make it stylistically consistent, and there's also a good thing called character development.
This is a major weakness, because it leaves you feeling like you're watching animals in a zoo or specimens under a microscope rather than real people with real emotions.The immediate suspicion about memoirs is that they are the memories (real or manufactured - but that's an entirely different can of worms) of just one person in the story, and that the other characters have no opportunity to provide their side of that story.
Brian Cox, whose career appears to become more successful the older he gets, is especially good as the crackpot psychiatrist who adopts the 15-year-old Burroughs (Joseph Cross), welcoming him into an eccentric and disturbed family.
Annette Bening also gives a terrific performance, even though her character becomes increasingly annoying as the film goes on (only Jill Clayburgh and Alec Baldwin's characters emerge with any kind of dignity).
The cast is excellent, Annette Bening's performance was flawless, Joseph Fiennes has a very convincing role as Neil Bookman, Brian Cox as Dr. Finch great as always, Evan Rachel Wood and Gwyneth Paltrow were very good also and Joseph Cross as Augusten Burroughs delivers a awesome and convincing acting job.
I'm not sure, because there were only a few tiny flaws that I found in this film, but they were quick to pass on, because the acting and story telling in Running with Scissors was very good.
I think the thing that might help with that is because I could relate to it on some level, which sounds wacky, but from my family background, it felt good to know there was someone else out there who was going through the exact same situation.Deirdre Burroughs is an extremely loving mother to her son, Augustine, she lets him stay home from school whenever he wants and plays with him all the time.
This film is based on the real life story of a young man who had a disturbed family, and had unusual experiences while living with an exploitative and crazy psychiatrist.This film was in no way bad.
Naturally, Augusten(And really,NOBODY with their wits about them)doesn't take well to this situation,and the bizarre,cluttered,chaotic surrounding that the doctor's home/office is in(and there's FAR too much to describe here)doesn't help.While there,Augusten meets the rest of the Finch family:wife Agnes(Jill Clayburgh,looking haggy and scary),oldest daughter Hope(Gwyneth Paltrow,sallow and drawn)and younger daughter Natalie(Even Rachel Wood,appealing yet unstable and unpredictable).
He also strikes up a relationship with one of Finch's former patients(Joseph Fiennes,nearly unrecognizable in large mustache and disheveled hair;also bearing a vague resemblance to Jason Patric!),which is equal parts enlightening and disturbing.As Augusten tries to get on with his life,his relationship with his over-medicated,deteriorating mother gets steadily worse,with her descent into narcissistic delusion making her increasingly difficult to connect to.This movie,penned and directed by Ryan Murphy,is(to use a favorite expression I once heard on "Mystery Science Theater 3000")a spunky load of noodles.
This film,sold as a dark comedy,seems to be so dark that the laughs are intertwined with groans nearly throughout.The summary line may over-simplify it,but I think it's about right:this movie,were it merely a fictional or vaguely realistic retelling of an odd story of dysfunction,would be more digestible if it were just that,fiction.
Kamerman "Where do I begin to tell the story of how my mother left me, and then I left her?" This promising opening, narrated by Augusten Burroughs (Joseph Cross), is followed by a scene in his 1972 Massachusetts home with his mother, Deirdre (Annette Bening) reciting tepid poetry composed for sending to The New Yorker into a microphone at a mock poetry reading.
After that interesting scene, director Ryan Murphy, adapting the 2002 successful novel of the same name, piles on sometimes funny scenes in the spirit but not the success of Royal Tenenbaums and Little Miss Sunshine.Eventually given up for adoption to an aging and unstable shrink, Dr. Finch (Brian Cox), Augusten samples a fringe life of turd gazing in a toilet, a masturbatiorium room for the doctor, and shock treatments for fun.
Momma's boy Augusten (Joseph Cross) is sent to live with his mother's well-intentioned but deeply disturbed psychiatrist Dr. Finch (Brian Cox), so basket case Mom (Annette Bening) can be properly sedated and focus on her bad poetry.
Rebellious daughter Natalie (Evan Rachel Wood basically playing her "Upside of Anger" character but with mega eye makeup), her Bible-directed sister (Gwyneth Paltrow-who nicely teases this role), his kibble-snacking wife Agnes (nicely underplayed by Jill Clayburgh), and a 35 year-old prone to violence adopted son (Joseph Fiennes).
In the book Running With Scissors, Augusten Burroughs details a horrific adolescence, whether it's true or not is kind of beside the point.He gets you into the head of his character, who is around enough messed up people that having a 35 year old boyfriend when you are 13 and having an insane mother seems kind of normal.
Only with no payoff.The climax scene where Dr. Finch is yelling at Bookman while Augusten and Natalie tear the ceiling down and Agnes talks to Deidre...you expect it will erupt in some major kind of plot point...and then nothing happens.Five points because of the great actors, the great ORIGINAL story, not this adaptation and the fact that it was kind of like a Train Wreck..
The casting was perfect and I really enjoyed the performance by the young Joseph Cross and Evan Racheal Wood...I am looking forward to seeing them in future presentations.Anyways, concluding my thought on the film it was an outstanding and under credited movie.
The only two semi-interesting characters are played by Joesph Fiennes and soon to be mega-star Evan Rachel Wood (who steals EVERY movie she is in).The film is supposedly based on writer Augusten Burrough's memoirs (which I have not read), but one can't help but believe his creative side took over for numerous exaggerations.
Even many of the chosen songs from the era are some of the worst possible choices.All are advised to avoid and wait for the next real film with Annette Bening or Gwyneth Paltrow or Evan Rachel Wood.
Running with Scissors is just off, nobody seems to have a sense of comedic timing, and most of the dialogue feels like the characters are talking to a wall.
Annette Bening is sensational as the deranged mother of a young son, in Joseph Cross, who is totally brilliant in his role, in a story of pain and pathos with a dark element of humor.
The writing and the dialog in SCISSORS by Ryan Murphy perfectly captures each character's actions and emotions and the film moves along with each frame keeping the audience in both hysterics and wonder as to what will happen next.
Jill Clayburgh is so wonderful in her role and the final scene in the film with she and Joseph Cross is one to remember as finally the son is given something that will bring him happiness.Every frame that Annette Bening brings to the screen is a marvel to watch such a great actress...Evan Rachel Wood continues to become a stunning presence on the screen and Brian Cox is truly "the mad doctor" here to an array of patients that would keep UCLA's Neuropsychiatric Institute in business for years.
Brian Cox (recently brilliant as Langrische on Deadwood), Annette Bening, Alec Baldwin, Jill Clayburgh among them.Forget the obtrusive and self-conscious music.This movie was about 2 hours long which is about 90 minutes longer than necessary.
Augusten Burroughs (Joseph Cross) is caught between his feuding parents (Annette Bening, Alec Baldwin) when their crackpot therapist Dr. Finch (Brian Cox) steps in and offers to take the boy off their hands, throwing the teenager into a far more dysfunctional family setting.
It shows the tortured poet in a diplomatic and fascinating light which could be seen as Augusten or Benning's character (who should win an academy award for her incredible contribution of passion to the character she is playing who she obviously loved) Evan Rachel Wood, who has had to work quite hard to impress me before absolutely had me star struck - this was the first performance I saw her in that provoked me to think she had intelligence and could in fact bring a sense of grace to the character Seriously guys watch it.
The only character who I believe was lacking in development was Brian Coxs character, Doctor Finch.I guess it doesn't surprise me that a lot of people didn't like this movie...but I really wish more people could appreciate it or try to sympathize, even if they couldn't empathize.
This team starts with an excellent book written by Augusten Burroughs to the perfectly talented hands of Director Ryan Murphy, who beautifully directed a just perfect cast.
For those legions of us who delighted in Augusten Burroughs' sharing of his exceedingly warped childhood in the memoir RUNNING WITH SCISSORS, this book to film transformation will be revelatory and extremely satisfying.
Until watching the DVD (not expecting a book of this nature could be successfully molded into a film, much less be a platform for Annette Bening to garner Golden Globe accolades for a role like Deirdre), it is impossible to believe that such a fine book could and is an even better movie.
Kudos to writer, director, producer Ryan Murphy for taking a one-person standup comedy book and mold it into a riotously funny and at the same time deeply moving story about the effects of childhood on our personality development.Augusten (first as 6-year old Jack Kaeding and later as brilliantly transformed by the very talented Joseph Cross) is a conflicted child whose mother Deirdre (Annette Bening in an Oscar deserving performance) is a bipolar poet wannabe with delusions of grandeur who drives her alcoholic husband Norman (Alec Baldwin) out of the house, preferring instead to form a lesbian relationship with Fern (Kristin Chenoweth) from one of her wildly dysfunctional poetry groups.
The cast is uniformly splendid - Annette Bening is amazingly three-dimensional - and the choice of Joseph Cross as Augusten is completely on target for this re-thinking of an impossible book to film.
Starting with Augusten's own parents - an alcoholic father (Alec Baldwin), and his mother whom he is extremely close with, Deirdre Burroughs, played excellently by Annette Benning, who is suffering from severe delusions that she's a great poet awaiting her potential to be unleashed to the world.
They end up joining Finch's extended family (including happily eccentric Gwyneth Paltrow, luscious Evan Rachel Wood, and long-enduring wife Jill Clayburgh) in the doctor's chaotic, rundown mansion.Up to this point, Running With Scissors has been reminiscent of writer-director Ryan Murphy's TV success, Nip/Tuck.
I enjoy "difficult" movies and, while the "dysfunctional family" theme is now way over done, "American Beauty" was one of my favorite recent films.
Brian Cox plays the messed-up therapist Dr. Finch, who adopts young Augusten Burroughs (Joseph Cross).
The family lives in a big, crappy pink mansion.The movie is filled with hilarious moments, such as when Dr. Finch wakes up and announces to everyone that he has received a message from god--in his excrement (because, "the sh*t is pointing up!") I hope to see this wonderful comedy several more times, for I have little felt so fulfilled leaving the theater.I give Running with Scissors a 4/4..
But then I haven't read his book and maybe he did fictionalize the story, but in the movie many things feel shorthanded, like the character of the father, played by Alec Baldwin, which was completely underdevelopedmaybe because pop has another whole memoir/movie in the works devoted to him?
Thanks less to the script and more to stellar performances on the part of the cast, including Jill Clayburg and especially Annette Bening, the movie does gather some heavy dramatic momentum toward the end, and while the film may not have much more to say than it sucks growing up around crazy people, there's one scene that cuts from character to character, all simultaneously screaming in pain and frustration, that I thought said it pretty well..
It's a most unusual set of people surrounding this lad: a mentally unstable mother and an alcoholic father, an eccentric psychiatrist and his even more eccentric family, and others.Also, when the movie ended, it was a pleasant surprise to see that the director is none other than Ryan Murphy, now known as the creator of shows like "Glee" and "American Horror Story".
Joseph Cross, Annette Bening, Alec Baldwin, Brian Cox, Jill Clayburgh, Evan Rachel Wood, Gwyneth Paltrow, Joseph Fiennes, Kristin Chenoweth and Gabrielle Union all put on fine performances.
Running with Scissors is the real life story of writer Augusten Burroughs who grew up in a mentally dysfunctioned environment.
The movie was beautifully written and wonderfully brought to life by the top-notch performances of Annette Bening, Brian Cox, Joseph Fiennes, and Jill Clayburgh.
'Running With Scissors's highlights are clearly its performances, particular those of Annette Bening, Brian Cox and Jill Clayburgh.
A feel-good oddball of a movie with Wes Anderson-ish vibes, that almost only could have come out of a true story, (as it is): Teenager Augusten is more or less dumped by his mentally unstable poet mother in the mid- 70s, to live with the family's psychiatrist...
He just seems to be an odd individual, and the audience is just supposed to ignore the lack of development his character goes through.The rest of the major cast, from Evan Rachel Wood, to Gwyneth Paltrow, to Jill Clayburgh, to Joseph Fiennes, even Cross himself, are all a bit of an enigma.
Afraid that first time director Ryan Murphy has no control of his film, Running with Scissors.
Burroughs himself is spotlighted in "A Personal Memoir by Augusten Burroughs", where he explains the genesis of the book and movie from his own life story, while "Inside Outsiders" has the cast (except Paltrow) explain how they approached their individual roles. |
tt1118697 | Eleventh Hour | While Clark Kent and Lois Lane are kept under house arrest as prisoners of war in Japan, Superman becomes a saboteur.
In the Japanese City of Yokohama the Eleventh Hour strikes and a ship is turned over. Superman escapes searchlights while sirens go off and goes through a window, putting a barred grille back in place. Lois asks if Clark is awake, to which he asks who could sleep through a racket like this. Lois says the racket has been happening every night since they have been interned. Clark says it may be sabotage, which Lois also hopes. She wonders if Superman is responsible. A guard tells them to stop talking.
A Japanese Official says the sabotage must stop at once. As the Eleventh Hour strikes, Clark looks at his watch and leaves the window, returning as Superman. He leaves the room by removing the grille and drags a ship over into the sea. Sabotage happens every night at the Eleventh Hour, and the Official again says the sabotage still must be stopped. Lois sees Superman as he leaps between buildings. She says outside Clark's room that it is Superman, she just saw him, and the Japanese have a 'swell chance' of catching him. However a guard covers her mouth from behind and drags her out. Notices are put up saying 'Warning! Superman One more act of Sabotage and the American Girl Reporter will be executed at once'.
Superman sends another ship into the sea, but is buried under steel girders. Lois is taken out for execution with her hands tied. As Superman digs himself out she walks against the wall and is blindfolded. Superman sees the notice and is fired on, but leaps away. He shields Lois just as the bullets are fired, and leaps away with her. On a ship landing in America Lois is interviewed. She is asked by a reporter if Clark got away, but says he is still over there but Superman promised to look after him. As the Eleventh Hour strikes in Japan there is another explosion. | murder | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0087344 | Gojira | The Japanese fishing vessel Yahata Maru is trying to find its way to shore in a horrible storm while near an uninhabited island, when a giant monster appears out of the island and attacks the boat. A day later, reporter Goro Maki finds the vessel intact, along with its sole survivor Hiroshi "Kenny" Okumura.
In Tokyo, the Japanese Prime Minister is informed of Godzilla's attack and orders that Godzilla's involvement be kept secret. Maki's report is not published by his newspaper as a "national security matter" over concerns about mass panic and is told to interview bio-physicist Hayashida instead. Maki finds Naoko, Okamura's sister working as a lab assistant to Hayashida and informs her that her brother is safe, against the government's orders. She rushes to the hospital.
Godzilla attacks a second time and destroys a Soviet submarine. At the Pentagon, General Goodhoe is informed of the attack on the Soviet submarine. The Russians believe the attack was orchestrated by the Americans and the situation threatens to escalate into war. In Tokyo, the Prime Minister is informed of the submarine attack and is shown evidence that Godzilla was responsible. The media blackout is lifted and the Americans are absolved of blame. The Japanese arrange a meeting with the Russian and American ambassadors and, after some debate over the issue, Prime Minister Mitamura decides nuclear weapons will not be allowed in Japanese territory even if Godzilla was to attack the Japanese mainland. The Soviets keep the nuclear option open despite Japan's forbidding it.
Soon, Godzilla appears on an island off the coast of Japan and attacks a nuclear power plant. After removing the nuclear reactor and feeding off the radiation, Godzilla suddenly drops the reactor and walks off after a flock of birds pass by. The Japanese Self-Defence Forces deploy their forces in wait for a possible attack by Godzilla at Tokyo Bay. General Kakura of the JSDF briefs the Japanese cabinet about a top-secret weapon known as "Super-X attack plane" that can be used against Godzilla. A special heat-resistant and armoured plane, Super-X is a last-ditch weapon to defend the capital.
Through the use of "ultrasonic images", Hayashida determines that Godzilla's brain is bird-like, only mutated. Hayashida realizes that Godzilla has a conditioned response to birds chirping and suggests that they could duplicate the sound electronically and Godzilla might follow. Hayashida assists the Japanese emergency task force in a plan to coax Godzilla into Mt. Mihara's volcano by emitting the bird sound frequency in the hope Godzilla will follow it into the volcano. The Prime Minister authorizes both the JSDF plan and the plan to use the volcano against Godzilla.
Steve Martin is brought into the Pentagon to assist the Americans against Godzilla. Godzilla is later sighted at Tokyo Bay, forcing mass evacuations out of the city. The JASDF attack Godzilla but to no avail. A Russian ship disguised as a merchant ship launch a nuclear missile via satellite. Godzilla proceeds to attack Tokyo and the JSDF launch the Super-X.
The Pentagon prepares to assist the Japanese but Martin cautions that weapons will only confuse and antagonize Godzilla further. Hayashida uses the bird signaling device on Godzilla, which works initially, but fails when Godzilla is attacked. The Super-X arrives shortly and defeats Godzilla with cadmium missiles. The Americans believe that Godzilla is dead, but Martin is not sure. At that moment, the Soviet missile is detected by the Americans as it draws closer to Japan.
Hayashida and his signalling equipment is evacuated and sent to Mt. Mihara. The Americans launch a counter-missile and successfully intercept the Soviet missile however, the nuclear atmosphere from the blast reawakens Godzilla and continues its battle with the Super-X until it is destroyed. Hayashida relaunches the signal and lures Godzilla into the mouth of Mt. Mihara. Using explosive bombs to cause the mountain to erupt, Godzilla becomes imprisoned after falling into the volcano. | cult | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0103671 | American Me | The film depicts 30 years of Chicano gang life in Los Angeles. It focuses on Montoya Santana, a teen who, with his friends, J.D. (Steve Wilcox) and Mundo (Richard Coca), form their own gang. They soon find themselves at the wrong place at the wrong time and are arrested.
In juvenile hall, Santana murders a fellow inmate (Eric Close) who had raped him and as a result, has his sentence extended into Folsom State Prison after he turns 18. Once there, Santana (now played by Edward James Olmos) becomes the leader of a powerful gang, La Eme. Upon his release he tries to relate his life experiences to the society that has changed so much since he left. La Eme has become a feared criminal organization beyond Folsom, selling drugs and committing murder.
Santana starts to see the error of his ways but before he can take action, is sent back to prison for drug possession. There, he tells his former lieutenant, J.D. (William Forsythe) that he is no longer interested in leading La Eme. However, following a precedent set by Santana himself earlier in the film, his men murder him to show the other prison gangs that, despite having no leader, they are not weak. | revenge, murder, violence, flashback | train | wikipedia | First, this actor's capacity to convey a complicated range of emotions without words is absolutely staggering and has been seen to great effect in many great films including "Blade Runner." Additionally, he is inarguably the premiere Latino / Chicano filmmaker and actor of all time.
If you look at the films he has been involved with, think about how they have dominated the way Hispanic people, Mexicans in particular, have been seen by others who would, largely, not even know of the experiences of their neighbors.
A film that explores the criminal lifestyle in a remarkably brutal and cynical fashion, American Me is the stunningly assured directing debut of Edward James Olmos.
This is a stunning, disturbing, brutal tale of prison life within the California prison system, and the Mexican gangs.
This movie portrays very well how ugly, and destructive, this world and this life is.Well-acted by Edward James Olmos and William Forsythe.
Character portrayals are done very well, and you almost wish these guys would come to their senses and turn away from this life.
Well-done, thoughtful portrayal of both the tight brotherhood these guys were capable of sharing, contrasted with the utterly brutal and vicious methods used to keep order, and to settle scores.A movie which attempts to show us the varying forces and pressures, and the twisted logic, which make a situation like this possible..
American Me (1992) was the directing debut of long time character actor Edward James Olmos.
The movie follows the lives of three street gang members who by a sad twist of fate end up in Juvenille Hall.
Inside the walls of Folsom, the three form the most powerful gang inside the California Penal System.Olmos turns the story into a Shakespherian tragedy.
Olmos' direction, editing and use of lighting is that of a long time film-maker.
Great stuff from Mr. Olmos, a true masterpiece from a first time director.Sadly, Mr. Olmos has took a lot of flack for this film and has made some powerful people very angry.
American Me tells the story about the creation of one of the biggest hispanic gangs in California, the Mexican Mafia.
It tells the story from the viewpoint of Santana, the co-creator of the gang, from his parents violent youth all the way to the time he spends in prison.
Outstanding performances by James-Olmos and Forsythe really lend credit to the movie.
Edward James Olmos is not only brave for doing this movie with actual prisoners and gang members, but he was great at depicting what happens to people when they get involved in a gang and do not do what the gang leader says, because when they tell you to kill someone, that person is going to get killed.
Edward James Olmos both directs and stars in American Me with a mostly Latino cast which depicts a Chicano life influenced both by circumstances and bad choices.
Olmos plays a gang leader and we see his rise and fall in the criminal profession which starts with an arrest as a juvenile.It's a stoic and intense portrayal that Olmos gives to his own direction.
Olmos did his own research for the part, but more than that he lived it being born and growing up in the Mexican American area of East Los Angeles.In the story Olmos and his two running buddies, William Forsythe and Pepe Serna while in prison found a Mexican American gang, La Primavera and in prison they pretty much are the Latino inmate population.
American Me is a very good film, the personal project of a very talented man..
The film stuck in my mind since-there have not been many films like it to date.Edward James Olmos is magnificent as actor and director.
You may not have seen him in many films but he does have a quality about him that casts him perfectly in the principal role of gang leader / drug cartel.
If you like prison films this is one of the best.
William Forsythe is great as Edward James Olmos's buddy and as he-Forsythe-usually does when acting (doesn't try to overact or steal any scenes) he just does the business and blends in as his character engrossing you into the film giving it a more realistic depiction of the setting.Many prison films usually fit the same formula, showing you the in's and out's, morals and stereotypes usually associated with prison films.
American Me was the first film to paint an accurate picture of what it can like in America's prison system.
Olmos's tale of latino gang life in and outside of prison is right on the mark.
This is a good film to show to all those would be gangbangers out there that think prison is cool..
Edward James Olmos gives a great performance as Santana, and even a better job as a director.
A real life account of gangs and violence in the Latino communities and life in prison.
This almost qualifies as the "Goodfellas" of Mexican Mafia movies, although it lacks the humor and character development that make the violence wrought by Scorsese's goons somewhat palatable.Not for the weak of heart, this is one of the more daring works of early 90's American cinema.
Violent, ugly and (allegedly) based on true events, the film yanks you into a world that lifelong residents of Los Angeles (like me) have never seen.
The film starts with the L.A. zoot suit riots of the 1940's as a backdrop (Olmos portrayed "El Pachuco" in the stage and screen versions of "Zoot Suit"), and chronicles the rise and fall of Santana (Olmos) who, along with his boyhood "crime partners" (the always good William Forsythe and Pepe Serna), becomes the overlord of the Mexican prison mafia.From the get go, the viewer is yanked down to the violent streets of East Los Angeles, then it's on to Folsom State Prison for some of the most brutal prison sequences this side of "Runaway Train." This film has its critics - some lambaste the acting as second rate, and some view the dialog as corny (the poetic voice over by Olmos worked for me).
I regard this as a very important film that deserves to be seen, now more than ever.Not quite Scorsese, but light years better (and more socially relevant) than the "Penitentiary" movies.
When it started I had serious doubts about this one, but after 10-15 minutes it started to fascinate me.Fantastic play by Actor+Director Ed James Olmos, who is raped by a guy in prison and immediately kills him.
dark and brutal story of one mans rise and fall within the Mexican mafia.
Santana (Edward James Olmos)is sent to juve hall whilst his fellow survivior J.D (William Forsythe) has to settle for hospital food until he recovers from a shotgun wound.
Santana & J.D then reunited and so begins their storyof how they came to rule one of the most notorious prisons and its inhabitants for decades.Edward James Olmos' performance is breath-taking but William Forsythe d steals part his shine with an immense performance as J.D. J.D is a caucasian but strongly spoken hispanic.
The film is based on a true story and tracks some of the same ground covered by "Blood In, Blood Out" which was released a year later.
It works in flashback, from the later thoughts of director and star Edward James Olmos as Santana.
The film is told as a flashback as advice given to his nephew to avoid the gang life which he has embarked on.This is gut-check cinema.
The acting is excellent from Olmos as gang leader Santana and his right-hand man JD (William Forsythe).
One can see in Santana's face the toll that his time in prison and role in La Primera (the Mexican mafia) has taken.
William Forsythe is fantastic, playing JD very low-key and as committed to the Mexican mafia as Santana, so much so that perhaps he forgets he is not Mexican at times!
Nothing is held back in depicting what happens in jail but it has the ring of truth and ultimately, if one wrongs one's gang, one will be held accountable by that gang.This movie really deserves mention along with great gang movies like Goodfellas, The Godfather, and Boyz in the Hood, for its no-hold-barred depiction of the brutality and cheapness of life, but also the brotherhood and sense of identity gained within a gang..
"American Me" stands on a course with "Stand And Deliver" among the finest performances by the ever talented Edward James Olmos.
Other than starring in this film, Olmos also supplies the direction for this brutal and sometimes disturbing to watch prison and street drama.
The story has to do with a well respected gang leader (Olmos) who is released from prison and tries to go straight but his many years of experience among leading street gangs comes back to haunt him.
It's one of the first mainstream movies that examine the life of Mexican Americans.
The Gang has the numbers, and they control life inside the prison, which in this case, art does truly imitate reality.
Once he is released from prison and returns to his old neighborhood, he discovers love, and he starts to view life in a different perspective.
In the end, Santana realises whats important in life.very good actors in the movie period.
The story in this movie is almost the same as in "Blood in blood out", but i think that this movie has a much more realistic sense.It is more comprehensive and also shows the horrible violence and the damages that the main character got during all the time in prison.
If you, like me, saw the epic 'Blood In, Blood Out' (released in the US as 'Bound By Honor') and loved it, be sure to see Edward James Olmos 'American Me'.
Queer Eye for the Prison Guy. American Me: 3/10: In all fairness I have to admit I was expecting more of a gang picture (albeit a serious one) with Mexican overtones rather than a straightforward prison drama.
Nobody in this film emotes and pass the K-Y jelly cause there is more guy on guy action in this movie than in the men's room at a Sex in the City wrap party.
Edward James Olmos is one man who should never even try.
A good first 45 minutes or so quickly melts into underacted pathos (Nobody emotes in this movie, cause they are all tough guys see.) and misguided plot twists (the whole taking on the mob bit was horribly done).
The movie just keeps getting worse and worse.Oh and Olmos's character writes poetry.
American Me is now a Chicano Classic about gangs and prison life.
Edward James Olmos plays the role of Santana, an inmate who becomes a leader in and out of prison.
With a great supporting cast and soundtrack, the film tells a dramatic story without getting too preachy.
One of Edward James Olmos best roles to this day..
:)A powerful and realistic look into the gang culture within the Mexican American population.
Montoya Santana (Edward James Olmos) is in prison as he recalls his life.
To each other maybe, to their enemies and every outsider, they hand out their prison justice mentality and enforce it with a brutality that most people tend to ignore until it's too late.I never thought that gangsta life would be so glorified and seen as honorable - but not endurable.
Good movie, shows Zoot Suit riots.
Starts with the Zoot Suit riots and takes you through a mans life in prison and back out onto the streets.
I read a lot of reviews on here and it seemed that people felt this was an accurate portrayal of prison life.
So if you are looking for an action filled drug movie I'd look elsewhere but if you are looking for a way to waste 2 hours of your day I'd recommend "American Me"..
Social history of the Mexican gang-banger set in East LA.What does "inspired by a true story" mean?
AMERICAN ME (1992) *** Edward James Olmos, William Forsythe.
Absorbing character study based on true life about a barrio viewpoint of street gangs with Olmos as a paroled con whose life of crime and prison meshes with the harsh realities of his world in torment.
For example, main character and j.d they are shown as life long friends, yet we never really see the side how they became or how their friendship developed.Now about blood in blood out, while it has very similar story, the interpersonal relationship between main 3 characters as well as montana and other gang members are lot more detailed.
This gives you a lot bigger insight on why the characters would do what they did(what drives them and such).Anyhow this movie gets 8/10 from me and if they had lot nicer personal development it would have easily been a 10.
It showed the real truth about prison and gang life.
And the huge banner 'Directed by EDWARD JAMES OLMOS' at the end made me want to laugh.
The movie American Me was to me violence Mexican Mafia style.
Great movie, because its a true story.
For those who don't understand gang activity may have a hard time understanding the movie, and may feel it might be corny though this stuff happens everyday and let me tell you it's not corny,it happens in our country everyday.
Watching this film will open up your eyes and understand how serious our gang issue is in our country.
With real gang members in the prison scenes it has the credentials.
Okay, basically a prison movie, and not the good kind.
Maybe it is necessary to organize into ethnic gangs for protection in prison, but it is not necessary to deal drugs, or rape, or murder.
Anyway this film descends into the genesis of the Mexican Mafia prison gang and it just gets more and more gruesome.
Edward James Olmos had one of his best roles in this encompassing the violent nature of a Mexican criminal.
While it did have its problems, Olmos' performance, as is in all of his movies, really captured the power of this film.
this movie is about the gang banging life..
Edward James Olmos directs, and stars as main character Santana Montoya.
Santana's parents are victims of a brutal and disturbing attack during Los Angeles's "Zoot Suit Riots" in the 1940s which sets the tone for Santana's power driven and violent life.
A childhood of gang activity in East Los Angeles eventually lands Santana in Folsom State Prison, where in the 1960s he starts La Eme, otherwise known as the Mexican Mafia.
What results is both riveting and sad, and, as intended by Edward James Olmos, leaves a message about Chicano gang life in Los Angeles.
It has a story, dialogue, and even great cinematography (which effectively captures downtown and East Los Angeles during three different eras in history) that help the film hold up twenty plus years after its release..
Over the past few years, anything that featured Edward James Olmos left be with a bit of mixed feelings about the individual.
Knowing that such a talented performer being held back by poor decisions, we surely won't find him being wasted by his own movie.Based on the life of Mexican mob kingpin Rodolfo Cadena (founder of La Eme), it shouldn't come as a surprise that there will some dramatization being that it's a biopic and not a documentary.
This movie follows his hard-fought life, this movie is as simple as it gets, the story of how La Eme started.
These events lead up to the gang going to jail and the formation of La Eme comes into fruition.The film stands out as a personal pet project for Olmos as he informs his audience about the dangers of joining a gang.
The film is generally one big flashback focusing on Santana's story from his childhood to his prison sentence and his narration is crisp and very well detailed."American Me" will not bite you to get attention, nor will it annoy you in any way.
There is also a good deal of attention played to the inability to escape gang life, the very limited options of the gang members, and their narrow worldview.While there are may things to like about this film there are a few obnoxious flaws.
Finally, there some odd editing decisions like cutting between the lovemaking of the main character and his girlfriend and a man being gang raped in prison, but otherwise the direction was stellar.My only real complaints about the film are the over use of the term "ese" which seems to be every other word and the score which is unfortunately stuck in the 1980's with cheesy softcore porn blues guitar.
Otherwise there is very little to complain about.There are few if any gangster movies that better serve to highlight the endless cycle of death, drugs and betrayal of gang life better than American Me..
Thank you, very much.Set in Los Angeles, American Me ambitiously attempts to cover 30 years in the life of a Chicano Gang Leader named Santana.
All of Santana's crimes were, in one way, or another, related to heavy-duty drug dealing and/or armed robbery.While serving time in prison Santana, a real shrewd and ruthless operator, quickly became the undisputed ringleader of what was known as the Mexican Mafia.
It didn't take long for Santana to be pounding the beat behind bars, again, serving, yet, another long term of sentence.Santana is eventually stabbed to death in prison, where his own men betray him and even take part in his murder.As movie-entertainment, American Me has a fierce, raw power, all of its own.
It forces and compels the viewer to watch all of the unpleasant, gut-wrenching horrors of prison-life, defying anyone to turn their eyes away from the atrocities on the screen.Released in 1992, American Me is an impressive directorial debut by Edward James Olmos, who also played the part of the hardened criminal, Santana.. |
tt0758755 | Immortally Yours | During a night at the opera, Estelle Henderson is embarrassed by her drunken fiance, John, but also attracted by a dark and mysterious young man in the audience. After the performance, John attacks Estelle's father, Dr. George Henderson, but is stopped by the young man, who introduces himself as Alex Stone. Alex and Estelle go out for dinner and fall in love.
As it turns out, Alex is part of a vampire coven. Questioned by his fellow vampires, he reveals that he his tired of the emptiness of being a savage beast living in eternal darkness. Seeking help from Estelle's father, a famous medical research scientist, Alex confides in Estelle, explaining that he is a vampire but would prefer a mortal life with her. When approached, Dr. Henderson is incredulous at first but then is very interested in working with a vampire as this could further his research into immortality.
However, Henderson's research is funded by Victor Price, head of the Illuminati, a multi-national crime syndicate, who hope to attain immortality through that research. Meanwhile, they are harvesting people for spare body parts. Through an informer, Price learns of Alex's case and allows Henderson's research to continue if Alex would in turn make him a vampire. Though Dr. Henderson unlocks the secret behind Alex's vampirism, Alex refuses to provide Price with immortality. He informs the Hendersons of Price's association with the Illuminati but then agrees to Estelle's enigmatic suggestion to "take advantage" of the Illuminati's power.
Meanwhile, Alex's fellow vampires are lacking Alex's power to make the group disappear, have to contend with Marshall Pope, a vampire hunter working for Interpol who has been brought after the police discovered the existence of vampire attacks. With his help, the police manage to kill the other vampires, who are lacking Alex's power, though Pope is also killed. The police have also arrested one of Price's henchmen, Rex, in a failed drug trafficking operation. In a bargain, Rex reveals Price's role in the operation, prompting the police to put Price under surveillance.
At the same time, Price and his associates receive the promised treatment and return to their mansion, taking Estelle with them. One of Price's henchman, Steven Mills, tries to stake Alex but is overpowered. Henderson and Alex rush to the mansion, where Price is showing all his power and wealth to Estelle in order to seduce her. Alex confronts Price and, as the police storm in, uses his powers of disappearance to vanish together with the Illuminati-turned-vampires. As the bystanders are looking on in bewilderment, the film shows Alex leaving the Illuminati to spend their eternal lifer in outer space, as he returns to earth.
Over a year later, a news reporter notes the Hendersons' acquittal in the Illuminati trial, the unexplained disappearance of the Illuminati and their money, a rapid drop in crime and the absence of further sightings of vampires. The final scenes reveal that Estelle has pilfered the Illuminati accounts and donated the money to a charitable cause and now lives with non-vampiric Alex in a large house. | murder | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0027455 | Colleen | Colleen is the manager of a dress shop named "The Ames Company", owned by Donald Ames. They try to keep Uncle Cedric from working, because he will ruin the company. Troubles start when he hires schemer Joe as his personal assistant. He later also hires Minnie, a woman who has a great passion for fashion. When he buys the dress shop for Minnie where Colleen works as a bookkeeper, a scandal is soon followed. Donald decides to shut the shop, but is stopped because of his infatuation towards Colleen. It is Colleen who eventually makes a profit out of the things that happened. Meanwhile, a man named Cedric tries to adopt Minnie. Minnie refuses and thereby causes a scandal. This angers Alicia, but the press can't get enough of it. Donald loses Colleen's affection and thus is sued by Joe. | romantic | train | wikipedia | null |
tt1002567 | Henjel gwa Geuretel | Eun-soo, a salesman, is driving his car along Highway 69 while talking on the phone with his four-weeks pregnant girlfriend, Hae-young. She tells him to stay by her side for the remainder of her pregnancy, but he replies that his mother is ill and he has to visit her, leading to a quarrel as Eun-soo is driving and causing him to hit a rock and pass out. He wakes up to find himself stranded in a dark forest. He sees light from a lantern that a young girl is carrying. She introduces herself as Young-hee as they head for her house, a large house in the middle of the forest called the "House of Happy Children".
Her parents, older brother Man-bok and younger sister Jung-soon are waiting on the porch when they arrive. Eun-soo finds the children following his every move the following day. He decides to leave, but returns because it is getting dark. As he tries to leave again, he discovers that the parents are leaving, and they tell him to take care of the kids.
He soon learns from their mother, who is hiding in the attic, that they are not the children's real parents. Their car broke down on Highway 69 too, and they met Jung-soon when they explored the woods. She tells him not to believe the children. As Eun-soo makes his way out again the next day, he sees Man-bok and a couple approaching the house. The man, Byun is a seemingly amicable deacon while his wife has a malicious aura about her. Eun-soo keeps looking for clues, finding that the meat they had consumed was actually the flesh of the missing 'father' and his wife had turned into a china doll. He also notices that Byun's wife had disappeared after accusing Jung-soon for stealing her ring. At night, he secretly follows Man-bok into the woods, making a trail of breadcrumbs so he wouldn't get lost. He realizes Byun's wife had turned into an oak tree.
Man-bok stops in front of a mysterious door to a room, putting down the notebook that the siblings have been working on throughout the movie. His face changes to an old man's face as he passes the door. When he leaves, Eun-soo enters the room and looks over the notebook's contents, finding out that the children are over thirty years old. Suddenly Young-hee comes in sleepwalking, and as they talk, Eun-soo looks at her face which has become an old woman's. Eun-soo backs in shock, hitting bookcases in the room and causing notes to fall off the shelves. As he reads the notes, the reason Man-bok wanted to get rid of the couple who used to be his 'parents' is revealed. The husband did nothing but quarrel with his wife when Jung-soon accidentally stepped on shards of broken glass while playing, angering Man-bok who used his powers to almost force the husband's hand into a boiling pot of soup. Since their awareness of Man-bok's powers, the couple tried not to mess up, or they would end up dead.
Eun-soo sees more of the children's drawings in the notebook, such as a woman with mutilated limbs, a woman turned into an oak tree, a woman in a dress with red crayons splattered on her face and a man resembling himself laying on the grass beside the red flowers he had seen on his way out. He realizes that the last depiction foretells his end and is determined to stop the children before they murder him.
Meanwhile, Young-hee returns to the house upon hearing Byun singing. Eun-soo heads back too and learns that Byun is a religious cult leader trying to kill the children, and he is holding Jung-soon hostage. He knocks Byun out and listens to the children's side of the story from Young-hee in the form of a flashback.
The kids lived in an orphanage called the "House of Happy Children". The abusive caretaker raped the girls and beat the boys. Man-bok tried to save his friend Seung-ho from being beaten for spilling food, but he failed and Seung-ho was locked in a dark room. Young-hee and Jung-soon once tried to escape but came back, ending in Young-hee going into the caretaker's room to save Jung-soon from being raped. One Christmas Eve, they wondered if Santa Claus would give them presents, because they thought they weren't good that year. This led to Man-bok activating his powers, which he only realized the next morning when Santa Claus did come and told the siblings that their wishes could come true just by imagining it, and he gave them a Hansel and Gretel storybook. They believed they must reenact the story to all bad adults. The three of them then witnessed Seung-ho being forced into a sack, where he was beaten to death. Man-bok felt that this must stop. They sneaked up to the locked room which Man-bok unlocked just by imagining it. They tried to give candy to their friends inside but realized that they were all dead. The caretaker found them and was going to burn them in the fireplace, but Man-bok screamed, bringing the story back to the present as he screams when Byun rises to kill Eun-soo, causing a whirlwind in both the flashback and the present which throws the caretaker into the fireplace, and Byun is stabbed to death.
The winds stop and the children ask Eun-soo to stay with them. Eun-soo rejects them for his loved ones and suggests taking the children outside with him. The children refuse, saying adults will always be bad. Eun-soo argues that if they continued their doings, they would be bad adults too. Young-hee suddenly whispers, "Burn the notebook, so you can get out of here." He does so before Man-bok can stop him, and Eun-soo glances at the crying children as the book burns.
Eun-soo wakes up in the location Young-hee found him at. He walks up the road and sees the police, who tell him the tragic stories of Highway 69, and that they are amazed at his survival.
A year later on Christmas, Eun-soo has married Hae-young, and they have a baby boy. Hae-young asks Eun-soo to go buy milk. As he goes out, he wonders if his encounter was real or if it was a dream. His collection of news clippings of Deacon Byun (now revealed to be a serial killer and religious cult leader) who is apparently missing suggests that it was real. He comes across the same notebook that the children used and browses it. The pages are blank until the last page, which shows three children dressed like Man-bok, Young-hee, and Jung-soon all holding hands and smiling. The children had given up and realized that they didn't need parents to be a family. Eun-soo looks out the window and outside in the snow, Man-bok, Young-hee, and Jung-soon turn around and make their way back into the woods. | fantasy, cruelty, gothic, murder, haunting, flashback, psychedelic, suspenseful | train | wikipedia | Maybe I've been ignoring Korean films for too long because I've seen some good things coming from those regions lately.
Some similar elements to Korean(/Asian) horror films are definitely present but in the end the film presents itself more like a darker fantasy.Comparing this film to others is not an easy thing.
It's these kind of things that help to establish the uneasy atmosphere from the start of the film.As the story progresses the tone becomes gradually darker, as does the styling.
It takes a while to get a good grip on the story as more and more elements are introduced to the film and certainly not all of them fit well together from the start, but about halfway through you should have a good idea of what the hell is going on.Visually this is a very consistent film, with pretty awesome camera work and a great sense of color.
Something the film gratefully makes use of to crawl under your skin.While the revealing of the mystery is nothing too special and the film knows its share of typical Korean taboo-breaking weirdness, it's that very mysterious, dark and fantasy-like atmosphere that gives the film enough momentum to easily swing past these little imperfections.
In the end, Hansel and Gretel is a rather special experience that leaves a solid mark in the world of film.Rather than call it a horror film, it's a dark fantasy mixed with drama and a touch of horror elements.
Take one dark little fairytale and blend it in with some Asian horror sensibilities, and you get this loosely based modern take on "Hansel & Gretel".
Truth is that the "Hansel & Gretel" theme is actually just a background for the film, and not the whole story.The basic storyline centres around a man who following a car crash finds himself lost in the forest.
Taken by a friendly young girl to her family's home, he finds the family is living in a fantasy like house full of toys and nursery school imagery (replacing the gingerbread make-up from the original tale).
The protagonists are the three children, controlling the house and toying with those who enter it, becoming the bane for our lead man as he tries his best to escape their "ideal" world.What is it all about?
The original Hansel and Gretel story is a pretty dark fairy tale.
The plot is about some guy who gets into a car accident and finds a young mysterious girl when he wakes up, she soon takes him to her family home.
But I thought the original Hansel and Gretel fairy tale was quite dark too, especially with the ending.
You know, the kids who come to know of this gingerbread house where everything and anything can be eaten to fill their empty stomachs, only to culminate in their stuffing of the owner into a large stove so that they can take possession of the property to live (and eat) happily ever after.OK, so if you believe my synopsis of the fairy tale, then you, like me, probably saw what many others don't.
Pity Eun-Soo (Cheon Jeong-myeong), who got involved in a car accident, and got led by one of the children to live with them in their house.
The set designs and art direction were all beautiful to look at, and most times you'll shift your focus to admiring the sets when events start to get repetitive, with Eun-Soo's attempts to get out of the house and the enchanted forest in more than 4 attempts, of course thwarted each time.
Supporting characters like the adults who come and go, at first might make you scratch your head, but let that be the least of your worries, because once Santa Claus came visiting, you'll have to suspend your disbelief, otherwise this movie wouldn't work.Hansel and Gretel's a pretty decent thriller, a mix of groundhog-day-ness with the usual trappings of cheap horror movies, boosted though by its rich production values.
This Korean movie might seem like a story that could be told to people and it's shooting style is amazing, but it moves very slow.The colorful movie has quite a few twists, while taking it's sweet time.
It is therefore no surprise that Hansel and Gretel continues the tradition of outstanding Asian Horror film with its aim to entertain the audience with a good story as well as shocks.
It will probably give you goosebumps if you're not thick skinned - but that's good right!It revolves around a creepy family of children in a strange cottage in the woods, the adults they snare keep disappearing, when our main guy appears they take to him but he cant leave...
Watch this with some fairy cakes and sweets and you'll feel like you are there.To sum it up: Everything about this film is wonderful!
It just oozes class, the story is a nice mix of supernatural fantasy fairy tale with a small injection of psychological horror..
Hansel & Gretel is jam-packed (Nathan's jam, in my own fairytale) with twists and turns so there's hardly ever a dull moment.Although things start to become repetitious when our hero keeps going into the woods and getting lost, so going back to the house it's there for a reason, so that we start to feel as fed up and trapped as he does/ There's a great atmosphere of isolation and the film is incredibly eerie at times with the creepy children.
Hollywood could never make a film like this because they lack the imagination and creativity that makes Hansel & Gretel so great.
Many people may not totally get the fantasy element but I see it important, as it makes the film become its own fairytale and also leaves a lot of things up to interpretation, and I like that sense of ambiguity.The protagonist is also a very likable character,being that he's the only normal one in the whole film.
It makes you sympathise for the characters and almost changes into a completely different genre which is very original.Hansel & Gretel can sit up there with all the other great Korean films, I have yet to see a bad one!
My title doesn't quite trip off the tongue, but one thing about fairy tales is that they can be set and adapted to anywhere in the world, the characters being wholly universal.Premiered on Film 4 tonight, as part of a 'Fright-Fest' double bill, this eerie movie starts out like all Hollywood 'horror' flicks - you know, dark slippery road at night, middle of an impenetrable forest, driver uses his mobile - almost enough to put folk like me off, but maybe clever as it entices the new cinema-going market as they feel smugly content with what they're watching - until:Yes - a fairytale house in a clearing, with cute kids and cuter parents and lovely toys and dreamy food...again, drawing us in but generating a sense of unrest and unease, as we know this is labelled as a 'horror' movie and ultimately, things have to get sinister and bad at some point.
It is ultimately the story that generates the most chills - how often can you say that, these days?The art direction is the trump card here, along with the acting of the three main children.
In truth, HANSEL & GRETEL bears little resemblance to the story we know of old, acknowledging it stylistically rather than via the narrative.The film is billed as a horror movie but in truth it isn't.
The film ends up relying on huge chunks of exposition plonked in towards the end in an effort to explain things, and undigested back story never makes for a dramatically satisfying movie.Indeed, you can't fault the calibre of acting on offer – especially from those great child actors – or indeed the technical perfection behind the scenes.
The capture of the snow filled Korean forest and claustrophobic house create a feeling of wonderment straight out of a fairytale.
While the story adapted from a famous folklore, the writer/director twist it sick enough to make sure that people knows that this movie ain't for the family.
Honestly, I knew this movie since 2011, but never quite acknowledge its quality due to language barrier, and because I always encounter with boring K-horror.This movie follows a man who discovered a house full of toys in the middle of the woods after he lost after a car accident.
I don't like the situation somehow feels on/off though (there were scenes the MC is quite cocky to the children, but the children quickly forget it), but overall the screenplay (and also the actors) narrates the story well.I am not quite fond of the twist, because rather than surprising, I found it very obvious.
Jeong-myeong Cheon was very good as young salesman Eun-Soo, who the children viewed as 'different' to the other people.
This particular film is a modern adaption slightly inspired by the world famous German fairytale "Hänsel und Gretel".The mysterious story kicks off surprisingly quickly.
Eun-Soo establishes a confident relationship with the three children but he soon realizes that they are not like other kids.
But as Eun-Soo realizes that the three seemingly innocent children have been through unspeakable events in their early childhood, he realizes that he needs to find out their most disturbing secrets and to face his own tragic fate to get out of the forest.Despite a more or less predictable story line, the film convinces on many other levels.
The costumes, decorations and special effects relate this film to the fantasy genre first but the movie also includes some important portions of the drama genre and some minor horror elements.
They act like real children but at the same time, they have some strangely mature behaviours and one is never all to sure if these three mysterious kids are angels, demons or both of it until the end.The tension in this atmospheric movie rises more and more and features many diversified cinematic elements such as flashbacks or moments when scenes of past and presence happen on a parallel level until a certain climax.
The movie gets more emotional but also tension filled towards the end while the ending is as enchanting and well catalysed as the opening scene.In the end, any fan of imaginative fantasy movies, fairy tales in general and contemporary South Korean cinema shouldn't miss this movie.
A fairy tale for adults rather than a straight out horror film.
Korean fairy tale based in part on the Grimms story only now things are reversed.A man with a troubled life has a car accident and stumbles into the woods.
However things transpire that quickly lead him to realize that all is not well and that he may never be able to leave.If you suppress your desire to compare the film to other works of terror and fantasy in the early going you'll find that this is a pretty good and rather creepy story in the revised fairy tale genre.
It is ultimately a fairy tale and not a horror movie (its very creepy and doesn't have really big scares) and on that level it scores big points.You can pretty much click off the typical fairy tale elements and see that they are all working here (and no you won't do it while you're watching-though you will be aware that this is not a typical horror film) To be certain it did remind me of other films, but at the same time it bends them to its own end.
I can't imagine how I would have reacted had the call not come since as is I'm a tad unsettled (which should not imply anything either way since the impact was emotional I'm not sure which way it left me).Worth a look if you get the chance and like dark fairy tale type stories.Not sure of the rating, I have to sit on this one a while.(Its at least a 7 out of 10).
One of the better Korean horror films (Very Minor Spoilers).
The best Korean horror films seem to work because of the screenwriter and director's ability to blend elements of both horror and drama in such a way that you simply cannot give up on the characters in the story, no matter how much you might dislike them.This is definitely the case with Hansel & Gretel, a film which if all you know about the film is the title you will find something very much the opposite of your expectations.
Quite the opposite in fact and despite being led to believe by the title that you've heard this story before and are now only going to experience a slight variation you're in for something very different from the typical Asian horror horror film.
There is none in sight.When all is said and done, the story of a man, surviving a car accident and happening upon a house and an eccentric family in the deep woods (don't worry, they're not gonna pull a Sixth Sense on you) you realize you experienced the Korean equivalent of Pan's Labyrinth, a story about children and their strange capacity to realize real evil through the filter of their imaginations (don't worry they're not gonna pull a Bridge to Terabithia on you either)..
This movie was good on so many levels it is hard to swallow it did not get more international attention than it did.It starts of in reality where someone get's into a car accident and crashes in the woods and wakes up in the dark where he meets a young girl looking for a hairpin her little sister lost.
Convinced he can call at the girls house she guides him to a place that looks like an everlasting Christmas scene with lots of toys and of course sweet foods.He than meets the rest of the family but besides them being very nice he's starting to get the feeling there is something not right about this "happy"place.From there on things get even darker and nothing in this place is what it appears to be in the beginning and all the twists and turns fit to the story so at the end you really get a feeling it's a complete story.The acting was top notch and especially the children did an excellent job on playing good/bad kids which was really creepy sometimes.Could be compared slightly to"the brothers Grimm"but than with"off"Korean drama which i'm beginning to like more and more.Movies are all about storytelling and it's become clear to me South Koreans do this very well.Maybe this low quantity ,high quality works?!.Think about it,Holly..
Early into the journey, it feels like you are watching Pan's Labyrinth.The Good Some of the casts are good, especially the girl, Eun Kyung (got her name from IMDb, I am not really familiar with Korean actors).
Also, like Pan's Labyrinth, I think this is a fantasy movie, not a horror movie..
The technical and imagery side of this cinema is great, some of the best photography i've seen recently comes from korean films.This one could actually have been something powerful, it was ambitious, but it fails, to me.Basically it tries to be a mix of three elements: suspense/horror, mapped into children's drama, mapped into Grimm's brothers tale..it is horror because we have a designated viewer, someone who represents us is the story.
Yet none of the common things of true horror films occur, and we feel heavy all the way, suspenseful, without being 'scared'.
So, we are intended to be given a twist as we fall for the children's motivations and start facing them as victims instead of devils..Hansel & Gretel, the tale, structures loosely the narrative.
She has a lantern, seems kindly disposed toward him, and leads him to a place to stay, the 'House of Happy Children.' It is lovely inside, and looks like everyday is Christmas.
They patch up his more major wounds from the accident.Eun-Soo meets Young Hee's mother, father, younger sister, and older brother, Man-bok.
This does not help.Eun-Soo finds a fairy tale book, and the boy gets cross with him for touching it.
So the kids are carnivorous fairies or demons or whatever.The layering keeps getting deeper for Eun-Soo, as he makes his way through more documents in the attic.
Man-bok killed his father, and decided that all bad adults need to be punished like the punishment in Hansel and Gretel.
I liked the child actors better than I thought I would.Screenplay: 9/10 A bit long, but a good story told through the movie..
The longer he stays there the more he realises there is something very strange about the house and the children and that anybody who tries to leave or upsets them is in grave danger.This film is a delightfully chilling reversal of the famous fairytale as he it is the children who present the danger to an adult lost in the woods.
Many horror films rely on the dark and lots of jumps to keep the viewer on edge but here it is the excessively bright palette that makes everything seem slightly wrong and there is very little actual violence.
Early on as the story gets going,it sort of leads you to think maybe there's something dark,and fearful about the children.
the child who plays the complex and often sinister Man-Bok is also excellent and maybe even at times more impressive given the nuances of his character.as well as having some hauntingly beautiful photography and set design, this film also displays a outrageous sense of humorous design as in all the little robots and toys and animals in the house, drapes and wallpaper.the message here is surprisingly moving, but that doesn't make a lot of the movie any less chilling.
In this interesting contemporary Korean take on the Grimm Brothers' original, everything is turned upside down: a stranded motorist ends up at a cottage in the woods where three children prevent him from leaving.The story always keeps you guessing, the film looks good - given that it hovers in the horror/supernatural realm, it is brightly lit with saturated colours. |
tt0045943 | Julius Caesar | The play opens with the commoners of Rome celebrating Caesar's triumphant return from defeating Pompey's sons at the battle of Munda. Two tribunes, Flavius and Marrullus, discover the commoners celebrating, insult them for their change in loyalty from Pompey to Caesar, and break up the crowd. There are some jokes made by the commoners, who insult them back. They also plan on removing all decorations from Caesar's statues and ending any other festivities. In the next scene, during Caesar's parade on the feast of Lupercal, a soothsayer warns Caesar, "Beware the ides of March." This warning he disregards. The action then turns to the discussion between Brutus and Cassius. In this conversation, Cassius attempts to influence Brutus's opinions into believing Caesar should be killed, preparing to have Brutus join his conspiracy to kill Caesar. They then hear from Casca that Mark Antony has offered Caesar the crown of Rome three times and that each time Caesar refused it, fainting after the last refusal. Later, in act two, Brutus joins the conspiracy, although after much moral debate, eventually deciding that Caesar, although his friend and never having done anything against the people of Rome, should be killed to prevent him from doing anything against the people of Rome if he were ever to be crowned. He compares Caesar to "A serpents egg/ which hatch'd, would, as his kind, grow mischievous,/ and kill him in the shell." He then decides to join Cassius in killing Caesar.
Caesar's assassination is one of the most famous scenes of the play, occurring in Act 3, scene 1. After ignoring the soothsayer, as well as his wife's own premonitions, Caesar comes to the Senate. The conspirators create a superficial motive for coming close enough to assassinate Caesar by means of a petition brought by Metellus Cimber, pleading on behalf of his banished brother. As Caesar, predictably, rejects the petition, Casca grazes Caesar in the back of his neck, and the others follow in stabbing him; Brutus is last. At this point, Shakespeare makes Caesar utter the famous line "Et tu, Brute?" ("And you, Brutus?", i.e. "You too, Brutus?") Shakespeare has him add, "Then fall, Caesar!" This suggests that such treachery destroyed Caesar's will to live.
The conspirators make clear that they committed this act for Rome, not for their own purposes, and do not attempt to flee the scene. After Caesar is killed, Brutus delivers an oration defending his actions, and for the moment, the crowd is on his side. However, Mark Antony makes a subtle and eloquent speech over Caesar's corpse, beginning with the much-quoted "Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears!" In this way, he deftly turns public opinion against the assassins by manipulating the emotions of the common people, in contrast to the rational tone of Brutus's speech, yet there is method in his rhetorical speech and gestures: he reminds them of the good Caesar had done for Rome, his sympathy with the poor, and his refusal of the crown at the Lupercal, thus questioning Brutus's claim of Caesar's ambition; he shows Caesar's bloody, lifeless body to the crowd to have them shed tears and gain sympathy for their fallen hero; and he reads Caesar's will, in which every Roman citizen would receive 75 drachmas. Antony, even as he states his intentions against it, rouses the mob to drive the conspirators from Rome. Amid the violence, an innocent poet, Cinna, is confused with the conspirator Lucius Cinna and is taken by the mob, which kills him by tearing him to pieces for such "offenses" as his bad verses.
The beginning of Act Four is marked by the quarrel scene, where Brutus attacks Cassius for supposedly soiling the noble act of regicide by having accepted bribes. ("Did not great Julius bleed for justice' sake? / What villain touch'd his body, that did stab, / And not for justice?") The two are reconciled, especially after Brutus reveals that his beloved wife Portia had committed suicide under the stress of his absence from Rome; they prepare for a war against Mark Antony and Caesar's adopted son, Octavius. That night, Caesar's ghost appears to Brutus with a warning of defeat. (He informs Brutus, "Thou shalt see me at Philippi.")
At the battle, Cassius and Brutus, knowing that they will probably both die, smile their last smiles to each other and hold hands. During the battle, Cassius has his servant Pindarus kill him after hearing of the capture of his best friend, Titinius. After Titinius, who was not really captured, sees Cassius's corpse, he commits suicide. However, Brutus wins that stage of the battle--but his victory is not conclusive. With a heavy heart, Brutus battles again the next day. He loses and commits suicide by running on his own sword, which is held by a soldier named Strato.
The play ends with a tribute to Brutus by Antony, who proclaims that Brutus has remained "the noblest Roman of them all" because he was the only conspirator who acted, in his mind, for the good of Rome. There is then a small hint at the friction between Mark Antony and Octavius which characterizes another of Shakespeare's Roman plays, Antony and Cleopatra. | tragedy, revenge, murder, violence | train | wikipedia | His performance of the famous "Friends, Romans, countrymen" speech is a marvel of clarity, and is the linchpin that makes all of the other action of the play make sense.James Mason is, I think, perfect as Brutus.
No less than five Hollywood stars - Marlon Brando, James Mason, Deborah Kerr, Greer Garson, and Edmond O'Brien, are in this film (although two of them have barely five minutes of screen time) and the entire cast gives fine performances.James Mason, who actually has the leading role of Brutus (despite the fact that Brando gets top billing) is excellent, giving a conscience-stricken, restrained performance--he even LOOKS the way one likes to imagine that Brutus must have looked.
"That we shall die, we know", all else is uncertain.Of course the key scene of the film and Shakespeare's play, takes place right after Caesar's assassination.
Greer Garson is Caesar's wife, warning him against making an appearance at the Capitol on the fateful day, but she is hardly given any screen-time.The film is not the last word in Shakespeare in any sense of the word, but it is entertaining and true to what it sets out to do.
Without subtitles it was a chore to keep up with, but when you do you are in for a treat.This classic tale of politics, treachery, love and death was performed to perfection by people such as Marlon Brando (Marc Antony), John Gielgud (Cassius, delivering a powerhouse performance as usual), James Mason (Brutus).
I think when you start watching a movie written by the Shakespeare you shouldn't expect a documentary on the life of Julius Caesar but a lyrical tale about ancient political Rome.The photography was great, with its glorious Black and White footage.Although the text can be offputting for some who are not at the least a bit interested in the language the Bard wrote in.A must for Shakespeare fans.8/10.
The shooting made an intent at historic realism finishing in the battle of Philippi where the second triumvirate(Marc Anthony,Lepido and Octavius Augustus: Caesar's grandnephew and his heir) defeat Caesar's assassins and posteriorly split the Empire among them.Displays outstanding performances from James Mason as Brutus, Louis Calhern as memorable Caesar, Deborah Kerr as Brutus's wife, and Greer Garson as Calpurnia ,Caesar's first wife, the second one was Cleopatra who is left out of the action entirely.
Caesar assassination is well staged and spectacular final regarding the battle of Philippi was added by production film , though Mankiewicz to be opposed because he wished a movie completely theatrical.Deservedly won Academy Award for art direction and production design by Cedric Gibbons.
Efficiently produced by actor John Houseman and directed with professionalism and imagination by Joseph L Mankiewicz.This gripping movie will like to Shakespeare devotees but its spirit is intact ,despite are taken a briefs liberties.Shakespeare would have admired this classic film.
It's followed by an inferior remake, being the original much better version, and directed in 1970 by Stuart Burge with Charlton Heston(Marlon Brando's role), Jason Robards(James Mason-lookalike),Robert Vaughn(Edmond O'Brien,Casca role-alike), Jill Bennet(Greer Garson), Diana Rigg(Deborak Kerr's character)and repeating acting by John Gielgud as Julius Caesar role substituting his phenomenal previous character as Cassius..
1953's JULIUS CAESAR was a milestone in it's time, and still is, perhaps, the finest American production of a Shakespeare play ever recorded on film.
For whatever reason, the British seemed to have a 'lock' on filmed versions of the Bard.But Mankiewicz understood that Shakespeare was both universal and timeless, and in his capacity of director and (uncredited) screenwriter, he 'opened up' JULIUS CAESAR, eliminating the 'studio' feel of key scenes, and, with producer John Houseman, gathered together an impressive array of talent, with British actors John Gielgud as Cassius, James Mason as Brutus, Greer Garson as Calpurnia, and Deborah Kerr as Portia, and stage-trained American actors such as Oscar winner Edmond O'Brien in supporting roles.Where the greatest gamble, and payoff, came was in the casting of Marlon Brando as Marc Antony.
His performance became the keystone of the film's success.Not that JULIUS CAESAR is without faults; it is, occasionally, stagy and artificial, the pacing is a bit too slow and deliberate at times, and, as the title character, Louis Calhern is woefully miscast (he looks and sounds more like a jaded grandfather than the charismatic despot who both enthralled and frightened the Roman world).
Still, the film is so strong and dynamic that subsequent versions (such as Charlton Heston's ambitious 1970 production) pale in comparison.Hollywood finally got it 'right', and we can be grateful that a truly unforgettable presentation of JULIUS CAESAR is available for us, and future generations, to enjoy!.
His plays, written in the 16th and early 17th centuries for a small repertory theater, are today performed more often and in more countries than ever before..."Julius Caesar" is rich in its insights, the struggle for political power, the embellishment of the mind, and the characters of men...Joseph L.
Its message fills the screen with vitality on the plains of Shakespeare's imagination...The film is set in Rome 44 B.C. The city is rich with the privileges of its empire, much of it caused by the pretentious Caesar (Louis Calhern) appointing himself dictator...
Caesar's greater character flaw, thinking that he is far above others and somehow invincible...Loyal to Caesar is Mark Antony (Marlon Brando), a brave, intelligent, pleasure-loving cunning man - a character with many hidden traits, misunderstood by all...Mark Anthony looks at life as a game in which he had a signified part to play...
On the way, a blind beggar warns Caesar of 'The Ides of March' (On the middle of the month, the daggers came from every side...) but he is ignored...In the stadium, the sarcastic Cassius (John Gielgud) sees Brutus as the influential Roman able to unite the nobles in the conspiracy...
Brutus, the back-bone of the plan, agrees to the plot, but refuses Cassius's proposal to slain Mark Antony...After the conspirators have left, Brutus' wife Portia (Deborah Kerr) asks to know what it is that worries him...Caesar's wife, Calpurnia (Greer Garson) begs her husband to stay home and not to go to the Senate, for fear of danger...
Besides Brando and Mason the movie also stars the likes of John Gielgud, Edmond O'Brien, Deborah Kerr and many other actors that had already made name at the time of this production, both in theater and in movies.The movie is one about betrayal, loyalty and idealistic motives.
Marlon Brando, who played Julius Caesar's right-hand man, excelled as character Marc Antony.
Julius Caesar is one of my favourite plays and this film is one of my best-loved screen-versions of Shakespeare.
Which they in cowardly fashion instead of dying in battle or combat having their aides, instead of their enemies, run them through!The best film version of William Shakespeare's "Julius Caesar" with the late Marlon Brando's performance of Mark Anthony completely blowing away the entire Academy Award caliber cast.
With Louis Calhern in the titular role and Marlon Brando as his faithful friend Mark Antony, the film goes into great detail about what gets Caesar killed by associates of his, and even greater detail of the thirst for power after his death.
During a victory celebration Caesar attends with his most trusted allies Cassius (John Gielgud) and Brutus (James Mason) he is warned by a Soothsayer to beware the Ides of March.
The four leading actors, Marlon Brando, John Guilgud, Louis Calhern and James Mason , playing Mark Anthony, Cassius, Julius Caesar and Brutus respectively, not only give great performances but show a wonderful chemistry when acting together.
It is remarkable to a writer or an actor to see how well this speech-heavy presentation survives a good-enough performance but not excellent by Louis Calhern as Julius Caesar and one by Douglass Watson as Octavius and still manages to be a very powerful experience; I saw it eight nights running back in the 1960s and never tired of its excellences.
It is very easy, in this day and age of seemingly rote-like movie renditions of the works of Jane Austin, Henry James, and, of course, the Bard, to produce a film that just goes through the motions - without anything much to say, no interesting "spin" on the subject matter, and with dull, pretty-boy and girl ham-handed actors, speaking their lines, or some other catch, like state of the art FX, or some other gimmick (like the infamous "Nude Macbeth" version of the play that was filmed back in 1969) being the offering.To my mind, however, this particular rendition of Shakespeare's Juliuys Casear is THE defintive one ever filmed.
"Dull?" If he has on his mind Bruce Willis and the Die Hard films (as by his own comments it is clear that he does), well, yes than anything that does not have to do with rocket ships, or blazing machine guns, or steriod-laden super heroes rescuing scantily clad well-endowed women might seem "dull." But frankly, Signet, such being your defintion of what is exciting and interesting, I really don't know why you would even bother checking this film out, or any work of Shakespeare, for that matter, in the first place!This JC film plays out like a taut, well-placed political thriller - showing the machinations of scheming politicians, of their egos and jealousies, and a quite simply SUPERB Mark Antony funeral oration scene.
Is there any Hollywood actor today who could play Julius Caesar like Louis Calhern?
There were enough colorized period piece epics that came out of the 1950s; by keeping it simple, he let the acting shine through and made the bleak tone of the film more evident.With Louis Calhern as Caesar, James Mason as Brutus, Marlon Brando as Mark Antony, John Gielgud as Cassius, Deborah Kerr as Portia, and Greer Garson as Calpurnia, this is an all-star classic you don't want to miss!
John Gielgud plays Cassius, the leader of a group of high-ranking Romans who seek to assassinate Julius while James Mason appears as reluctant accomplice, Brutus.
Brando is captivating as usual, particularly in his extended funeral speech to the citizens, but he has greater performances playing more interesting characters in better movies, like "The Young Lions" (1958), "One-Eyed Jacks" (1961), "Mutiny on the Bounty" (1962), "The Missouri Breaks" (1976) and "Apocalypse Now" (1979), to name a handful.
Interesting to see the intensity so LARGE on the fronts of both fronts of British classical-trained theater (John Gielgud, as the most psychologically pathological character, Cassius, fully delivering the goods, plus James Mason being his Mason-iest) and the Method (Brando, seeming like he's always been in these robes - at least this week).It's Shakesepare on Golden-age Hollywood scale, but it's kept intimate when it counts, and the material is allowed to shine fully.
And yet it's not simply that these actors get some of the meatiest-dramatic lines ever written, like in the history of all civilizations, but that this is all about what it means to have, take, live with, demolish and get back or keep protected Power, with a capital P.It's almost unfair to give a proper review to the film after seeing it once, as certain big set pieces - or even a couple of the conversations that Cassius has with Brutus or the other Roman senators plotting the death of their "beloved" Caesar - are quite dense with visual touches and details of performance.
Especially Gielgud impresses here, with a role that requires a lot of forceful talking, bordering on yelling, with declarations and insinuations and other things - as big as his acting is, just as with Brando and Mason to an extent, though he kind of pulls it back when he can (see the tent scene between Brutus and Cassius before battle), there's subtleties there, little moments you can see the actor working through the emotional logic first, the dense Shakespeare poetry second.As with many Shakesepare movies, it may help being familiar with the play ahead of time to get all of the words and idiosyncracies of the Bard prose.
Mankiewicz achieves a very tight film adaptation that preserves the full taste of Shakespearean language and displacement, and achieving more than satisfactory characterizations, especially in the roles of Marlon Brando (Mark Anthony) and John Gielgud (Cassius).
Whit his stars, like Marlon Brando, John Gielgud, James Mason, Louis Calhern, Greer Garson and Deborah Kerr and with Joseph Ruttenberg's brilliant B&W pictures and Miklós Rózsa's fantastic and pompous music, he made one of the finest Shakespeare adaptation of all time.
OK, Marlon Brando is mad as always, but in my opinion John Gielgud steals the show with such lines like: 'I do fear of people choose Ceasar for their king.' He is the best Cassius.
In this movie, you have the world's greatest playwright (Shakespeare) combined with one of the world's greatest actors (Brando), two other fantastic talents (Mason and Gielgud), and a compelling historical tale (the assassination of Julius Caesar and resulting civil war).
Then comes James Mason as Brutus, followed by Louis Calhern, who seemed a little old and dumpy as Caesar.I have no other Julius Caesar performances to compare it to as I am not a Shakespearean authority, I just love movies.
It then seems ironically necessary to say: "All Shakespeare buffs, lend me the eyes and ears of your world so that I can acquire what I see and hear" As a matter of fact, JULIUS CAESAR is rather a movie about a growing conspiracy, struggle for power, murder and bringing the murderers to justice than the linear plot of a colossal epic.
Here, I would like to address such scenes as the battle, Caesar's triumph in the streets of Rome and the aforementioned realistic speech of Brutus and Antony to the Romans.
The thing about all these professionals like Calhern, James Mason, John Gielgud, Greer Garson and Deborah Kerr, is that they all know how Shakespeare is "supposed" to be done.
Brando had not done Shakespeare before, and he appears to have taken a fresh approach to the material, viewing Mark Anthony not as a character in the works of the most renowned literary figure the world has ever known, but as an individual to inhabit like anyone else he might play.
James Mason as Brutus and John Gielgud as Cassius have some very good scenes, and even the minor conspirators are played well.Louis Calhern was a somewhat odd choice to play Caesar, and it's rather easy to think of choices that probably would have been better, but he still works all right in the role.
Julius Caesar is one of Bill Shakespeare´s greatest tragedies; this movie version lives up to its name, with a superb cast (it´s a thrill to see the late Sir Gielgud, John Mason and Marlon Brando portray some of the best characters ever on a drama) and big-production sets, with lots of props and extras.
He is completely at ease with the language, but unlike many of the other cast members, does not let the stately poetry do his work for him, and invests Brutus with a great deal of emotional depth.The film looks marvelous; director Mankiewicz sends his camera prowling around sumptuously designed sets, and sheds a chilly black and white glow on the action.However, despite the mostly strong acting and terrific production design, I never really warmed to the movie, just as I rarely do to any filmed version of a Shakespeare work.
Pardon me for saying but I think William Shakespeare is the most overrated cultural icon ever so this adaption of one of his works looked more than a nightmare instead of a joyful event and yet I kept on watching till the end nontheless and there is only man responsible for it : Marlon Brando, an acting so good that you even tend to forget James Mason is giving a great performance as well.
The story is known I suppose : the great emperor Julius Caesar isn't as popular by his surrounding politicians and so it happened one day that he got killed by a gang led by Brutus and Cassius, while his guardian angel Marc Anthony (Marlon Brando) can't shut up about it and think the noble people of Rome must know the truth...
As long as you assume that this is not an action film, or at least the typical roman's film, you will discover a complete universe of performances, this is to say that it is almost a Theatrical version more than a film.All the actors develop in front of the camera a huge variety of skills, well learned in theatre, that carry you to the superb, genial, unique, scene of the SPEECH, with capital letters, of Marc Anthony to the roman people.After and before that, the film is only an excuse to lead the movie watcher to that 6 minutes, but believe me there is no other Marlon Brando than that you see in those 6 minutes, that should receive a dozen of Oscar's(R).Take a big amount of pop-corn and prepare yourself to enjoy.
He BY FAR gave the best performance an actor has ever given in a Shakespear movie play.
Well, the Ides of March has come to General Julius Caesar (Louis Calhern) in Joseph Mankiewicz's 1953 film version of William Shakespeare's play based on the real life Roman figure.
I think that Mason deserved a Best Actor nomination for the role.Without a doubt, however, the best performance of the film comes from Marlon Brando as Mark Antony in his only on screen Shakespearean role.
I have to admit that I have never been a huge fan of Brando and, like some people at the time, I was a little apprehensive before watching the film as his mumbling style of acting certainly would not fit into the world of Shakespeare.
With the exception of Brando and Mason, the strongest performer is the great Sir John Gielgud - who later played Caesar himself in the 1970 version - as Cassius, another extremely compelling character.
It would have been quite helpful if I had read the play 'Julius Caesar' by William Shakespeare before seeing this film, but I am not an avid reader.
This is the best film version of Will Shakespeare's "Julius Caesar." It stars a young Marlon Brando, only 28, as Marc Antony.
This movie also has a number of other big name actors and actresses, like James Mason who plays Brutus, John Gielgud as Cassius, and Louis Calhern as Julius Caesar. |
tt1523372 | Wild Things: Foursome | In this fourth installment of the erotic mystery-thriller series and set once again in the fictional south Florida city of Blue Bay, Carson Wheetly (Ashley Parker Angel) is the wealthy and spoiled 20-year-old son of millionaire NASCAR car racer Ted Wheetly (Cameron Daddo). Carson hates his father who he thinks might have murdered his mother one year earlier in order to inherit her money. Carson finds himself tangled up in a game of seduction, greed and murder after a raunchy night (a foursome) with three beautiful women: his girlfriend Rachel Thomas (Marnette Patterson), her school friend Brandi Cox (Jillian Murray) and Linda Dobson (Jessie Nickson) during a party.
A few days later, Ted dies during a race and the police get involved when Detective Frank Walker (John Schneider) investigates Ted's death which happened under questionable circumstances. Ted's lawyer, George Stuben (Ethan S. Smith), suddenly announces during the reading of the will that Carson cannot inherit Ted's money and estate until he turns 30 or marries. Carson quickly gets married to Rachel, and inherits. Carson and Rachel decide to kill the two other women and keep all the money for themselves. However, Rachel, along with Brandi, are also plotting to kill Carson so that Rachel can inherit as a grieving widow and split the money between them.
One evening, Rachel and Brandi lure Carson to a cheap motel in the Everglades with the intention of sex, and after a struggle, Brandi does murder Carson by shooting him in the head and leaves a forged suicide note implying the Carson killed himself. Rachel then inherits Carson's money, but rather than split the money, Rachel plots to murder Brandi to keep all the money for herself. Brandi, anticipating that Rachel might do just that, plots a scheme of her own to kill Rachel.
Brandi lures Rachel to an old cabin in the nearby swamps with the intention of sex. Rachel and Brandi, both try to kill each other, and though Brandi gets the upper hand, they get discovered. They are both arrested and are separately interrogated by Detective Walker, who reveals that he knows that both grew up together and plotted to find a man to marry and then murder so they can inherent a fortune. Brandi incriminates Rachel by revealing hidden video CDs that show that both Carson and Rachel tampered with Ted Wheetley's car on order to cause his death, as well as Rachel's blood-stained blouse from the motel, which suggests that Rachel murdered Carson all by herself. Rachel is arrested and sent to prison while Brandi gets away scot-free.
After closing the case, Detective Walker retires and joins Brandi on a motor launch boat, revealing himself to be a corrupt cop who helped Brandi incriminate Rachel for Carson's murder so he could get a share of the Wheetly money. However at sea, Brandi double-crosses Walker by stabbing him to death and throwing his body overboard. She then flees to the Caribbean to claim all of the money for himself.
As with the previous three Wild Things films, the movie closes with a series of scenes over the end credits revealing the truth behind the crime. It turns out that Ted Wheetly's shy, nebbish lawyer, George, was in fact the mastermind behind the whole scheme. George is actually a career con artist who, for many years, impersonated a lawyer who plotted to steal all of the Wheetly family's money, totaling $154 million. George approached Brandi, (who held a grudge against the Wheetly family) to help him, and Brandi then approached Rachel. Rachel and Brandi then manipulated Carson into believing that Ted murdered his mother so they could get his assistance. Brandi then pretended to bring rape charges against Carson during a party in order to blackmail him into marrying Rachel, and to get a share of Ted's money. George worked behind the scenes the whole time by changing the nature of Ted's will, as well as by planting evidence for Detective Walker to find. Brandi was the one who learned that Walker was corrupt and could by swayed by the offer of money. After killing Walker, Brandi meets with George at a Caribbean island. George empties all of his shell accounts to bring the money into his personal Cayman Islands account. George then betrays Brandi by planting a bomb in a motorboat that Brandi pilots away, and it explodes, killing Brandi. It is also implied that George had Rachel murdered in prison and set it up to look like a suicide. In the final shot, George walks off with all of the $154 million with his co-conspirator Linda Dobson, who happens to be his wife. | murder | train | wikipedia | An Entertaining Sequel.
Let's face it.
The "Wild Things" films are never going to be confused with serious, art house cinema.
They are lots of fun to watch though and if you are in a mood for escapist fare, they fit the bill just fine.
The latest entry "Wild Things: Foursome" follows the formula of drop dead gorgeous women, eroticism, double crossing, slick production, and moody music.
I rather liked this entry.
The performances are pretty good, especially by veteran actor John Schneider, and I got a kick out of the multiple twists in the plot.
The Florida location is also put to good use.
It's not surprising that all of the "Wild Things" movies have been shot there.
It will be interesting to see if they come up with a fifth film.
Recommended..
Wow, I'm the first person to see this ???.
Saw this on a "pre-screening" it seems.
Wasn't really expecting anything, but hoping for some kind of titillation, having seen the first in the series.Well, the movie started with some bikini babes and a poorly edited speed boat race which didn't really give me high hopes, but as the movie progressed I found myself getting more and more sucked in.There was at least one scene to satisfy the sex maniacs, but overall the movie concentrated on beautiful people, and a murder mystery type plot with some nice twists and turns.
Along with nice Florida weather and scenery.Overall the movie was very entertaining and nicely photographed.
The stars, although pretty much unknown, seem like they could all continue on to bigger better things, especially the girls who've all obviously been spending a lot of time in the gym in addition to their already having gifted gene-pools.Definitely worth seeing, but don't expect too much needless to say.
Its like a very good TV movie..
Improvement.
The detective in this is one of the better things in this, but also one of it's weak links.
Then again, I don't think anyone will watch this, trying to figure out, which one is the better actor in here.
Still pretty decent acting going on overall (that does not include everyone in the cast), even though the cast does not wear that much during the movies duration.Of course, I'd advice you to watch the first one.
This is already the 3-rd cash-in, though as I've said, it seems as bit of an improvement to the other two "sequels" (they are not, just re-telling the story of the first one).
I wonder if a fifth part, will top the "erotic" scene with a fifth member.
Then again, it was pretty obvious that one actress had a "no nudity" clause in her contract.
But I don't think that will put you off.While pretty silly (no pun intended), it might be funny at times for you, depending what you expect..
The seven deadly sins.
Greed, lust, envy, anger, pride, gluttony, sloth, anger Sex...more sex and more sex.Short of being porn, this is just enough to make the movie solid without making it porn.Along the lines of the other Wildthings and very similar to the first movie, this tells the story of pure lucid greed and how they go to get more.Entertaining, but not memorable.However, you may learn a thing or two from watching this...Beautiful women in Florida are everywhere and always after one thing...Don't trust a lawyer..
One , two , three , four aaaaaand enough.
The first "Wild things" was hardy a classic .
Nobody really wanted a sequel, but Hollywood still made 2 crappy straight to DVD movies.
The sequels were INCREDIBLY LAZY.
They were basically remakes of the first movie only with small changes in script and of course anonymous cast .
I guess they did make some money , because Hollywood made one more.What's the difference between this movie and the earlier ones ?
Hint: it's in the title.
Yep, guy has a sex with 3 women this time , not with 2.
The rest ?
If you find this movie to be clever or surprising , well , then clearly something is wrong with you.The first movie had Kevin Bacon , Bill Murray , Denise Richards and Neve Campbell.
Good actors and hot women.
The sex scene was great and there was quite a lot of erotic tension too.
Here the direction is unremarkable , the screenplay is flat and predictable.
There is only one sex scene here (the foursome) and although it's nice it can't hold a candle to the original threesome from the first movie.
The girls are quite pretty , but when it comes to acting ,wait , what acting ?
The only actor from this movie that interested me was a guy named Ashley Parker Angel.
This dude should seriously change his name , unless he is interested in making career in porn.I don't remember too much from this movie.
The whole movie is so uninspired and uninteresting that I can recommend it only for sex maniacs (who probably were the main target for this movie anyway).
A great entry into the series.
Ted Wheetly is one the richest men in Florida.
When he dies during a car race, his irresponsible and partying son Carson stands to inherit it all, as the wife died mysteriously.
But old Ted knew about his son so he put all the money in a trust fund that Carson can access when he becomes 30, unless there is a medical emergency or a wedding.
That gives Carson's girlfriend Rachel ideas.
Yet, Carson doesn't want to get married.
Until his hand is forced.
Rachel and another girl he met during a party named Brandi devise a plan where Brandi accuses him of rape.
That forces the executor of the will to free up some cash to buy her off.
Once she drops the charges, Carson and Rachel marry.This being a Wild Things movie, things aren't gong to stay just like that.
Everyone is scheming to get the money.
But they didn't count on a persistent cop who keeps digging into the strange car accident, on the relationship of all the kids, who to avoid drawing suspicion have to pretend they don't know each other all that well.
That leads the cop to the discovery that Rachel and Brandi were childhood friends living in the swamps who always dreamed of moving up north and meeting a rich guy.
Things get complicated for the cop until both girls walk into his office to implicate the other.
And just as you think things have sorted themselves out, there are more twists.Wild Things: Foursome keeps the tradition of having an attractive cast in beautiful Florida doing all sorts of naughty things to get a lot money.
Jillian Murray, Marnette Patterson, Jessie Nickson are the pretty wild things this time around, and they are gorgeous to look at.
Performances are very good, Marnette does a superb job and so does John Schneider, yes, THE John Schneider, who plays the cop.
The story is interesting and you really do get into as you want to find out just how it all turns out.
There is one highly erotic scene that give the movie its subtitle.
Very worth seeing..
The franchise ran out of gas long before they made this.
I can just imagine the pitch meeting for this movie."Why don't we make a sequel to Wild Things?""Uh, doesn't that movie already have 2 crappy, direct-to-DVD sequels?""Yeah, but I got a great idea!
Instead of a scene where a guy has sex with 2 women, we'll have a scene with a guy having sex with 3 women!""You're a genius!
When can we start shooting?"I wish I was trying to be funny, but an extra chick in the orgy scene is literally the only thing that differentiates this from the previous 2 substandard follow ups to the trashy classic where Kevin Bacon and Denise Richards get naked but Neve Campbell doesn't.
Pretty much everything else is the same, from the false accusation of rape to the ridiculous number of double crosses and the utterly unremarkable direction and cinematography.
Hopefully, the fact that this film only has one actual sex scene indicates the franchise is running out of steam.
None of the sequels have any of the style or cleverness of the original.
All they have to offer is naked chicks and simulated sex.
Wild Things: Foursome can barely be bothered to do that, so we may be spared a fifth edition which somehow involves a bisexual sheep.The plot, which has all the complexity of a Rubix Cube where all the sides are the same color, concerns a rich man's douchey son (Ashley Parker Angel) with a moderately hot blonde girlfriend (Marnette Patterson) and the very hot poor girl (Jillian Murray) who supposedly comes between them, only for the audience to discover the three were in cahoots all along.
Since that's exactly what happened in the previous Wild Things flicks, I don't think I'm spoiling anything.
Besides, I've always wanted to use the word cahoots in a sentence.Anyway, the douche's rich dad dies, the poor girl accuses the douche of rape, a marginally seedy detective (John Schneider) investigates and so on and so forth.
To be fair, this thing isn't atrociously written to the point where nothing makes any sense, but it is flat, stupid and uninvolving.
If you find this story to be at all interesting or surprising, that means you've got a low wattage bulb in your lighthouse.The only folks in the cast who look like they have any business being professional actors are John Schneider, Jillian Murray and Josh Randall, who plays a red herring so obvious he might as well have been wearing a crimson fish costume.
For the other actors, Wild Things: Foursome will be the highlight of their alleged careers.
And by the way, somebody needs to tell Ashley Parker Angel to change his name.
I don't care if it's on his birth certificate, a dude can't have a name like a Playboy Playmate.
Ashley Parker Angel sounds like the latest poor girl to hook up with David Spade, not a guy who'll ever have a major part in a decent, non-pornographic motion picture.Unless you're related to or dating somebody in the cast, there's no reason to watch Wild Things: Foursome.
Either go rent the first movie and watch Campbell and Richardson make out again or ram your head through a plate glass window.
Both would be a better use of your time..
THERE IS A FOOSBALL TABLE.
A rich man dies in a race car accident and the cops think there is foul play.
Meanwhile there is a twisty plot going on involving the son and three beautiful women...and yes we do get a "foursome" with nudity.The plot twists without clues and does so simply for the sake of twisting...Oh look at us, we are clever script writers.
Except for the eye candy scene, the film was boring, as if it came from a TV script.F-bomb, sex, and nudity (Jillian Murray, Jessie Nickson) |
tt0039029 | Three Strangers | Crystal Shackleford (Geraldine Fitzgerald) lures two strangers, solicitor Jerome K. Arbutny (Sydney Greenstreet) and charming and erudite drunkard Johnny West (Peter Lorre) to her London flat on Chinese New Year in 1938 because of her belief that if three strangers make the same wish to an idol of Kwan Yin, Chinese goddess of fortune and destiny, the wish will be granted. Since money will make their dreams come true, the three go in on a sweepstakes ticket for the Grand National horse race together and agree that they will not sell the ticket if it is chosen, but will hold on to it until the race is run. Shackleford would use the money to try to win her estranged husband back, Arbutny to smooth the way for his selection to the prestigious Barrister's Club, and Johnny to buy a bar and live in it.
The stories of the three strangers are revealed. Shackleford's husband David (Alan Napier) moved to Canada and fell in love with Janet Elliott (Marjorie Riordan). He returns, just after Johnny and Arbutny take their leave of Crystal, and demands a divorce, but she refuses. She sees to it that he loses a promotion. She also lies to Janet, telling her that David still loves her and that she is pregnant. The trusting woman believes her and returns to Canada.
With the help of an adoring Icey Crane (Joan Lorring), Johnny has been hiding out after his drunken participation in a botched robbery that resulted in the death of a policeman. Icey commits perjury in order to provide an alibi for the murderer and ringleader, Bertram Fallon (Robert Shayne). When a second witness is discredited, Fallon confesses to the robbery but blames the murder on West and the third man involved, Timothy Delaney, who is nicknamed Gabby (Peter Whitney). Johnny is caught and sentenced to death, but Gabby finds Fallon on his way to prison and stabs him. As he dies in the railway carriage, Fallon clears Johnny.
Arbutny has been speculating in stocks with money from the trust fund of Lady Rhea Belladon (Rosalind Ivan), an eccentric widow who believe she can talk with her dead husband. When the stock falls and his margin is called, a desperate Arbutny proposes to Lady Belladon. After consulting with her dead husband, she turns him down. Worse, she says that Lord Belladon wants to have the books checked. Arbutny is about to shoot himself when he sees in a newspaper that the sweepstakes ticket has drawn the favorite in the Grand National.
The three strangers converge on Crystal's flat. Arbutny wants to sell his share of the ticket immediately so he can replace the funds he stole before his crime can be uncovered. Johnny is willing, but Shackleford is adamant that they stick to their original agreement. Arbutny becomes enraged and accidentally kills her with her statue of Kwan Yin. Ironically, they hear on the radio that their horse wins. Johnny points out to Arbutny that the winning ticket has to be destroyed because their agreement and signatures on it would provide a motive for Crystal's murder. They leave the flat, but Arbutny is overcome by guilt, and panics and runs out into the middle of the busy street. He stops traffic and attracts a crowd, including a policeman, to whom Arbutny confesses the murder.
Johnny returns to the pub, where Icey finds him. Content with her, he sets the ticket on fire. | revenge, murder | train | wikipedia | "Three Strangers" has long been a favorite film of mine, with its fascinating reference to the statue of the goddess Kwan Yin, who, in Chinese legend, opens her eyes and grants a wish to three strangers on the Chinese New Year.
Geraldine Fitzgerald, Sydney Greenstreet, and Peter Lorre are the above-mentioned strangers, each with an agenda that can be easily pursued by money.
So the wish is that their sweepstakes ticket win, and the agreement is that it then be entered into the horse race that follows.Geraldine Fitzgerald's character seems sympathetic, but she reveals herself as quite obsessive and delusional as the film progresses.
Greenstreet plays a crooked solicitor, and Lorre portrays a small time criminal - he's the most sympathetic character and, to my mind, gives the most memorable performance.The film asks the question - did the meeting of the three strangers change their lives, or did events proceed as they would have?
In The Hope Of Fortune Coming Their Way. The time is 1938 London before the World War. A woman of mystery, Geraldine Fitzgerald, invites two perfect strangers played by Peter Lorre and Sydney Greenstreet up to her apartment.
In this case the wish is money and it's in the form of a sweepstakes ticket that Peter Lorre has purchased and who gives two thirds away to Fitzgerald and Greenstreet in the hope of fortune coming their way.After this we see a glimpse of the lives of the three people.
I'm surprised Huston did not want to direct this one himself, but Jean Negulesco got some of the best performances that members of the cast ever gave on screen, especially from the three leads.Notice no really big movie names are in this cast, no leading men screen legends.
Peter Lorre also played a great role and gave a fine performance.
But overall her role was also really a solid one and it says something about the quality of the acting from Lorre and Greenstreet to say that Fitzgerald gave the lesser performance of the movie.
With the unusually well observed character details provided by the script and the use of many supporting and bit actors one hasn't seen in lots of other pictures, THREE STRANGERS really has something of the atmosphere of London in 1938 rather than of London-via-Hollywood.And make no mistake: Despite good direction by Jean Negulesco, John Huston's cynicism, pessimism and misogyny are evident everywhere, and that alone makes this unusual in a '40s picture.
Sydney Greenstreet often played nasty men deliciously but here he takes his character's weakness and pettiness much further than usual, and his scenes of escalating madness are very effective.
Anne Sharp's comment below that the characters are meant to illustrate the dark forces that enabled WWII is interesting and valuable.By the way, the print shown on TCM is rather dim, sketchy and full of harsh contrasts so it's hard to judge what the film was actually meant to look like.
Specifically I was after more work by that classic's storied supporting cast: Paul Henried, Sydney Greenstreet, Peter Lorre, Claude Rains, S.Z. Sakall and Joy Page, among others."Three Strangers" gathers two of those and weaves them into a unexpectedly amoral tale of the cost of reversing fortune.
The underregarded Geraldine Fitzgerald joins them as the mysterious woman who randomly gathers the other two off a London street to see if they'll take a chance on an ancient Chinese proverb coming true."Three Strangers" if anything goes "Casablanca" and that other Huston/Lorre/Greenstreet classic, "The Maltese Falcon," one better in the world-weariness department, with moral ambiguities and ambivalent characters straight out of films noir made five years later.
Unlike those other two films, though, there's little likability to be found in the lead characters' roguishness --- save perhaps for Lorre, who gets redeemed by a "good" woman's love at the end.Yet that very fact makes "Three Strangers" play out like a much more modern film (like one from the early 1970s, say), rendering it an intriguing admixture of old-style character-driven plotting and contemporary moral waywardness and antiheroism..
Was there some reason for this or was this a coincidence.Apart from these details, the film provided much of the fare that "The Maltese Falcon" made cinema history--John Huston's screenplay and the enigmatic performances of Greenstreet and Lorre.
He follows her very easily (apparently believing her a prostitute, but why not), and they return to her apartment, where Greenstreet is surprised to find Peter Lorre there, having a drink.
Oh...one condition - they can't allow any of the three to leave the agreement, or the chain binding their luck together will collapse.It is a pip of a movie - not only the best of the Greenstreet and Lorre films (without Humphrey Bogart), but the best performance in the carreer of Geraldine Fitzgerald.
Two of the best scenes in the film show him trying to solve his money troubles by marrying the dotty Lady Rhea Bellodon (Rosalind Ivan, in a marvelous cameo performance), and then (when this engagement collapses) his attempt to commit suicide carefully in his office.
Perhaps, as things turn out, it would have been better if he had committed suicide.Lorre's character, Johnny, is a ne'er-do-well, of good family but he's living under a pseudonym, and he works in a gang.
Usually Fitzgerald, Lorre, and Greenstreet are considered the strangers, whose weird fates are at the center of the film's twists and turns.
If anything, the film may concentrate on Fitzgerald, Greenstreet, and Lorre, but fate is universal, and all of us get affected one way or another (by nature and each other).
Geraldine Fitzgerald has been trolling the streets to bring two strangers (Sydney Greenstreet and Peter Lorre) back to her flat.
As expected, Jean Negulesco directs handsomely but can't overcome the emotional vacuum in John Huston's script: The fates of these three strangers leave us cold..
THREE STRANGERS stake their future fortunes on the whims of Kwan Yin, an ancient Chinese goddess.The original story behind this tidy little thriller was originally conceived by John Huston as a sequel to THE MALTESE FALCON (1941).
That not proving possible, it was shaped into its present form with help from the writer Howard Koch and turned over to the noted director Jean Negulesco.The film stars Sydney Greenstreet & Peter Lorre in one of their several pairings.
Greenstreet, especially, overacts magnificently, descending into melancholia and, eventually, madness, to the delight of the viewer.Geraldine Fitzgerald is pure vixen as the third member of the trio, a woman so consumed by jealousy, and obsessed with the supposed powers of the goddess Kwan Yin, that she has ceased being influenced by natural love & affection.
Obviously meant as a "Maltese Falcon" ripoff, this is in many ways a much better film, and definitely one of Huston's best.
The hero of the story by default is the romantic alcoholic Johnny West (a tour de force by Peter Lorre in one of the few true lead roles allowed him by the vindictive Jack Warner.) Not that he's morally superior to the vicious Crystal Shackleford or the crass Arbutney, just that he's too apathetic and detached to intentionally harm anyone..
In order to fulfill a ritual on the night of the Chinese New Year, Crystal Shackleford (Geraldine Fitzgerald) invites two strangers (Peter Lorre, Sydney Greenstreet) up to her apartment.
The ritual is that if three strangers make the same wish at the same time to an idol of a Chinese goddess, it will come true.
From here the film explores the separate stories of the three people before tying it all back together.This is an underrated little gem directed by Jean Negulesco with a script by Howard Koch and John Huston.
Any movie with Lorre and Greenstreet just has to be good on that basis alone.
The film begins in the shadows and fog of the London streets as Geraldine Fitzgerald coaxes two strangers, Sydney Greenstreet's caricatured attorney Jerome K.
Arbutney and Peter Lorre's charismatic and cultivated alcoholic Johnny West to her London pad on Chinese New Year at the hand of her doctrine that if three strangers make the same wish to an idol of the Chinese goddess of fortune and destiny, the wish will be fulfilled.
Fitzgerald would use the money to attempt to win her alienated husband back, Arbutny to lay the groundwork for his appointment to the esteemed Barrister's Club, and Johnny to purchase a bar as his home.After this single, taut, spare and graceful expository dialogue scene, the plot strands of the three strangers are unraveled, demystifying who we began to believe they were in the initial scene.
Lorre is seamlessly graceful as the drunk who becomes enmeshed in a murder of which he's not guilty, while Fitzgerald is astonishing as a manipulative and truly unpredictable woman, a femme fatale of the highest caliber.Undeservedly obscure and overlooked, Three Strangers is about the human desire to look to gods and idols to resolve our problems, only to be driven into worse new ones.
This is far less neat and more philosophical than your typical 40s flick, a movie about strange twists of fate and the ways in which people fail to take responsibility for their actions.The cast is excellent, with Peter Lorre particularly impressive in one of the best performances of his career as an alcoholic who thinks too much and does too little.
Lorre and Greenstreet are always at their best when teamed together, and Fitzgerald holds her own with them in this tightly-written screenplay about three people who find themselves the co-possessors of a valuable sweepstakes ticket.
The Lorre and Fitzgerald parts were originally written for Bogart and Mary Astor; it's hard to imagine how they could have been much better than Peter and Geraldine..
Ace director Jean Negulesco certainly knows how to put a sheen on even difficult material.Scripters Huston and Koch appear to be following on 1941's Maltese Falcon with Lorre and Greenstreet and a statuette with perhaps mystical powers.
Then too, it's probably not surprising that the dipso character Lorre plays comes-off best since writer Huston was himself a notorious boozer.
With a screenplay by John Huston and appearances by Lorre and Greenstreet, and a figurine as a major plot device, you might expect a MALTESE FALCON retread.
The three represent different moral stances: Fitzgerald is conniving and ruthless, Greenstreet does something wrong but at least has enough decency to be conflicted about it, and Lorre is simply a carefree drunk who trusts the wrong people.
Greenstreet's and Fitzgerald's plot threads are interesting as well, and the way all they come together and resolve at the end is satisfying.
An extraordinary dark film about three strangers who share a sweepstakes ticket.
Peter Lorre and Sydney Greenstreet are well-cast as the other two ticket holders.
Peter Lorre, in particular is excellent as Johnny West, an alcoholic and small-time criminal who gets framed by one of his cronies.
But the central piece of casting that makes this film work so well is Geraldine Fitzgerald as the female lead.
Also excellent in this film is the actress Joan Lorring, then aged 20, who plays a girl who is in love with Peter Lorre, and will do anything for him.
The strange story concerns a bronze statue of the Chinese goddess Guanyin (spelled in the film Kwan Yin), the Goddess of Mercy, which Geraldine Fitzgerald has in her apartment.
Peter Lorre and Sydney Greenstreet - the Laurel and Hardy of crime as they were once described - made nine movies together and this is one of the best.
She believes that if three strangers make the same wish to her idol, Kwan Yin, at precisely midnight on Chinese New Year, their wish will be granted.The two men turn out to be solicitor Jerome K.
Arbutny (Sydney Greenstreet) and the philosophical, alcoholic Johnny West (Peter Lorre).They wish for success on a sweepstakes ticket that Johnny has in his pocket.
He wanted to break away from his typecasting as the duplicitous and often creepy foreigner from roles in films such as "M", "Crime and Punishment" and "Mad Love".He was given a fairly free reign by director Jean Negulesco, allowing him to create the warm character of Johnny West who although alcoholic, is thoughtful and understanding of human weakness.
Three Strangers is directed by Jean Negulesco and written by John Huston and Howard Koch.
It stars Sydney Greenstreet, Peter Lorre and Geraldine Fitzgerald.
Plot finds Crystal (Fitzgerald) luring Johnny (Lorre) and Arbutny (Greenstreet) to her apartment to make a wish in front of a Chinese idol known as Kwan Yin. It's believed that Kwan Yin will bring a wish true if requested by three strangers at midnight.
Geraldine Fitzgerald (Crystal Shackleford) lures two strangers to her apartment in order to test a myth that her idol of Chinese Goddess Kwan Yin will grant a wish to three strangers on the night of the Chinese new year, providing that the wish is the same for each individual.
They then part ways and the film follows their individual stories until they are re-united at the end of the film as the Grand National horse race begins and they hold the ticket with the favourite runner.Peter Lorre (Johnny West) and Sydney Greenstreet (Jerome K Arbutny) are the two strangers that entertain Fitzgerald's superstition with most screen time being afforded to Lorre and his story.
Fitzgerald is determined and unrelenting in her pursuits, Greenstreet is socially aspiring and creepy, while Lorre is an alcoholic that is caught up in an unfortunate mess.The cast are good as are the support cast although we are thrown a few dodgy accents in the Peter Lorre story as portrayed by kind girl Joan Lorring (Icey), murderer Robert Shayne (Bertram Fallon) and homosexual (?) muscleman Peter Whitney Gabby.
Perhaps these three strangers in this story, whose lives have really nothing to do with each other, would never have met except for a very ancient idol: the Chinese goddess, Kwan Yin. And perhaps their separate stories might have been different except for what happened that night.
The acting was adequate, but ultimately couldn't overcome the problem for me with the characters in general.Mostly, it was a film full of unlikeable people - with the exception of Peter Lorre's character.
Arbutny, (Sydney Greenstreet) and Johnny West, (Peter Lorre) to her apartment in order to celebrate a Chinese New Year.
Crystal has a statue in her apartment named the goddess Kwan Yin which will open her eyes and grant wishes to the three strangers which involves a sweepstakes ticket.
In the film, Sydney Greenstreet, Geraldine Fitzgerald and Peter Lorre play three strangers who go to an apartment where they come in front of a Chinese goddess who is said to grant a wish if three people make the same wish at midnight.
What happens to Greenstreet's character at the end was a great twist to the film and his breakdown is masterfully done.
Legend has it that if three complete strangers meet up on the eve of Chinese new year and make the same wish in the presence of the Goddess Kwan Yin, their wish will come true.
Arbutny, (Sidney Greenstreet) a rotund solicitor with serious financial issues and the possibility of being caught for insider trading, the second man is the dimunitive Johnny West (Peter Lorre), a petty criminal and drunkard on the run and suspected of being an accomplice in the murder of a policeman.
Written by John Huston apparently as a possible sequel to The Maltese Falcon, as this fell through, Howard Koch made some changes to the script to get the film made.
The film starts with great promise, a mysterious state with supernatural powers, Lorre and Greenstreet reunited again, but it soon breaks down into odd episodic glimpses of the lives of each of the strangers, that are segued by a shimmering effect that would give you the idea it was all a dream or perhaps a flashback, it is at times a confusing muddled mess that ignores its original premise in favour of some light melodrama, a shame as in the hands of Negulesco I would have expected a more coherent film.
Geraldine Fitzgerald recruits two strangers -- Peter Lorre and Sydney Greenstreet -- from the foggy streets of Victorian London and asks them to her flat.
She shows the men a Chinese goddess of fortune and at a certain time of the the year, if 3 strangers all wish on it then it will come true.
The real story is the stories of each of the 3 strangers lives outside that wish they made upon the Chinese goddess of fortune.
Here, perennial co-stars, Lorre & Greenstreet share the spotlight with Geraldine Fitzgerald as the eponymous three strangers in search of a change in their personal fortunes and frankly a believable plot.
The writing errs however by this time making the "little god" that is the idol too much the hub of the film, almost making it into a character in itself with its so-called presence and fortune-changing quality affecting the desperate aspirations of the three flawed strangers.
Ridiculous writing and even with Geraldine Fitzgerald, Peter Lorre and Sydney Greenstart starring, basically nothing can really help this film.Fitzgerald draws the other two guys and they wish before some Chinese idol to have a sweepstakes ticket.
The problem with them and this film is that they have far too many personal problems between them.Joan Lorring comes off after playing Bessie in her Oscar nominated "The Corn is Green," the year before to portray Lorre's girlfriend.
Greenstreet has his moments such as his crack-up scene, but he too goes over-the-top in quite a campy performance.Fitzgerald here really steals the show as a woman who tells the ultimate lie to her husband's mistress so that she can get him back.
However, if you can suppress that urge, then you might just find the whole thing quite enjoyable.The film begins with Geraldine Fitzgerald finding two strangers (Sydney Greenstreet and Peter Lorre) and convincing them to come to her apartment (it's not THAT kind of film--relax). |
tt0081515 | The Silent Scream | Scotty Parker, a college student in Southern California, is seeking a room for the fall semester at the last-minute. She is directed to a boarding house run by the standoffish Mrs. Engels; a Victorian mansion on a cliffside overlooking the Pacific Ocean. Mrs. Engels lives in the house along with her teenage son, Mason, along with several other college students, including Doris, Peter, and Jack. The four students become friends, and decide to go on a double date together. Afterward, Doris and Peter walk along the beach near the house. Peter, drunk, makes unwanted advances on her, and Doris leaves him on the beach. He falls unconscious, and is awakened by an unseen assailant who stabs him to death with a butcher knife.
Lieutenant McGiver and Sergeant Manny Ruggin are assigned to investigate Peter's murder, and Lt. McGiver grows suspicious of the Mrs. Engels and her son. One afternoon, Scotty and Doris meet in the basement laundry room, where Doris tells her she is planning on moving after what happened to Peter. Scotty returns to her room with Jack, and the two begin to have sex. Meanwhile in the basement, a woman bursts out of a hidden door, stabbing Doris numerous times in the head and chest.
The woman flees through the secret door, which opens to a hidden staircase that travels along the house's air ducts, eventually leading to a room located off the main attic space. Scotty goes downstairs to get her laundry, where she finds a pool of blood, and Doris gone. She discovers the secret door, and ascends the staircase. At the top, she finds a narrow hallway with a door at the end. She attempts to open it, and is attacked by the woman, who pulls her inside. The commotion alarms Mrs. Engels, who enters the room from an access door in the attic and intervenes.
Mrs. Engels reveals that the woman, Victoria, is her daughter. Mason chastises his mother for having taken in boarders at the house, knowing of Victoria's violent outbursts. Mrs. Engels then reveals to Mason that Victoria is in fact his mother: After a failed suicide attempt, she gave birth to him, but was left mute and homicidal after undergoing a botched lobotomy at a psychiatric hospital. Meanwhile, Peter searches for Scotty throughout the house, but is unable to find her. He is confronted by Mason downstairs, who knocks him unconscious.
At the police station, Sgt. Rubin uncovers a file on Victoria's past and determines she has been living in the Engels home after being taken out of the psychiatrist hospital; he and Lt. McGiver promptly leave to go to the boarding house. Meanwhile, with Scotty bound and gagged in a closet, Mrs. Engels attempts to console the childlike Victoria. Mason obtains a gun from his bedroom and returns to the attic, attempting to kill Victoria. In a struggle, he inadvertently shoots Mrs. Engels through the chest, killing her. With his back turned, Victoria approaches Mason. He turns around, and she stares at him blankly, moving closer with a knife. Cornered against a window, he shoots her, and then shoots himself in the head.
Scotty manages to free herself, but finds Victoria has survived the gunshot; she attacks Scotty with the knife. Peter awakens just as Lt. McGiver and Sgt. Ruggin arrive at the house. They enter the attic and find Victoria collapsed with a knife in her stomach. Peter consoles Scotty as Victoria dies on the floor. | grindhouse film, murder, cult, horror, violence, insanity | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0082314 | Ek Duuje Ke Liye | The movie is about the love between a Tamil man, Vasu (Kamal Haasan), and a North Indian woman, Sapna (Rati Agnihotri), who are neighbours in Goa. They come from totally different backgrounds and can hardly speak the other's language. Their parents despise each other and they have regular skirmishes. When Vasu and Sapna admit their love, there is chaos in their homes, and their parents reject the idea.
As a ploy to separate the lovers, their parents impose a condition that Vasu and Sapna should stay away from each other for a year. After such a period, if they still want to be together, they can get married. During the year there should be no contact between them whatsoever. Vasu and Sapna reluctantly agree to the condition and decide to separate.
Vasu moves to Hyderabad, and they both initially suffer due to the separation. Vasu then meets Sandhya (Madhavi), a widow who teaches him Hindi. Meanwhile, Sapna's mother brings a family friend's son, Chakram (Rakesh Bedi), to Goa to distract Sapna from to Vasu, but she is not impressed. At a chance meeting in Mangalore, Chakram lies to Vasu that Sapna has agreed to marry him. Vasu is upset and decides to marry Sandhya on the rebound. However, Sandhya comes to know of Vasu's real love and goes to Goa to know the exact situation and to clear the misunderstanding between the lovers.
Vasu then returns to Goa and impresses Sapna's parents with his Hindi. When Vasu goes to meet Sapna he is attacked by a group of goons hired by Sandhya's brother (Raza Murad). Meanwhile, Sapna is raped by a librarian (Sunil Thapa) at a temple and is left to die. The movie ends tragically when Vasu and Sapna commit suicide by jumping off a cliff. | tragedy, romantic | train | wikipedia | null |
tt5165344 | Rustom | The story dates back to the late 1950s and revolves around an Indian Naval Officer Rustom Pavri (Akshay Kumar), who is happily married to Cynthia Pavri (Ileana D'Cruz). Their marriage hits the rocks when Rustom discovers about his wife's affair with his friend Vikram Makhija (Arjan Bajwa). After returning early from his ship's deployment, Rustom discovers Vikram's love letters in Cynthia's cupboard. While trying to find her, Rustom sees them together. He returns home and waits for Cynthia to return and then confronts her with the love letters, but walks away before Cynthia can explain. Rustom then gets himself a pistol from the Naval Ship's Armory and makes a Trunk call to Defence HQ, New Delhi. Afterwards, he searches for Vikram, first in his office and then at his home. After Rustom enters Vikram's bedroom, the servant hears three gun shots and rushes to the room, to discover Vikram's body in a pool of blood and Rustom walking away with the pistol in his hand. Rustom immediately surrenders to the police and Inspector Vincent Lobo (Pawan Malhotra) starts the investigation.
Vikram's sister Priti Makhija (Esha Gupta) meet with public prosecutor, Lakshman Khangani (Sachin Khedekar) to get Rustom the toughest punishment possible. Truth, a local newspaper, publishes the news adding some spice to it, which creates a stir in the city. On the one side the Navy supports its officer and asks the police to hand over his custody to them while on the other side the Parsi community offers help by hiring a good defense lawyer. Rustom refuses everybody's help and decides to fight the case on his own and prefers police custody. While the Editor in Chief of Truth, Erich Billimoria (Kumud Mishra), creates a sympathetic image for Rustom in public, Rustom's senior Naval officer Rear Admiral Prashant Kamat (Parmeet Sethi) sends two goons to his house to search for a set of documents, but they fail to find anything. Scared, Cynthia rushes to jail to inform Rustom, who hasn't talked to her ever since he is in custody. Rustom finally meets and listens to Cynthia's story, about how she was lonely and upset when Rustom went away to London for many months. With the connivance of Priti, Vikram took advantage of Cynthia's loneliness and she fell for him. However, on the day of Vikram's murder, Cynthia had already broken-up with him for the sake of her marriage. Vikram cannot bear her spurning him and slaps her hard. She gets injured and walks out of Vikram's house.
On Rustom's instructions, Cynthia blackmails Rear Admiral Prashant Kamat for Rs 5 crore in exchange for the vital documents he needed. In the court hearing, Rustom unexpectedly pleads not guilty in front of the Judge Patel (Anang Desai), which leads to a 9-member jury trial. At the culmination of the trial, Rustom is found not guilty by the jury since he shot Vikram in self-defence. Meanwhile, it is found that Vincent Lobo was in Delhi and he had met the office secretary of the Ministry of Defence to obtain the recording of the trunk call that Rustom had made. When back in Bombay, the trunk call is played, convincing almost everyone that Rustom is guilty, and the court proceedings end for the jury to decide on their opinion. In the police station on the night of the court proceeding, Rustom tells Vincent Lobo the truth: he was posted in London for several months inspecting an aircraft carrier that the Navy wants to purchase, but on inspection, it was found by Rustom that the carrier's hull was corroded, and it would have to be repaired and modified before the carrier could be transferred to India. Vikram was in charge of the aircraft carrier, and he attempted to bribe him in order to convince him to say that the carrier is seaworthy. When Rustom attempted to notify the defence secretary in London, the secretary also attempts to bribe him and get the carrier to India. Vikram attempts to persuade him and Rustom then slaps him showing his power of his uniform. The next day it is shown that Rustom is proved not guilty by the jury and he walks free. Then it is shown in the flashback that Vikram had dated Cynthia to show Rustom his power of money and take revenge on him, but not for her beauty. Lobo is said that Rustom did not reveal about the aircraft carrier as then everyone would think the navy to be corrupt and then not believe in them just because of few officers. Rustom and Cynthia walk out of the court with their heads held up high and then the film rolls into the credits. In the end it is shown that after Rustom's trial, the jury system is abolished in India. And also Defence Secretary K.M.Bakshi committed suicide by shooting himself on INS Vishal unexpectedly. | romantic, murder | train | wikipedia | Prolonged periods of absence on official duty brought Officer Rustom Pavri's (Akshay Kumar) wife closer to Preeti (Esha Gupta) and her brother Vikram (Arjan Bajwa).
Was I surprised!Even though everyone knows this movie is broadly based on the infamous Nanavaty incident, it was well made and riveting till the last scene.Everyone but everyone essayed their role so well, especially the bawaji newspaper walla :) Akshay could well pass off for aapro Russi!Rustom is one heck of a slick production, good plot, fabulous period sets, crisp dialogues, superb acting, cinematography par excellence.This movie holds the interest throughout and the climax keeps you on the edge of your chair even though you very well know what is coming.Well done Akshay, with Special 26, Holiday, Baby and now Rustom, you have really come well out of the Khiladi mould.
Be it Pavan Malhotra as the investigating police officer, Kumud Mishra as the newspaper editor who turns the public opinion in Rustom's favour, Usha Nadkarni as the Pavris' domestic help, Sachin Khedekar as the prosecution lawyer, or Anang Desai as the judge➖the supporting actors have been given opportunities and they have delivered.The weakest thing about Rustom is, perhaps, its female lead: Ileana D'Cruz.
With a Zeenat Aman-ish appearance, Esha Gupta brings a certain femme-fatale-ish glamour to her character➖her fashion style and poise, breathing fire in anger at the murder of her brother (played by Arjan Bajwa) at the hands of Rustom Pavri (played by Akshay Kumar), smoking a cigarette through a long holder while being given a back massage by a young man, reacting furiously in the courtroom, vowing to get Rustom Pavri hanged, etc.Not perfect - in fact, far from being perfect - Rustom is a good one-time watch..
To cut to the chase, Rustom can be watched for its story and most importantly Akshay Kumar, whose action/comic brilliance often overshadows his acting prowess.
Imagine how poor that was that a person like me who rarely notices any lapses is writing a review.1 - When the newspaper guy brought a lawyer to Commander Sb in lock up, the lawyer said "Dont say stuff like this in front of anyone else, other wise forget GOD, even I cant save you" (forgive me if my translation is not exact but I hope you get the idea) Well I don't remember ever in the few hundred movies that I have watched, I have ever heard this dialogue like this.
It has always been vice-versa and this doesn't make sense.2 - The prosecutor, don't remember his name, he was supposed to be a very big lawyer, well he was representing a very rich family and such families hire big lawyers, and his acting was more of a comedian than a senior lawyer.3 - The corrupt navy people paid 5 crores and Akshay didn't have the papers and they just paid him and didn't demand for the papers and they wont ask for the papers and nothing was done even in the regard to get them punished?4 - no one asked why on earth a naval commander called Defense Secretary before going to meet Vikram?
So I am amazed that this movie has got a 7.6 rating.Good things though were Akshay and Ileana, their acting and persona.
Then Rustom himself defends himself in the court, which is shown mind-blowing(Some comedy, some drama, etc.) After a span of witnesses, defenses, the affair description of Rustom's wife and finally Rustom's explanation to the jury that he shot Vikram in his self defense, when it is clear that he will win, the movie takes a BIG LEAP.
Now a days bollywood is getting monotonous.Bollywood movies are getting terribly boring.It has nothing new to offer.Rustom falls in that category.It is based on the real life incident of Naval Officer who kills his wife's boyfriend with three bullets.The story sounds good but the execution is pathetic.Almost 80 percent of the movie takes place in the court hence it becomes a tedious watch for the audiences.
You will feel as you are watching Crime patrol on a big screen.Its strange to see crowds gathering and making this movie a housefull.Apart from the music nothing is good about this movie.The story itself doesn't make any sense.The genre of this movie is thriller but it fails miserably to thrill us.
Akshay kumar must read the script first before he starts shooting.As far as acting is concerned all the actors have done done a decent job except Esha Gupta.
On the other hand Esha Gupta delivers a distasteful performance, Ileana was no better, Arjan Bajwa's role is clichéd to extreme and his acting was worse and overdone.The film is badly written and predictable, screenplay is average, dialogue writing is awful, cinematography is uncreative, lousy use of sound effects, VFX and set design is poor, and on top of inexperienced direction.Summing up, It's a really boring and tedious movie, there was nothing to watch except Akshay's acting.
But other actors acting is pathetic....Esha Gupta is horrible in this movie...she is wearing page 3 outfits in court room (awful)......Songs are not great......Surely it is a over hyped movie....Direction by Neeraj is very much disappointing...I was having a lot of hopes from him after Special 26 and Baby....Unnecessary hype as if its patriotic movie where as its just a murder mystery...nothing related to patriotism...
Rustom story is based on the scandalous Murder case involving naval officer KM Nanavati of 1959 which gave a big scoop to the press media back then.
The second half of the movie is full of court drama but the director missed the opportunity to create high tension for the courtroom.
Rustom is a court room drama the kind which are seen or made very less lately in bollywood.Akshay is very convincing as a Naval officer who had his heartbroken and Illeana looks absolutely stunning as his lovely wife which even you wanna marry.The film stays on point and do not lose it''s focus till the very end.The tracks tere sang yaara and tay hai are very soothing and I recommend adding them into your play lists.
The jokes don'the end neither the drama and in the end you feel nothing but empathy for the Actor.Mumbai in the late 60's as shown in the film feels like a paradise and is portrayed beautifully,vintage cars, colorful bungalows makes you to fall in love with the era.Watch it for Akshay's acting and for the director who has given us a classic like A Wednesday..
It's at the entry of the naval officer hero Rustom Pavri (Akshay Kumar) framed against the tricolour fluttering away in the background.
Unfortunately, Rustom, which fictionalizes the sensational true story of naval officer Kawas Manekshaw Nanavati, comes nowhere near becoming an irresistible cinematic account of a murder trial.
And that is the clincher in the film that spins off on the sensational KM Nanavati case that caught national attention in 1959.Rustom (Akshay Kumar) can't keep his hands off his wife Cynthia (Ileana D'Cruz), but work commitments send him on a six month trip.
The tour finishes before time, and Rustom returns to find Cynthia in the arms of a hot-headed millionaire, Vikram Makhija (Arjan Bajwa).Akshay Kumar has aced the art of presenting thrillers with patriotic tone.
Be it the use of vintage cars, the interiors of Rustom's ( Akshay Kumar) Parsi house, the set up of a police station or even the courtroom, they all look believable.
Yes, but in few scenes projecting old Bombay roads in the background, the VFX is poor and it could have been much better.The movie brings to life, famous the K M Nanavati Murder case that got nationwide attention in 1959.
But it does bring to light the court room drama and the attention this case got all across the nation and the public sympathy the naval officer got.Rustom Pavri, a decorated naval officer, finds out about his wife Cynthia's ( Ileana D'Cruz) affair with a hot headed businessman Vikram Makhika played by Arjun Bajwa.
A glimpse of women carrying a board which reads 'Marry me Rustom' is also shown in the film.Written by Vipul K Rawal, the movie has a clear intention of entertaining the audiences.
The infamous 1959 Nanavati case had spawned a couple of early films, neither of which came close to the lurid excitement of the real- life incident which involved a handsome naval officer, his lovely-but-lonely wife, and her lover, and a sensational murder.
Arjan Bajwa is decent as well.To cut to the chase, Rustom can be watched for its story and most importantly Akshay Kumar, whose action/comic brilliance often overshadows his acting prowess.
the State of Maharashtra case.The story begins with a Naval Commander Rustom Pavri (Akshay Kumar) who finds his wife Cynthia Pavri (Ileana D'Cruz) having an affair with a businessman Vikram Makhija (Arjan Bajwa).Emotionally shattered Rustom then goes to Vikram's place and fires three shots in his chest.
Akshay Kumar was just phenomenal in this movie , the whole movie's direction was amazing, there were a few a boring scenes , but apart from that songs , and the court case was intriguing , the actresses did a good job , as it is based on the real life incident of a naval officer , Akshay Kumar was pretty good looking in this one , and the sets were pretty retro as it should be because it is based on 1959 case of Nanavati , as it is not Akshay Kumar's first movie as a patriotic hero , you know he has done an amazing job in movies like Baby,Airlift,Special 26 and Gabbar is back , it must be a walk in a park for Akshay , if i had to rate on a scale of 10 , I would give 9 on 10 , as said earlier it indeed is a treat for Akshay fans and is highly recommended..
Whole story revolves around this murder case, role of newspaper, public, court jury and police is in main focus after the man Rustom himself.
*Direction could have been a little better.Our Ratings: Story: ★★★★★★★★★★ 10/10 Music: ★★★★★☆☆☆☆☆ 5/10 Direction, editing and screenplay: ★★★★★★★★★☆ 9/10 Star Performances: ★★★★★★★★★★ 10/10 Overall: ★★★★★★★★★☆ 9/10 Final Verdict: Must watch movie!!
Despite its multiple flaws, Rustom can be watched for Akshay Kumar, whose action/comic brilliance often overshadows his acting prowess.
Rustom was based on real life story of K.M Nanavati who killed her wife's lover and was one of the most sensational court cases in India.
With good soundtrack and brilliant acting, Rustom is one of the best movies of Akshay Kumar.
It's not Akshay Kumar essaying the lead character of Rustom Pavri, which he does a reasonably good job of, but the team.
One time watch if you are a Akshay Fan. Rustom is one of the hyped movies of this year.
Story I'll not discuss as for some of you who have not watched this movie could be a spoiler.Acting wise Akshay Kumar and Pawan Malhotra are the only saving grace.
Overall movie is interesting and the acting by whole cast is awesome and hat's off to Akshay Kumar.
Based on the real life incident of Naval Officer K.M. Nanavati and businessman Prem Ahuja, 'Rustom', sadly, is a disappointing courtroom-drama, that lacks a solid Screenplay.
Akshay Kumar always stuns viewers into creating good characters and stories.There is an elegance into which he fits according to the Genre wheather it is fun or thriller.Illeana D'Cruz, known for chubby roles in small films continue to mesmerize differing from the previous roles.Esha Gupta starring a negative character is not shady enough rather than showing how a captains family will be.All other characters are filling spaces beautifully.The composition of songs is fantastic as in airlift movie.The climax is also very surprising.This is how a good husband has to be.A person everyone wishes to have.There is comedy part where the maid says that if Rustom has killed him,it might be because he did something wrong.All in all,it is a clean movie with great singing artists and ravishing locations..
While Akshay Kumar was his usual stellar self, the supporting cast here takes the cake.Pavan Malhotra as Det. Lobo, Kumud Mishra as Billimoria, Usha Nadkarna as the maid, Anang Desai as the judge, Brijendra Kala as the police constable all did a spectacular job in the movie.The comic relief in the court scenes was superbly timed and executed.
But when you give it a thought, the makers were right in making this movie less Intense and showcasing not 100% true facts
In India you cannot play much with true stories which had caste and community angles to it.We normal watch 3 Bollywood Superstar's movie without giving a second thought on the content of their movie's
With reference to above line, I would definitely recommend to watch Rustom (It has appropriate content, Pace of the movie is Amazing, Background score is brilliant, Good songs and Absolutely perfect acting by all characters).
Rustom based on K M Nanavati case, a Naval commander who shot his wife's lover and surrendered to the police.
It gives us a perspective about the court room when the verdicts were established via jury.The art direction is worthy and we can certainly reckon that because the producer is Neeraj Pandey and we had already seen it in Special 26, the late 60's era is created wonderfully.Akshay Kumar as Rustom Pavri did an impressive work, he carries the persona of a naval officer with panache.
Usha Nadkarni leaves a stamp in one of the hilarious hearing ever in any court.Music and background score is average, some of the songs are good.Largely, it is Akshay Kumar whose movie choices maybe erratic but lately he chose some authentic subjects and filled it with great endeavor and diligence, to name a few Special 26, Baby, Airlift etc.Overall 6.5/10..
Let me start with Akshay's fantastic performance, rest eliana esha and the rest are good performers and on top of all the judge of the court has done a very good job.Rustom is one intelligent, intellectual and interesting movies not made in Bollywood or seen for long time.
However, the cardboard representation his director provides causes the film to look appealing without a strong foundation.Rustom Pavri (Kumar) is a highly decorated and patriotic Indian Naval officer who returns home from an assignment one day only to learn that his pretty wife Cynthia (D'cruz) has been going out with an acquaintance, automobile mogul and playboy Vikram (Bajwa).
Akshay Kumar is back with his much awaited movie Rustom.
Rustom (Akshay Kumar) after returning from 6 months of his duty from INS Mysore returns early to surprise his wife Cynthia (Ileana D'Cruz) finds that she is having an affair with his millionaire friend Vikram played by (Arjan Bajwa).
Director have tried to recreate the magic of previous movies of Akshay Kumar like Baby, Special 26 and Holiday but somehow fails to recreate the magic because of bad screenplay and direction.
Akshay Kumar continues to entertain his patriotic role once again with Rustom.Rustom is still worth watching because of the characters and the court drama..
Though, the real-winner this time is the screen writing by Vipul Rawal where, perhaps a historically-significant case could have been turned banal, though, the legal-suspense-drama almost lives up-to the expectation of becoming a "thriller" which is ably and much- engrossingly supported by the very known faces - Pawan Malhotra (as the Senior Investigator), Kumud Singh (as the news-paper editor), Sachin Khedkar (the public-prosecutor), and especially Anang Desai (the hilarious/serious judge).
Rustom, inspired from the real incidents of KM Nanavati case which ended the Jury system in India, is definitely a very well crafted film.
The film is instead directed by Dharmendra Suresh Desai who is two movies old and Rustom happens to be his first featuring a big star.
A simple reading of the Wikipedia page on the case tells you that the story had enough meat and didn't have to resort to extraneous stories.Akshay Kumar plays the lead character, Commander Rustom Pavri who discovers that his wife Cynthia (Ileana D'Cruz) has been having an affair with Vikram Makhija (Arjan Bajwa, remember the 2008 film Fashion?).
Also, the portrayal of Cynthia seems to have been done keeping in mind the views of the Indian audiences on extra marital affairs and have therefore shown her as a victim and Rustom as someone who had to kill Vikram to avenge the latter's wrongs to the nation.Bollywood is far below the Hollywood benchmark when it comes to making serious defense based or courtroom dramas.
Acting (7/10): The movie boasted of powerful actors like Akshay Kumar, Sachin Khedekar, Parmeet Sethi, Pavan Malhotra, Anang Desai and Usha Nadkarni.
The length of the movie is just right and he did a smart thing by merging the background of Rustom-Cynthia's story with the initial credits, saving some time.
He is in fact a good actor and certainly all of his recent movies from Holiday to Rustom have one common theme -"Patriotism" which made him the "Manoj Kumar" of current times.
But ,as his previous movies were good in content and performance, Rustom, unfortunately falls flat.The whole inspiration from Nanavati Case is such a big blunder and joke.What the director was thinking?
The comedy in the court room seems unnecessary and gives the film the feel of watching Adalat TV show and not Akshay Kumar starer.
The story dates back to the late 1950s and revolves around an Indian Naval Officer Rustom Pavri (Akshay Kumar), who is happily married to Cynthia Pavri (Ileana D'Cruz).
true or not, this is a very entertaining movie and if you've seen other Bollywood films, you'll have a good time. |
tt0040823 | Sorry, Wrong Number | Leona Stevenson (Barbara Stanwyck) is the spoiled, bedridden daughter of wealthy businessman James Cotterell (Ed Begley). One day, while listening to what seems to be a crossed telephone connection, she hears two men planning a woman's murder. The call cuts off without Leona learning very much other than it is scheduled for 11:15, when a passing train will hide any sounds. She calls the telephone company and the police, but with few concrete details, they can do nothing. Complicating matters, her husband Henry (Lancaster) is overdue and their servants have the night off, leaving her all alone in a Manhattan apartment.
As she makes a number of phone calls trying to locate Henry, Leona inadvertently begins to piece together the mystery. The story is told mostly in flashbacks. When Leona reaches Henry's secretary, Elizabeth Jennings (Dorothy Neumann), she learns that he took an attractive Mrs. Lord to lunch and did not return to the office. Mrs. Lord turns out to be the former Sally Hunt (Ann Richards). Leona stole then-drug store employee Henry from Sally, and married him against her father's wishes. Sally is now the wife of Fred Lord (Leif Erickson), a lawyer in the district attorney's office. From overheard conversations, she learned that her husband was close to resolving an investigation that involves Henry somehow. Sally became so concerned that she followed her husband and two associates to a mysterious meeting in a seemingly abandoned house on Staten Island. The house, according to a "no trespassing" sign, belongs to a W. Evans. Sally arranged to meet Henry for lunch, but before she could warn him, he left the table and did not return. Later, Sally calls Leona with more news. The house on Staten Island has burned down, and three men, including someone named Morano (William Conrad), have been arrested. Waldo Evans (Harold Vermilyea), however, has escaped.
Leona then receives a message from Henry stating he has gone out of town on business he had forgotten about and will not be back until Sunday.
Leona next gets in touch with Dr. Alexander (Wendell Corey), a specialist she had come to New York to see regarding her lifelong heart troubles. Alexander reveals that he gave Henry her prognosis 10 days before, something that Henry kept from her. Henry had married Leona without being aware of her health problems. He first found out when she had a heart attack after they quarreled about his attempt to get a job on his own, rather than being a do-nothing vice president in his father-in-law's business. (James Cotterell, however, sabotaged his job interview.) Her attacks became more and more frequent, until she finally took to her bed about a year ago. Alexander, however, diagnosed Leona's problems as purely psychosomatic; nothing is wrong with her physically.
Leona has got into hysterics and phones a hospital, asking to hire a nurse for the night. The receptionist tells her that they are short staffed and she can only have a nurse if the doctor feels it isn't an emergency. She thinks it is only 11:00pm but discovers her clock has stopped, sending her into worse hysterics.
Then Leona receives a telephone call from Waldo Evans, a chemist working for her father. He reluctantly discloses that Henry recruited him to steal valuable chemicals from the Cotterell drug company to sell to Morano. Later, Henry decided to bypass Morano when Evans was transferred to the New Jersey plant. Morano, however, showed up with two thugs and intimidated Henry into signing an IOU for $200,000 for his lost profits, due in three months. When Henry protested that he did not have that much money, Morano pointed out that Leona must have a large insurance policy. However, with Morano now in custody, Evans stresses that Henry no longer has to raise the now-overdue sum. Waldo leaves Leona with a telephone number to call to locate Henry, but when she calls the number she discovers to her horror that it is for the city morgue.
When Henry finally calls from a train station in New Haven, Connecticut, Leona gives him Evans' message. Seeing that it is only minutes from 11:15, he pleads with her to go to the balcony and scream for help, but she protests that she cannot, though she can hear somebody downstairs. When the intruder enters her bedroom, she begs for her life, then screams. The intruder strangles and kills Leona. Unaware of the policemen about to apprehend him, Henry frantically calls back, only to have a man answer, "Sorry, wrong number." | suspenseful, murder, violence, horror, flashback, romantic | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0380787 | The Elizabeth Smart Story | Fourteen-year-old Elizabeth Smart is part of a large and loving Mormon family. Her father, Ed hires a handyman, a self-styled prophet named Emmanuel, to help him with a remodeling job. Months later, Emmanuel returns and kidnaps Elizabeth one night at knifepoint. Her sister, Mary Katherine, who is in the bed with her, is too terrified to immediately tell her parents. Once she does a massive police investigation begins. The Smarts are angered when the investigation questions whether any family members are involved in Elizabeth’s disappearance. A massive search effort begins and the story causes a media frenzy. After a false news story that the police suspect a family member, Ed takes and passes a polygraph test. Richard Ricci, who worked for the Smarts until he was fired when jewelry went missing, is arrested for a parole violation and the police suspect his involvement in Elizabeth's disappearance. Emmanuel subsequently tries to kidnap one of Elizabeth's cousins, but is unsuccessful. The Smarts learn Ricci has had an aneurysm and is now brain dead. After this, Elizabeth's mother gives up hope, the story fades into the background and the police stop looking for Elizabeth. At one point, Mary Katherine realizes that it was Emmanuel who took Elizabeth, but the police do not pursue this lead. Ed appears on the TV show America's Most Wanted and tells host John Walsh in confidence about this new information. When Walsh reveals it on Larry King Live, the Smarts publish a sketch of Emmanuel, who is later identified as Brian David Mitchell. After having taken her to San Diego, Mitchell returns to Salt Lake City with his wife and Elizabeth. When the police accidentally come across the three of them and question them, Elizabeth identifies herself, resulting in Mitchell's arrest and Elizabeth's reunion with her family. | cult | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0072231 | Svoy sredi chuzhikh, chuzhoy sredi svoikh | The setting is post-Russian Civil War, during the reconstruction of the young Soviet republic. During the war, Shilov, Sarichev, Kungorov, Zabelin and Lipyagin had become great friends.
There are two main plots in the film, the first involving the theft of gold by outlaws just after the Russian civil war. Though the cannons are now silent, the enemy continues to harass the Soviets. The regional committee sends a precious shipment of gold by train to Moscow, and a group of Cheka soldiers led by Shilov are entrusted with the responsibility of guarding it. The gold is needed to buy bread from overseas to feed the starving population. The Cheka guards are attacked and killed by a group of assassins, and the briefcase of gold is stolen. The group then hops onto another train, only to face a reversal of their own when their train is attacked by bandits. All of the assassins are killed except their leader, who discovers that a bandit has secretly stolen the gold. He then joins the bandits in an effort to learn where the gold is, and to escape with it. In the meantime, Shilov was kidnapped and drugged before the train sets off, and is dumped in the street after the attack and framed as the inside man. He is suspected of treason, partly because his brother was a "White", which is where the second plot comes in. Shilov must infiltrate the enemy bandit camp to find the gold, hence the title. The second plot involves the Shilov's desire to clear his name of murder, and he must find out who killed his friends. During his efforts, Shilov uncovers a web of deceit and treachery, which allowed the robbery to succeed. The story of a hero battling against corruption and greed echoes the cattle baron or railroad Westerns.
The film also has male camaraderie as a subplot, as the initial joy of demobbed Red Army soldiers returning from the Revolution is sorely tested. It has strong parallels in some ways with Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid in its look, period setting, and strong action sequences, which are still famous in Russia, involving literal cliffhangers, white water rafting, chases on horseback, holding up trains and other adventures. | murder | train | wikipedia | "At Home Among The Strangers".
One of the best Nikita Mikhalkov's pictures.
A gripping, rather confusing adventurous plot, fragmentary editing, mysterious look of heroes - all this became a fresh breeze in the soviet cinematography of the 70th.
The excellent crew including a big number of greatest russian actors in the beginning of their career.
Beautiful and piercing main theme by Edward Artemyev thinly transfers the mood of the movie combining the romanticism of the 70th and the dramatic line of the picture.
In 1974 the movie was sworn by critics.
But years went by.
And now it's considered to be the cult one..
Mikhalkov's probably only true masterpiece, best-ever "borshch" Western.
Should really be recognized as a Western classic, or at least world's best "Eastern" - Mikhalkov follows the rules of the genre impeccably, easily weaving in 1920's Russia setting, revolutionary romanticism and "cool" charismatic bad guys, a rare thing in Soviet cinema.
Cast is superb - probably the best combination of young actors of the decade, including Mikhalkov himself as Yesaul..
This is a great movie.
It reminds me a little bit of "Beloye Solntse Pustini" or in English "The White Sun of the Desert", same type of the 1920's action movie.
I think this movie has some of the best cinematography that I have ever seen in any film.
This is a very easy going-enjoyable-smart action film.
Mikhalkov did a great job..
Something memorable: a festival of human emotions.
An easy-going movie that mixes black-and-white cinematography with the colour one and comedy elements with high-power drama.
The only thing I feel sorry for in this film is the absence of widescreen.
The film would be so much better visually in widescreen.The scenes which represent Brylov's dreaming are quite funny and strange.
Brylov's manners are ridiculous and weird too: he looks like a man out of this world, a loony criminal with "refined taste".I cannot compare it to any other movie.
It's done in a very unique way (hectic bizarre clipping, grainy picture mixed with fine colour scheme, freaking behaviour of the baddies and goodies, deep adult emotions flavoured by some childish spontaneity all through the film, erratic close-ups of the characters blended into the picturesque shots of wide valleys, etc.).
"Beloe solntse pustyni" (1970) was completely different and to say the truth I never liked it much.
As to this one, it's the only Nikita Mikhalkov's movie I really enjoy.It's a festival of human emotions without unnecessary scenes (sex, bloody brawls, endless gunfighting) so frequent in action cinema.
An action film can be like this: humane, captivating, tough, and emotional.
Even a small child can see it and enjoy, learning a lesson or two about life...If only it were in widescreen...
Thanks for attention..
Good if you ignore the history and politics.
I'm very fond of this film, albeit with some misgivings about its one sided version of history (see later).
It is basically a film about a group of friends who have just been demobbed from the Russian Civil War, and who are trying to get themselves back into civilian life, when one of them is framed for a gold robbery, and has to fight to prove his innocence.Like many Soviet films of the time, it switches from colour to black and white at the drop of a hat, but in this film that works quite well.
The music has a cheesy 1970s charm to it, and it reminds me of "Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid" in a positive way.
In fact, this film reminds me of "Butch Cassidy" in more ways than one.
They both have the same feeling of sad nostalgia to them, and friendship.I count myself lucky to have seen it in the cinema, since it is hardly ever shown in this part of the world.
The action sequences are excellent, with the exception of the assault on the bandits' camp, which we don't see at all.Of course, the one thing I am uncomfortable with is the revision of history in the film and the political aspects.
At times, the film lards you with Communist propaganda, and completely ignores the fact that the famines in the Soviet Union at the time were partly because of the government.
The Cheka is presented as an entirely benevolent force (we know from the Soviets' own records that it was often brutal and barbaric, and arrested innocent people.).
There is a bit of stereotyping in the film as well - one of the Muslim characters is portrayed as a complete idiot.However, if you're willing NOT to let that get in the way, it is a brilliant film.
If you get hold of the DVD, I recommend watching it with English subtitles, rather than with the English dubbing (I have watched both versions), because that version is much better..
gloomy time, moral lesson.
a Nikita Mikhalkov.
with each of elements who defines his work - humor, heroism, sacrifice, justice, melancholic crumbs.
a kind of Eastern on the young Soviet Union construction.
but out of political circle.
because it is only a story.
about duty, trust, friendship and profound truth.
and not that bricks are fundamental but the manner to present it.
with subtle irony, delicacy and a fine Russian style.
a film about justice and a hero with has not ambition to be more than a common man.
an interesting performance and few splendid images.
and special atmosphere.
it is just a pure Mikhalkov movie.
ant this fact is only essential..
A Nod to the Past.
At Home Among Strangers, a Stranger Among his Own is a rollicking action and adventure film that nonetheless calls attention to deeply important themes in Russian history.
Set directly after the Russian Civil War, the film looks and feels very much like an American Western, embodying motifs of greed, justice, honor, and betrayal.
In the film, a shipment of gold being sent to Moscow for the purchase of food supplies is intercepted by a band of train robbers, who are themselves infiltrated by a Red veteran–accused of trying to steal the gold–out to see justice done and clear his name, and by the murderous villain who framed him.
Meanwhile, the local Cheka attempts to solve the crime, leading to numerous chases and gunfights.
Along with the action and suspense that drive the film's plot, At Home Among Strangers explores the challenges in Russia following the Red victory over the Whites.
After the war, an entirely new struggle of rebuilding a divided country begins.
The film showcases victorious but overwhelmed reds, defeated but still greedy Whites, and bandits surviving however they can, bearing no political or ideological affiliation.
The chairman of the Cheka embodies the struggle of uniting a country made up of such disparate factions; he struggles to do everything that must be done to transition from wartime to socialist peace.
Likewise, a former cavalry officer grapples with settling finances, doing his part for peacetime when the battlefield is all he knows.
Finally, demonstrating the fundamental divisions within Russian society, the hero Shilov struggles to retain the trust of his fellows, who know that his brother fought for the White army.
Stylistically, this "ostern" pays homage not only to the popular American cinema it emulates, but also to previous triumphs of Russian film.
A scene in which machine guns are fired from atop cliffs at the water below recalls the final minutes of the Vasilyev Brothers' Chapaev, and some scenes in the movie, like flashes of comrades-in-arms celebrating their victory amid feelings of betrayal, and an image of a wagon tumbling down a hill as the exhausted Shilov makes his way down a similar decline to his waiting comrades, are unmistakable nods to the montage style made famous by Eisenstein and his contemporaries.
When the gold is finally returned and old friends regain their mutual trust, shots of the men celebrating the end of the war are interspersed with those of them celebrating the safe return of their valuables.
Ironically, their glee over the gold is matched only by the joy they had taken in their victory over such material possessions, and the superimposition serves to remind audiences that now, even amid all their struggles, wealth and camaraderie go hand in hand, and that hard-earned gains are for the benefit of all..
Excellent action movie about the Russian Civil War. There are very few films about this time in Russia - 1917 - 1922, which have no clear propaganda smack.
This film, albeit made in the stuffy Soviet times 30 years ago, still sounds and looks so fresh and well.
Nikita Mikhalkov managed to create a deeply adventurous and excellently tight atmosphere of a Western, but in a Russian soil.
The plot is nice - after the main battles of the war, there are many regions which suffer hunger and famine.
The local Soviet committee decided to send some gold to buy bread for those people.
The secret group of undefeated former monarchists, so-called The White Gueard, attacks the train with this gold and kills all the people who had it.
Thus, the film starts to get more and more thrilling.
The main hero, a Comissar Shilov, played by the late lamented Yuri Bogatyrev, is indicted falsely for this assault, he escapes the shooting and starts his own investigation.
Slowly, he gets into a gang of mountain bandits who rob the trains and there he comes across one of the White officers, played by also untimely demised Aleksnader Kaydanowski, who has the gold.
You really must watch this brilliant film which is full of war romanticism, heroism and true feelings.
It has none of the false patriotism or propaganda.
Real must have!.
More than just an action film.
More than just an action film.
Set in the 1920's shortly after the end of the Russian civil war and released on 1974 during the Brezhnev era, at home Among Strangers, Stranger at Home is an action film that lives up to its genre and also manages to develop a more complex storyline than other action films that just focus their attention towards gruesome fight scenes.
The scenes in which fighting did occur were much less graphic but still just as affective on eliciting the same level of excitement that is characteristic of an action film.
During these scenes the movie is very reminiscent of American action films which depict western cowboy lifestyle.The story itself deals with the character Shilov who is accused of treason after a precious shipment gets stolen under his watch and he gets framed for it.
From the very start, the films images were particularly striking both cinematically and psychologically.
The different settings of this intro which included a countryside (common for this point in time) and a small living area, all captured my attention immediately.
The intro alone initiated a large list of questions with its seeming randomness.
Such as why are they yelling and dancing?
Or Why did they just push that carriage down the hill?
What is strategically communicated through this intro despite the lack of dialogues is the character's deep bond with each other and their emerging friendship.
There are many other scenes later on in the movie that may seem random but serve a purpose to further convey these ideas of forged bonds.
One such scene is when the train robbers are all jubilant after having stolen the gold.
Through the different uses of genius cinematographically placed supporting scenes this film ended up being more than just a plain action movie.
The character development was phenomenal and the action scenes ended up being one of its main attributes..
A Great Red Western.
Nikita Mikhalkov's 1974 At Home among Strangers, a Stranger Among his Own was a truly enjoyable "Eastern," a Soviet parallel to the American "Western." It did a great job in glorifying the Socialist Revolution and its ideology, while at the same time preserving the advantageous, "badass," gun-slinging attitude that audiences loved in the Western.
I feel like contemporary viewers of this film would have savored it—a dramatized, heroic account of Soviet values set in the "wild east" would seem like the perfect soothing remedy for a disillusioned Soviet citizen during Brezhnev's period of stagnation.Our Soviet western hero is Shilov, who was tasked with defending a large Cheka shipment of gold for the starving citizens in Moscow following the Russian Civil War. Naturally, the plan is quickly ruined as assassins kill everyone on board the train carrying the gold to steal it, drug Shilov, and let him loose in the town street, hence framing him for being the inside man for giving up the gold.
As Shilov sets out to recover the gold and clear his name, the plot further thickens as the assassins get killed and bandits take the gold!
The leader of the assassins, Lemke, lived however, and joined up with the bandits to try and discover where their leader, Brylov, was taking the gold.
Shilov ends up killing Brylov and recovering the gold, and denies all of Lemke's pleads and temptations to share it with him and escape.
Shilov maintained adamant in his Socialist position of giving up the gold, claiming that "even God taught us to share."All of this activity is surrounded by recurring themes of train robbery, horseback chasing, rafting and mountainside firefights.
Even the soundtrack emphasizes moments of male camaraderie as Shilov's name is mentioned among his Civil War friends with majestic trumpet solos.
As Shilov returns to his wartime friends with the gold, they rush to him, barely holding back tears as they greet their "western Soviet" hero.
The film shed some positive, adventurous light upon the Soviet values of collectivization and honor over corruption and private enterprise..
The Russian Butch Cassidy?.
I watched this under the title FRIEND AMONG STRANGERS.
It's a mixed bag of a film, light-hearted in some places and rather heavy in others, with the usual Russian mix of masculine attitudes and heavy emoting.
The story, set during a civil war in 1917, is about a group of buddies who decide to rob a train, and the fall out that subsequently ensues.I found it quite a middling film despite the best intentions.
The movie itself looks good when it's in colour, but it does swap to cheap black and white for certain crucial scenes.
The cast is okay and the actors do fit their parts pretty well, but nobody really stands out as a sympathetic character.
A debt of inspiration seems to have been paid to BUTCH CASSIDY AND THE SUNDANCE KID, but this is a far cry from the quality of that movie. |
tt0036399 | Sufferin' Cats! | The cartoon opens with Jerry running with a fishing line tied to his tail, which proceeds to retreat; Jerry is pulled under the radiator, through a mousehole, and towards Tom at the end of the line. When Jerry reaches Tom, the cat makes a face and scares Jerry, causing him to run away. Tom starts to reel in Jerry again, but the mouse holds onto a bag of jerked beef, forcing Tom to struggle to regain control of the line. As the line returns to Tom, a piece of the bag is on the end, stating "JERK".
Jerry escapes through an open window and smashes into an alley cat, (Meathead), who is going through garbage cans trying to find lunch. Jerry quickly runs the other way, but then runs into Tom who is coming towards him. Choosing between evils, Jerry gives Meathead a kiss and hug, plays with his whiskers, and sticks his tongue out at Tom; in retaliation, Tom grabs Jerry and hisses at the alley cat, who grabs Jerry back and hisses much louder than Tom. Knowing he is outclassed, Tom retreats. Meathead makes a Jerry sandwich, but when he adds pepper, Jerry sneezes and is propelled away from the bread - and into the other cat. The mouse now hugs Tom and snubs Meathead, who grabs Jerry and breaks the bread over Tom's head. Tom then grabs Meathead's whiskers and pulls one of them out; after Meathead locks Jerry in a can, he returns the injury.
The two felines fight until Meathead, while holding Tom by the ears and fist back to punch him, spots the mouse walking out of the can. Meathead scolds Jerry and points to the can as if to say "You belong to me, get back in the can." Jerry complies grudgingly, but meanwhile Tom has replaced himself with a flower pot and stolen Jerry. Meathead chases after his rival, but runs into the front gate.
In the backyard, Tom sits on Jerry to hide the mouse and shows Meathead the empty sardine can as he comes by. Jerry reveals himself by sticking Tom with a gardening fork and runs away; Meathead attempts to catch him, but Tom has tied Meathead's tail to the garden hose, who is then pulled back into the spigot and rained on. Tom then chases Jerry and catches him near an open window; a pie is sitting on the deck, and the cat holds it out for Meathead to promptly hit. Tom runs away with Jerry, but soon trips into a garbage can and loses the mouse to the alley cat; as Tom emerges from the can, he wallops Meathead with a frying pan and flips Jerry in the pan a few times. The mouse escapes and wriggles through a hole in a fence, and when Tom peeks through, he is whacked with a length of pipe. When the cat sees his opponent arrive, he waves him ahead, and Meathead receives the same punishment.
Jerry runs away and disguises himself as an old mouse, using mop bristles in the shape of a beard. Both cats corner him, and Jerry points away from himself as if to say He went that way. The two cats shrug, run away, soon realize their error and go back to search the mop. They then look in front of the drainpipe the mouse has hidden in, who ties both cats' tails together and then provokes a chase. The alley cat moves first and drags Tom across the ground, and both cats end up tangled around a tree. Jerry continues running and sets out thumbtacks for the cats to step on; at their speed, they cannot avoid the tacks, but manage to survive the podiatric assault and catch Jerry. After a brief fight, a tree stump with an ax on it catches their eyes and they agree to cut Jerry in half. The alley cat holds Jerry while Tom readies the ax, and as Tom raises the ax over his head, his devilish conscience appears and convinces him that he doesn't have to share Jerry. He then makes an X on the alley cat's head, which Tom swings for, but stops short, panting at his inability to commit murder. The devil appears again, disgusted, using his famed reasoning to convince the cat that Tom had priorities on Jerry, successfully breaking through to Tom.
Tom prepares to chop Meathead in half, but the blade slides off and instead of being beheaded, Meathead is whacked on the head and a bump forms on the top and goes through his toupee. The incensed alley cat chases Tom and beats him with the stick, Tom hissing and spitting. Meanwhile, Jerry escapes and ducks under the front gate. The cats chase the mouse instead, but crash through the gate with their heads, hands and feet on the front side and their defenseless rear ends hanging out the back. Jerry arrives with a huge smile carrying a wooden plank, and goes behind the cats' back. He has decided that as punishment for tormenting him, that both cats deserve a good paddling, and uses their compromising position to do just that. Then he brushes off Tom's waiting rear to let him know what is about to happen. Then he takes aim with the plank; the cats look up to see a sign on the gate saying MAKE ALL DELIVERIES IN REAR, and Jerry uses the plank to give both of them a good spanking on their rears that make them yelp in pain. | psychedelic, comic | train | wikipedia | Two-Against-One.....Sort Of. Two cats fighting over Jerry?
Yup, that's the case here.
Tom is just tormenting his buddy but some stray outside means to have Jerry as part of a submarine sandwich.
Jerry tries to smooch up to each cat, playing up to one to stay away from other.
That only works once for each cat.
After that, this is just one big chase scene, but that's par for the course for a Tom and Jerry cartoon.
What's different is that there are two cats chasing the mouse.
Thankfully, for Jerry's sake, the cats are also beating each other up while trying to hold onto the elusive mouse.
Finally, Jerry starts producing pain for both cats, something he's used to doing to poor Tom.All in all, it makes for a fairly wild eight minutes, with most of the laughs in the second half of it, particularly when Tom is about to chop Jerry in half, but then gets another idea whispered in his ear from "the Devil." As always, the devil's advice winds up to be the wrong kind.
great antics.
Tom the cat has got Jerry the mouse on a fishing line and is toying with him much to Jerry's chagrin.
So after he gets away he runs into a cat that scares Tom. Jerry think he's saved onto to realize that the second cat just wants to eat him himself.
What follows is classic slapstick as the two cats fight over who gets the meal.
But they both get their just desserts in the end.
Tom and Jerry are in their top form here and are a delight to watch as they ALMOST are (the feature film where they're best pals is horrid, but I digress).This hilarious cartoon can be found on disc one of the Spotlight collection DVD of "Tom & Jerry" My Grade: A-.
Top Flight T&J.
MGM animation of the thirties and forties could often seriously rival the Disney studio for sheer lushness and elegance, and generaly had them beat for comedy.
"Sufferin' Cats" is a charming and funny early Tom and Jerry romp in which Tom is allowed to display a resoucefulness almost on a par with his rodent rival..
(1943) *** (out of 4) Jerry is once again running away from Tom who wants to eat him but he makes the mistake of running into another cat.
Af first Jerry thinks he's safe but it turns out this cat wants to eat him too so now the mouse finds himself running away from two cats.
SUFFERIN' CATS!
SUFFERIN' CATS!
SUFFERIN' CATS!
is another winner for the series and once again we're taken away from the house setting, which allows for some new and creative action.
One of the highlights happen when the cats agree to cut Jerry in half and share him but of course something else happens.
This short is fast, fun and contains enough action to keep it entertaining throughout..
A fun Tom and Jerry cartoon, but not a classic.
I adore Tom and Jerry and always have done.
Sufferin' Cats is not one of my favourites though, seeing as it is an early T&J I was expecting the sense that they were still finding their feet and that was the case here.
The story here is very routine, I do agree with those who have said that Sufferin' Cats is little more than one big chase, while the first half is not as funny or as crisply paced as the second, which is where the fun begins.
The gags in the second half are genuinely funny on the other point of view, the standout being Tom battling his devil conscience and it goes pear-shaped from there.
The ending is amusing as well.
The animation is clean and beautifully drawn, while the music adds so much to the effectiveness of the gags and is orchestrated in such a vibrant way.
All three characters are great, two cats fighting over one mouse is not a new idea but done in a very entertaining way here, and have inspired interplay between them.
Tom and Jerry themselves are true to personality, and the second cat is a good contrast to Tom. All in all, not a classic but fun.
7/10 Bethany Cox. Fun, but unexceptional..
As Tom and Jerry's creators get fully into their stride, so the duo become more and more like the cat and mouse we all know and love.
Sufferin' Cats sees the cartoon's style developed even further, with the content becoming more 'violent' and the characters more definedunfortunately, the story is the one weak element to this episode, with the whole thing being nothing more than a huge frantic chase scene (which is fun, for a while at least).There are some quite funny visual gags, and a fine example of the old 'devil on the shoulder' routine, as Tom deliberates whether he should cut Jerry in twoin order to share the mouse with an alley cat with whom he has been competingor plant the axe's blade in his rival's head (my 4 year old son actually found this bit disturbing).
But on the whole, this short is a distinctly average offering..
Rather generic cartoon.
Nothing of any particular interest or originality happens in this short.
Tom is having his usual fun tormenting Jerry but the mouse runs into a stray cat and pretends to be best friends with him (by kissing him-gay lovers?) to upset Tom. Soon both cats are feuding over Jerry whilst being set-up by him.
Oh, do watch my sides as they just might split!
I wasn't really impressed and there's not a lot to laugh at in the 8-minute running time.
The short actually has some dialogue in it but there's no credited voices for some reason on this page.
There's nothing I can recommend about this cartoon as it is Tom and Jerry at their most basic.
The title is rather generic too..
Somewhat different idea, but it's not really working.
If you know Tom & Jerry a bit, world's most famous cat and mouse duo, then you certainly also know the general idea behind these many many cartoons starring the two.
Cast hunts mouse and mouse fights back most of the time.
But this one here is different.
It is basically Tom and another cat arguing who gets Jerry for dinner.
Jerry plays along until almost the very end, but then the phrase "When two fight, the third one laughs last." becomes reality and Jerry shows us what he is capable of.
Sadly, I would say that this approach and plot idea are not really working and I found most of the comedy fairly forgettable and the slapstick also wasn't too great to be honest.
It is probably among Hanna/Barbera's more known T&J works, even if it did not get the Oscar nomination, but it's certainly not among their best.
Basically every time Jerry is on screen, it gets better, but it's just not (frequent) enough.
At 8 minutes, it is slightly longer than they usually are.
The year of production is 1943 (75th anniversary in 2018), the days of WWII still, and this time is probably also when Tom and Jerry may have been at their peak in terms of popularity.
The good thing as always is that you can enjoy it pretty much without subtitles, even if you don't speak English at all.
Even the scene towards the end with little devil Tom speaks for itself.
All in all, this is one of the weaker recent episodes from the series.
I give it a thumbs-down and don't recommend checking it out..
Good Fun..
Sufferin' Cats and The Bowling alley cat in my opinion are the best early Tom and Jerry shorts.
This one got really good laughs.The Story is about Tom chasing Jerry, then an Alley Cat appears (His name is Meathead), and then they start to fight each other in order to get Jerry.The Story might sound too simple, but the excellent animation, perfectly timed gags really help.
And this episode is a musical fun!
I couldn't stop humming to the song, it's really Jazzy and Catchy, it accomplishes the action on the cartoon, it's flawless.The Highlights of the cartoon are when Tom and Meathead decide to cut Jerry in a half to have equal parts to each other, but Tom's evil thought make him steal Jerry by a whole.All of these elements help this cartoon stand out.I Recommend it to every Tom and Jerry fan. |
tt2017486 | Closer to the Moon | Post-war Communist Romania: In 1959 Bucharest, members of Romania's high society Max Rosenthal (Mark Strong), Alice Bercovich (Vera Farmiga), Dumi Dorneanu (Tim Plester), Răzvan Orodel (Joe Armstrong) and Iorgu Ristea (Christian McKay), known collectively as Ioanid Gang, announce to a crowd that they are shooting a film. A young café worker, Virgil (Harry Lloyd), is among the witnesses. Under the guise of making this film, the Ioanid Gang perform a heist of the National Bank of Romania. The following day, Virgil loiters around a film set and encounters the director, Flaviu (Allan Corduner), who requests him to buy vodka and give it to him whenever he asks.
Eight months before the heist took place, Max, Dumi, Iorgu and Răzvan, heroes of the resistance during World War II, celebrate New Year's Eve and the start of 1959, though Max is in the middle of divorcing his wife, Sonia (Monica Bîrlădeanu). Alice returns from Moscow with her and Max's son, Mirel (Marcin Walewski), in tow. She re-introduces Mirel to his father, and they begin to bond.
One night, the Gang celebrates Dumi's birthday and reminisce about their early lives as revolutionaries. For fun, they plot the heist in order to rile up anti-Communist Romania, but then realize that Max is talking their conversation seriously. He convinces Dumi, Iorgu and Răzvan to join him, but Alice says no as she has to raise Mirel. She changes her mind, however, when she learns that Mirel wants to join as the fifth person. Alice becomes enraged during the robbery when she seeing Mirel filming it. After a couple of months, Iorgu unintentionally implicates himself, and the group is individually located and arrested by Comrade Holban (Anton Lesser) and his police officers. Their arrests happen on the same day as the Luna 2 landing on the Moon.
One year later, Virgil is an experienced camera assistant. He is called in by his boss, who informs him of a short film about to start production. Virgil is assigned to record it. It is then revealed that the film is a propaganda piece about the Ioanid Gang's crime. The group, who have been convicted and are awaiting their execution, are ordered by the Securitate to star in the film. Later, Virgil informs Flaviu that he was present during the robbery and its danger has been greatly exaggerated by the authorities. When the Gang arrive for filming, Alice begins to bond with Virgil. When Flaviu gets drunk and passes out, Max takes over directing. While setting up a shot, he secretly gives Virgil contact details for the Gang's loved ones, requesting he contact them to let them know the group is alive and in prison. Later, Virgil makes an anonymous call to the first person on the list, and continues to do so with the help of his landlord Moritz (David de Keyser).
One night, Virgil is taken to Holban's house. Holban reveals that he knows Virgil has been doing favours for the Gang, and asks him to keep doing so in order to win their trust. He asks Virgil to find the sixth member of the group, Alice's son, as the Gang will be executed soon. During a commotion on set one day, Alice slips away. Virgil follows her to a house, where she says goodbye to her son. Afterwards, they have dinner at Virgil's house and sleep together. The next morning, Alice surrenders to the guards keeping surveillance outside, and leaves Virgil with sealed instructions. Virgil is approached by Holban and asked to write the address of Mirel, but he feigns unawareness.
Max's ex-brother-in-law (Darrell D'Silva) arrives and relieves Holban of duty due to negligence and exhaustion. Max asks him to send the Gang into space instead of executing them, but he angrily retorts that astronauts should be heroes and not traitors. Alice's letter asks Virgil to organize Mirel's Bar Mitzvah, which he does. Iorgu, Dumi, Răzvan and Max are sent before the firing squad. In voiceover, Alice says that, at the last moment, her sentence was changed to life imprisonment because she had fallen pregnant. The audience is then told that Alice emigrated to Israel with Mirel and her daughter. | comedy | train | wikipedia | A group of Romanian communists robs the National Bank.
Unless you have at least some basic knowledge about Communist Romania, this movie might seem very far away from a rating of 10.
As the story unraveled, it sucked us into an atmosphere that most of us feel is long gone, and nevertheless, so close to us.
Robbing a bank with guns in a communist country is like robbing a supermarket of its toilette paper.
And that is what makes this story so strange for us.
The historical background is fascinating (at least for us, Romanians).
This movie was like a breath of fresh air.
One full of poisonous gases, as seeing the movie, you will discover that there are many things about the human race that will upset you, but at the same time, air that provokes an uncontrollable laugh.
I did, because I considered it was the only way not to make the most depressing movie in the world.
A masterpiece that will most probably be considered as such many years from now, when people will start making movies about our not so egalitarian society..
Romanian director wins BIG.
I was so completely entertained by this little film.
I understand the historical data is highly accurate and appropriate for the Romanians that have lived in that exact period - which I respect so much .
Caranfil's directing took me by surprise because I have never expected this level of craft from a director also trapped in a country where films at this scale are only a dream.
I really hope Caranfil will make more movies like this - keeping the amazing dark, funny and artistic tone.
One of the best non- American films i've seen in the last couple of years..
It is always gratifying to find a film you do not know anything about and it becomes one of your favorite movies.Director/writer Nae Caranfil has taken an obscure incident in Soviet occupied Romania in the late 1950's and has offered it up to the 21st century cinema to give us a most pertinent message for today's world.That message is not robbing the bank!
The message is to be found in how the system (society) can single out certain groups and marginalize them into committing a desperate act --- and not really have any reason to do this act but to just fight back.The entire cast is perfect in their individual roles, the script is intelligent, the photography beautiful!
Some people have been executed without being guilty.
They have been forced to play a role in their fake trials and all ended in their execution.
A false history was created by some top authorities in order to teach some kind of a lesson to the people that worked in the communist regime structures.
This movie was not made for the public.
Add to that the fact that Pintilie's film has been done in those crazy times, when you could have gotten into big trouble for criticizing the regime.Now, here comes Caranfil, a great director, that takes the original story and twists it once again, turning these people into courageous heroes that opposed the regime.
Does this bring justice to the original six persecuted people?
There's a documentary, called Marele Jaf Comunist (The Great Communist Robbery) that reveals more of the true story.
Anyway, a drama is not supposed to tell the real story, and that's OK, but in this case, it's a pity that some people will take it as history.
The real six people have been persecuted in communist style with fake trials and five of them were killed.
Moreover, ironically, they had a history in participating successfully in bringing the communism to Romania.
So, why did the regime chose them in order to teach a lesson to the other communists, and probably to the Jewish communists?
The movie might leave you with the impression that all Jews were persecuted under the communism.
But many of the Jews supported the regime since the beginning.I know that many of the Jews have been disappointed by the communism that they previously believed in.
Most of the Jews went to Israel sometimes in the Sixties, but also, many Jews supported the communist repression, leading to massive deportation, imprisonment and execution of hundreds of thousands of Romanian citizens.
You will not see this in the movie..
Just so you know, I am Romanian, and I've lived there before and after 1989.
This film is full of historical inaccuracies (except the main subject, the robbery, which indeed took place in 1959).
I wanted to leave within 20 minutes, but that would've not been polite towards the other people in the theater, so I put up with it till the end, to my utter despair.
It reminded me of commie propaganda, except this one got a mushy Hollywood feel, and is cheesy to the bone.
I can't comment on the acting/directing/etc., since I wasn't able to watch it beyond the first half an hour; I was that disgusted with it.
I've seen movies by this director, and expected something decent at the very least.
If you frequently watch Hollywood B movies, then you'll be fine with it.
If you prefer intelligent, well articulated movies, don't bother.
Im proud of my romanian film maker Nae Carnfil.
Maybe the movie wont respect all the history in that time.
But the cast was excellent the costumes were great.And what i had liked the most, they respected the black jokes with allot of irony and cinism in them.
They showed the crazy leaders were in that time the real murders and how easily were peoples fooled by the system.The movie 100% need's an Oscar i hope he will get in time.
Also a word for Hollywood, "Bro come in Romania start to learn more history and than make more movies with romanian stories"amen.Message to my fellow romanian brothers, don't try to judge to movie be proud cause you are a ROMANIAN the movie is PERFECT.10+.
Vera Farmiga and Mark Strong played Romanian Jewish Communists who along with three others plot to rob the Romanian State Bank, a crime punishable by death.
The court and country decide to use the case to teach a lesson in propaganda film.
The burglars are acting as themselves in this film.
The burglary was more about robbing the bank but anti-Communist.
Vera Farmiga and Mark Strong gave the best performances in the film.
I would have liked to know more about it.
The film was shot on location abroad..
good movie, if you don't care about the history.
After wondering why reviews for this movie are quite polarizing, it became clear after watching the movie and reading about the history it is based on.The movie does work well as a fictional story, if you don't care about the history.
It is well done, has a catchy story, and an interesting way how it is told.
Unless you don't just watch Hollywood action blockbusters you might be fine with this movie.But the problem starts, when you take a look at the history.
The story behind this movie is not suitable for a fairy-tale where main characters are enjoying their role.
No wonder people will find this irreverent.
The movie itself does refer to the story it is based on, it also provides footage of the original propaganda film - and that does not match to the way the story is told.Other things that might be irritating is that main characters are speaking English and that Romania is too colorful for that time.
No problem if you get a dubbed version of the movie, no problem if you see it as a fictional story.
But the movie itself makes the connection to the historical background - and that's where it doesn't work..
You've probably never heard of the Ioanid Gang, or the bank robbery that they carried out in Bucharest in 1959.
I had never heard of it before I watched Nae Caranfil's "Closer to the Moon".
The movie isn't any kind of masterpiece, but sufficiently looks at this incident, and how Romania's Soviet-backed government arrested the gang and forced them to star in a propaganda film reenacting the robbery.One of the thing that we notice while watching the movie is the hypocrisy of the Eastern Bloc governments.
They claimed that they were establishing classless societies but there was a high society (and the people in the government had no qualms about themselves jewelry).
Later on, Nicolae Ceaușescu forced women to have as many children as possible, which overfilled Romania's orphanages.
Most of the heads of state in the Eastern Bloc were typical ideologues, but Ceaușescu sounded like a mental case.Anyway, the movie's worth seeing..
I chose it from a list of "On Demand" films on TV and the blurb was misleading otherwise I probably wouldn't have chosen it.
It struck me as an artistic film that's more about the acting and other aspects of its production, than it is about storytelling.
I found it to be similar to watching an early Fellini production in which a certain grotesqueness about the actors' faces and behaviors is supposed to be moving and often, humorous.
Perhaps if I had had more knowledge about the history upon which the film is based, I would have enjoyed it more?
Somehow, I don't think so.There's also the possibility that the discomfort I felt watching the film was the reaction the director and producers were going for.
Deja vu background on an aberrantly recurrent theme by Romanian directors.
Almost all high-rate Romanian directors have a somewhat perverted fetish about Communist Romania stories.
That being said, if you've seen a Romanian movie from the 2000's until present day, in over 90% of the cases it's some story set in Communist Romania,and how bad it was and how people where so against it all.
All of these stories are filled with one-sided prejudice opinions and resemble the directors view of the world.
So, this movie isn't any different from all the other famed movies our directors have launched in the past years about pre-1989 Romania.
The Ioanid gang, who where a bunch of superficial silly Bonn vivers on film where in fact a gang of guys (and a girl) with no ideological stance to their continuous dissidence before the WWII and afterwards.
They where acting against the regimes only for the fun of it, for the adventurous filling of being in contradiction with those in power , not because they opposed Nazism and Communism as ideologies.
They where Jews, who where oppressed by the Romanian Nazi collaborators and afterwards resented by the same Romanian Nazi collaborators(fascist legionnaires disguised as Communists and Bolsheviks as Romanian Iron Guard followers where to do after Germany lost the war) wrapped in the red flag of Communism.
But the storytelling, the way Caranfil romanticized a bunch of fools is not to my taste.
As a different approach by our distinguished directors, I'd like to see a movie about the atrocities committed in the years when fascists where in power in Romania, when our 'honorable' King Carol II imposed his dictatorial regime, banning parties and letting the legionnaires from the Iron Guard rise to power before slaughtering them as they, in return, set Bucharest on fire and killed many Romanian Jews and other personalities such as Nicolae Iorga.
It is more comfortable to pick the same over done subject of Communist Romania.
My advice to you after seeing this artistic movie is to see the real reenactment "propaganda" movie made by the authorities in 1960.
It's with the real participants and has a better way to sticking to facts as they occurred..
The synopsis sounded intriguing, and I'm a fan of both leads, so despite misgivings I went to see this film.
It's safe to say that Communists aren't renowned for their sense of humour, and are unlikely to be at their perkiest when facing death.
I was so bored I fell asleep, so never found out why they pulled the robbery, or who had fathered Alice's child.
The fact that this won 9 Romanian Oscar equivalents, including best picture, doesn't reflect well on that country's cinema.
Funnily enough there were no awards for the acting, which was the best thing, apart from the actual propaganda film at the end.
(The man on whom the leading character seemed based was as bald as Mark Strong, so why was this fine actor made to wear the least convincing toupee since Wayne, Stewart and Heston were last in films?).
It's a Jewish movie, but little else.
Now perhaps the fact that it was a movie about Jewish people should have been obvious from the description.
Fiddler on the Roof showed how to tell a story about underlying tragedy in a humorous and inclusive way.To paraphrase: Closer To The Moon is no Fiddler on the RoofIt is just a poorly made movie.I gave up watching it after 10 minutes, which was 5 more than my senses told me I should.
It doesn't.Very much a niche movie..
Set in 1959 and '60, in Bucharest, Romania.
and based on a true story, this film focuses on the plight of the group that was to become known as the Rosenthal Gang.
The group led by Max Radoiu Rosenthal (Mark Strong) were all once daring Jewish Resistance fighters vs.
the Nazis during WWII, in Romania.
They were all Communists as well, and when the Soviet Union seized complete control over Eastern Europe after the war, many of these Resistance fighters held elite positions in Romania.However now over a decade later, many of the fighters are being blacklisted and purged from the country's hierarchy.
As the film opens, the so-called Rosenthal gang is staging a daring daylight robbery of a bank transport van carrying loads of cash.
They're using the pretense of making a movie as the heist progresses, in the middle of Martyrs' Square in Bucharest.
Of course, this type of crime is unheard of in a Communist country.Flash forward a year, and we find the group has all been captured, tried, and sentenced to death by a firing squad for their crimes.
However, before their executions can take place, the government wants to recreate their story in a propaganda film, that will serve as a lesson for the Romanian people.The movie, written and directed by Romanian filmmaker Nae Caranfil, is presented in a most irreverent and satirical way, which unfortunately only at times came across as entertaining to me.
Towards the end of the film, as we finally learn the motivations of the "gang", it made little sense to me considering the dire consequences of what their actions could bring.Overall, I know this movie is presented in a most satirical way, but it had me "scratching my head" half of the time, specifically as to the path the main characters chose to take here..
Excellent movie.
Excellent movie.
A quintet of Jews seeing their status drop in postwar Romania rob a bank in Nae Caranfil's Closer to the Moon, only to be caught, convicted, and forced to reenact their crime in a slyly anti- Semitic propaganda film.
Though based on a true story, the film discards some of its claim to authenticity right off the bat, casting Brits and Americans in all the leads and having them speak English instead of Romanian; later, it will have trouble establishing the gang's motives for a crime they all but knew would lead to their execution.
The dialogue may not sell viewers on the motivations for a robbery where the loot was a nearly worthless currency, but the setting offers a melancholy that would be welcome elsewhere in the film..
Strange film.
Harry Lloyd, Vera Farmiga, Mark Strong, and Anton Lesser star in "Closer to the Moon" from 2014.This is a fictionalized version of the The Ioanid Gang's bank robbery in Romania that took place in 1959.
The gang was made up of six Jewish Romanian intellectuals (at least in this film, though there were others involved apparently).
They stole Romanian lei, about $250,000 U.S. dollars from an armored car at the National Bank of Romania.This was a controversial robbery (to say the least) because no one exactly knows why they did it.
The Romanian lei could only be used in Romania and not exchanged for hard currency, though supposedly the money was going to Zionist organizations.
However, none of the robbers were Zionist.The film comes up with a theory.
These people were underground revolutionaries fighting the Nazis in WW II.
At that time, they knew they could be caught and killed at any moment.
The leader says to them, robberies are never committed in Communist countries, it's something done in capitalist countries.
Let's rob a bank and make people sit up and take notice and question the ideals of Communism.
If they are caught, the punishment is execution.They pull off the robbery under the guise of shooting a film.
They are caught and then re-enact the robbery for a propaganda film.
Were they forced to, were they told their executions would be canceled - no one knows.A strange film on a strange subject for sure.
My problem was that it was presented at times in a very lighthearted way with jaunty music which was odd given that the end result was going to be execution.
There's nothing wrong with using humor in serious matters - Divided We Fall is an example, as is To Be Or Not to Be, and The Producers - but this was an odd mixture that, while interesting, didn't come off.The film was also slow-moving and lacked excitement.In the real story, the woman, played by Farmiga, is not executed and ultimately freed because she had two children.
In the film she has one child, and a slightly different reason is given for her freedom.The acting was good, particularly from David DeKeyser and Alan Corduner.
This I don't believe is an accurate re-telling of that robbery, but if you have any interest in it, you may like this. |
tt0383216 | The Pink Panther | As a child in Lugash, Princess Dala receives a gift from her father, the Maharajah: the "Pink Panther," the largest diamond in the world. This huge pink gem has an unusual flaw: looking deeply into the stone, one perceives a tiny discoloration resembling a leaping panther. 20 years later, Dala has been forced into exile following her father's death and the subsequent military takeover of her country. The new government declares her precious diamond the property of the people and petitions the World Court to determine ownership. Dala, however, refuses to relinquish it.
Dala (Claudia Cardinale) goes on holiday at an exclusive ski resort in Cortina d'Ampezzo. Also staying there is English playboy Sir Charles Lytton (David Niven)—who leads a secret life as a jewel thief called "The Phantom"—and has his eyes on the Pink Panther. His charming American nephew George (Robert Wagner) arrives at the resort unexpectedly. George is really a playboy drowning in gambling debts, but poses as a recent college graduate about to enter the Peace Corps so his uncle continues to support his lavish lifestyle.
On the Phantom's trail is French police detective, Inspector Jacques Clouseau (Peter Sellers). The Inspector doesn't realize his wife Simone (Capucine) is the paramour of Sir Charles and acts as a fence for the Phantom. Meanwhile, Simone dodges her amorous husband while trying to avoid her lover's playboy nephew who has decided to make the seductive older woman his latest conquest. Sir Charles has grown enamored of Dala and is ambivalent about carrying out the heist. The night before their departure, George accidentally learns of his uncle's criminal activities.
During a costume party at Dala's villa in Rome, Sir Charles and his nephew separately attempt to steal the diamond, only to find the jewel already missing from the safe. The Inspector discovers both men at the crime scene. They escape during the confusion of the evening's climactic fireworks display. A frantic car chase through the streets of Rome ensues. Sir Charles and George are both arrested after all the vehicles collide with one another in the town square.
Later, Simone informs Dala that Sir Charles wished to call off the theft and asks her to help in his defense. Dala then reveals that it was she herself who stole the diamond to avoid turning it over to the new government of her homeland after the World Court ruled in their favor. However, the Princess is also smitten with Sir Charles and has a plan to save him from prison. At the trial, the defense calls as their sole witness a surprised Inspector Clouseau. The barrister (John Le Mesurier) asks a series of questions that suggest Clouseau himself could be The Phantom. An unnerved Clouseau pulls out his handkerchief to wipe the perspiration from his brow, and the jewel drops from it. Great commotion follows while the Inspector faints.
As Clouseau is taken away to prison, he is mobbed by a throng of enamored women. Watching from a distance, Simone expresses regret, but Sir Charles reassures her that when the Phantom strikes again, Clouseau will be exonerated. Sir Charles invites George to join them on the Phantom's next heist in South America. Meanwhile, on the way to prison, the Roman police express their envy that Clouseau is now desired by so many women. They ask him with obvious admiration how he committed all of those crimes, Clouseau considers his newfound fame and replies, "Well, you know . . . it wasn't easy." The film ends with the cartoon Pink Panther as a traffic warden run over by the police car escorting Clouseau to prison. He gets back up, holding a 'The End' title card. | cult, murder, flashback | train | wikipedia | I mean this was the kind of movie I would expect to see Steve martin in but not Jean Reno or Kevin Kline.
The trouble is, it's pretty BAD slapstick, rendering this "re-imagining" (with thanks to Tim Burton's problematic but slightly underrated "Planet of the Apes") somewhat pointless, and another misstep on the CV of inexplicably employable producer Robert Simonds and director Shaun Levy.I'd be lying if I said I didn't laugh at all; the gag with the MGM lion is better than all of Kurtz & Friends' animated titles, and Steve Martin and Jean Reno masquerading as Beyonce's backup dancers is genuinely funny.
(And why is his hair white when his moustache is black?) Though star and co-writer, the former comic genius can't take all the blame; Kevin Kline's ineffective as Dreyfus (as well as never explaining why this supposedly French Chief Inspector sounds almost as British as some of the cast members), and though an uncredited Clive Owen is much better as Bond-alike Nigel Boswell, 006 ("One away from the big time"), his scene seems from an entirely different movie.
(I could also wonder why a movie predominantly set in France was partly filmed in Rome and Prague, but that's just being really picky.)Jean Reno is terrific as Clouseau's far more intelligent and supernaturally patient partner, and Beyonce Knowles turns in her best screen performance to date (probably because she's cast as a drop dead gorgeous world-famous singer), but ultimately ANY instalment of ANY animated incarnation of "The Pink Panther" is more satisfying than this entire movie.
Sure, there were a couple of funny bits, but they were certainly not enough to carry the movie - a lot like MIB II in this regard, where it felt like they had a couple of jokes left over from the first that they tried to use to carry the movie.The wonderful actors Kevin Kline and Jean Reno were wasted in their roles - though without them it would have been completely abysmal, and Beyonce does a good job as well.In short, it wasn't bad enough that I felt I wasted my time, but I'm sure glad that I went on a free pass and didn't pay $17 for the experience.
I had seen Sellers in the Return and Revenge movies as a youngster and thought Steve Martin could easily pull this roll off!
I left the theater feeling seriously ripped off and sick, sick of attempting to giggle at the same old joke of a man getting kicked in the family jewels.For many minutes following, I was afraid the movie was a big joke on us, as if these actors were attempting to get away with putting in as little as possible in return for our ticket monies.Get your money back or save your money for renting this flop from video store.
So, Sellers playing the inspector wasn't an instant classic, and took over a decade to catch on enough to make sequels.The plot in this outing is no more strained or outrageous than the others, and the slapstick comedy is just as forced at times as in the previous movies.
Steve Martin is horrible as Inspector Jacques Clouseau, and could quite possibly take away the title for worst accents from Kevin Costner!
First he tries dismally to revive the late great Phil Silvers character "Sergeant Bilko" and now he also has tried to revive equally dismally the late great Peter Sellers character "inspector Jacques Clouseau".Now don't get me wrong, I am a fan of Steve Martin but as I was checking out his movie history it dawned on me that he hasn't been funny in almost twenty years!
I hated it, it is insult not only to the original but also to Martin who seems to have taken to doing these god-awful remakes that in fact only serve to butcher the memory and heritage of the original film.Sellars turned a star performance in the Original and while it was extremely silly, it was not childish.I would suggest a better use of your time would be to drill a hole through your hand.
That will likely be the only movie that Johnny Depp, one of the world's best actors, shouldn't have made and that was almost embarrassing to watch.) And The Pink Panther should have been left the perfect jewel that was created by Peter Sellers..
It takes such gall to defile a classic like The Pink Panther.Who does Steve Martin think he is?
This movie unfolds slowly & tentatively, but picks up speed as it progresses...or maybe I was just too concerned with Steve Martin's interpretation of Inspector Clouseau, and I finally relaxed about halfway through the film.
I was mildly disappointed because I really enjoyed his french character & accent in French Kiss several years ago.The first few gags were very short-sided and fell flat, but once Clouseau starts looking for clues the slapstick works a little better & the film gets more enjoyable.
Many of the gags are predictable (as is the plot), but what really makes them work is Martin's reactions (which I really think was the key to Peter Seller's portrayal as well).This film was very tame, with only subtle innuendoes that most youngsters aren't likely to grasp.
So I ensured she watched the The Return of The Pink Panther (the best of the original series with Peter Sellers).
Watching Steve Martin try to fill the shoes of Peter Sellers is like comparing Vinilla Ice to Mozart.
Steve Martin takes everything Peter Sellers made hilarious and unforgettable: the bumbling ineptness,unintelligible french accent, and in the first 2 opening minutes had me wincing in pain.
If you have seen any of the original PINK PANTHER/Peter Sellers movies, I recommend not seeing the Steve Martin PINK PANTHER movie ever.
I can see NO REASON (except money) for making Pink Panther movies after the sad demise of Peter Sellers - and this isn't even a good attempt at one...
I think it is a sad attempt at making money and I do wish that they'd abandon their current filming of a sequel to this rubbish, seeing as it's only tarnishing the otherwise magnificent career of Steve Martin - a comedian not in any way in the league of Peter Sellers, but still, under more amicable circumstances, a highly enjoyable actor whom I would wish I could have a better opinion of, despite this film!.
Therefore we have to at least partly blame Steve Martin for the fact that each and every scene where he plays the clumsy inspector, no doubt with the intention to be funny, is an embarrassment to watch.
In the same way, Steve Martin's Inspector Jacques Clouseau is a totally new creation, as uniquely Martin's as the original was uniquely Sellers'.
By the end of the movie, I had totally accepted Steve Martin as the new Inspector Clouseau, never once trying to compare him to Peter Sellers.The film starts out with narration by Kevin Kline as Chief Inspector Dreyfus (Herbert Lom's character in the older films).
An animated version of Steve Martin's Clouseau chases after the famous Pink Panther to a traditional rendition of Henry Mancini's theme.
Yes, Peter Sellers' Clouseau was one of my favorite characters in my childhood, but I liked Steve Martin as Clouseau as well, and the good thing is: He didn't do anything to the image of original Clouseau in my mind.
He had the original Clouseau spirit, but he was a different "stupid detective with a French accent", reflecting the difference in his time and his style.Unfortunately, being a fan of Kevin Kline's humorous acting style, particularly that in the unforgettable "A Fish Called Wanda", I am not able to say I appreciated Kevin Kline's part in this movie.
for anyone who have seen the real inspector Clouseau in action, played so well by Peter Sellers, this movie is not only a HUGE disappointment, but more of a personal insult.
Jean Reno's good, Kevin Kline's quite good and of course Steve Martin remains what he is known for, a genius in the world of comedy..
Being an enormous fan of the original Pink Panther series, I expected as soon as I saw the preview that this film would be another unimaginative Hollywood rehash of a timeless classic, but I decided to give it a chance, and paid the price of the admission ticket.From the outset, I immediately saw the kind of uninspired performance I expected from Steve Martin for that role.
Granted, filling the shoes of Sellers, an enormously versatile and larger-than-life comedic actor, was an impossible feat, casting Martin was probably the second biggest blunder in the film just shy of the inclusion of Beyonce Knowles (If I never see her in another movie again, it will be too soon!).
In the context of the original film, the role of Clouseau, a decorated French inspector who somehow solved crime after crime, yet was unable to draw a bath or carry home a bag of groceries without suffering some calamity, could be no more aptly and humorously portrayed than by Peter Sellers.
To Martin's credit, probably no actor today could have come close to filling the shoes of Inspector Clouseau, and the added offenses from supporting cast members at least made Martin slightly less to blame for a truly abysmal tribute to a once exceptional classic.It is worth mentioning the one redeeming quality, the film's soundtrack, which did lend some vitality to an otherwise vacuous production, and finally, it goes to show that some things should not be tampered with.
The attempt to improve on or interpret what is very clearly out of their league to do so only denigrates the achievement of the original work, and can only spawn the kind of abomination we have seen with the new Pink Panther film..
Steve Martin's portrayal of Inspector Clouseau was amateurish and way too much of a caricature of the original Seller's version.
This is one of the reasons the Police Squad movies were so popular, Sgt. Drevin had the same likable viewer sympathy, "Gee, I'd do something stupid like that too." Martin, no matter what bad accent or rewarmed role he attempts, is just plain too darn smart a comedian and person to elicit sympathy in the audience.
I have always loved to see Steve Martin in films of all types, but never in my wildest dreams did I anticipate him being able pull off even a rudimentary Peter Sellers imitation.
Since I am a long time fan of the original Pink Panther movies, I knew it was a tall order to even come close.
Even though I love Peter Seller's portrayal of Clouseau, it didn't stop me from enjoying Steve Martin's take on the role.
I keep hearing people cry and complain that Steve Martin isn't funny and doesn't live up to Peter Sellers.
If you realize it's a new movie with a fresh twist, you'll like it.Steve Martin is hilarious as the bumbling Inspector Clouseau.
Everybody involved (except Beyonce) does a really good job, and believe me, if you don't think about Peter Sellers, this movie isn't nearly as bad as everyone says.
Steve Martin is GREAT as Inspector Jacques Clouseau, everyone will find a cast member they will enjoy Beyonce does a great job as the girlfriend of the victim with a heart and shows more depth and craft with each film, Jean Remo (loved him in The Professional and Ronin) does a great job and deserves to return.
Without trying to be Peter Sellers, Steve Martin is Clouseau.
He has made a very, very funny movie in the tradition of the original Pink Panther without replicating every scene and plot development.
The movie trailers for this film suck, and the critics have apparently been giving it a bad reputation...but this film is the funniest thing I have seen in years.Granted I am a huge Steve Martin fan, and I have loved the Pink Panther series since I was a kid....but my friends will back me up on this.
We laughed so hard at this movie that our eyes looked like we had been sobbing all night.There was no way to replace Peter Sellers, but Steve Martin made the character his own.
But Steve Martin pulls off a good and believable Clouseau with a mix of classic Pink Panther and his own brand of slapstick.
I know that Steve Martin is not as Peter Sellers but he wants to make fun like him.
The great Kevin Kline do a perfect role of Chief Inspector Dreyfuss as Steve Martin as Clouseau.
I think the bad comments of the movie they have been written by people who don't know nothing about the Pink Panther and they don't look at the good side of comedy.
Steve Martin's Clouseau was comic genius, his accent very well done - Jean Reno was very good as his "straightman", very different from other roles I've seen him do.
I actually saw the 1964 Pink Panther movie last night on TV and it's interesting to compare this with Steve Martin's "prequel." The original movie of course actually starred David Niven and a leading lady whose name I can't recall at the moment; Inspector Clouseau was not by any means the centerpiece.
I admit that I had mixed feelings about seeing this movie on its opening weekend; very few remakes even come close to matching the original, so I rarely spend 1st run prices to see them in theaters.But Steve Martin captures completely and re-creates to perfection the charm of Inspector Jacques Clouseau, the wonderful character Peter Sellers made famous.
He doesn't try to be Peter Sellers; he gives Clouseau his own style, and does an outstanding job.Kevin Kline is good as Chief Inspector Dreyfus, but I doubt anyone could play that role with as much flair as Herbert Lom.It's been a long time since I've laughed out loud at a comedy in a movie theater; this movie had me repeatedly laughing.
The "Pink Panther" movies, are without a doubt classics of slapstick comedy taken to perfection thanks to the talents of Blake Edwards, Heny Mancini and the legendary Peter Sellers.
The classic slapstick that Sellers made famous is present, although Martin gives the role his own touch.Steve Martin does a good job as Clouseau, although at times his acting goes over the top, as if he was trying too hard to fit Seller's shoes.
It will never be the same without Sellers, but Martin makes a good Inspector Clouseau that works for this times.
I'll just say that Steve Martin was a pretty good Clouseau, not imitating the late Peter Sellers, but giving his own spin to the role.
Sure, they could've smartened it up for the more modern, vastly more educated and superior 2006 audience, but then it wouldn't be a Pink Panther film, would it?I admit that there are many aspects of the original series that can't be touched with a 10-foot minicar here: For example, the lack of a real Cato (Martin can't quite bring himself to let go with Ponton in the way Sellers went crazy with Cato, with complete disregard to personal injury).
Yes, I grew up watching Peter Sellers and he was a great comedian but so is Steve and while the names and characters come from the early Panther movies, this one can stand on it's own merits.
Steve Martin brings Inspector Clouseau back to life in the amusing and usually funny "Pink Panther" remake..
You see when editing is used right it can be successful and to me this movie is a good example of that.Steve Martin plays the role of Clouseau very well.
If you're a fan of Steve Martin like I am, you will really enjoy this film.
A Steve Martin movie that's actually FUNNY!.
Finally, after a long wait, I had a good chance to join in with the rest of a packed theater watching a funny Steve Martin movie!
This is, far and away, the funniest Steve Martin flick I've seen since "All Of Me." And, it was certainly funnier than "Son of the Pink Panther," where Roberto Benigni played Peter Sellers' half-Italian love-child!
I've seen all the original peter Sellers films and thought they were fun, but i loved Steve Martin's take On Inspector Jacque Clousea, i didn't expect much from, this movie and the trailer did nothing for me, but when i sat in the theatre, it was just laugh out loud Hilarious, especially the scene where clousea was trying to annunciate the word Hamburger,and ends up saying DamBurguer, i want a Damburgeur!lol Classic, Beyonce was fun and Great in it Jean reno and Kevin Kleind were awesome to, this Movie Brings Pink panther Back to True form for a new generation!
Having watched most of the original Pink Panther movies I was truly disappointed with this production.
I consider myself a fan of both Steve Martin's previous work and the original Pink Panther pictures.
Peter Sellers is perhaps my favorite Clouseau out of all of them.Here's one thing I can say about the Steve Martin version: funny.
My brother hates Peter Sellers' Clouseau in the originals but he likes Steve Martin's version.
Instead of the classic humour of the Sellers original, we get flatulence, non-actors like Beyonce Knowles and a dumb script by Steve Martin and Len Blum.
This film is a disgrace to the reputation and the respect that the world has for Peter Sellers, Blake Edwards, and the original Pink Panther set of movies.
Knowing that this will never be a Sellers movie still I might have hoped that Steve Martin could give life to the story.
But I tried, I gave it a chance, but no one can do Jacques Clouseau as good as Peter Sellers could, it would be like casting Steve Martin as Hopalong Cassidy, no one but William Boyd could do it.
But if you do, Steve Martin, as always, delivers the best performance anyone (almost as much as Peter Sellers himself) can give you.All and all, i feel it only adorns the Pink Panther movies. |
tt0086101 | The Phantom of the Opera | === Prologue ===
On the stage of the fictional Opéra Populaire in 1905, an auction of old theatrical props is underway. Lot 665, purchased by the elderly Raoul, Vicomte de Chagny, is a papier-mâché music box in the shape of a barrel organ attached to the figure of a monkey in Persian robes playing the cymbals. He eyes it sadly, noting that its details appear "exactly as she said". Lot 666 is a shattered chandelier that, the auctioneer explains, has a connection to "the strange affair of the Phantom of the Opera, a mystery never fully explained". As the chandelier is uncovered, its lamps flicker to life and it magically rises over the audience to its original position in the rafters. As it ascends, the years roll back and the Opéra returns to its 1880s grandeur. ("Overture")
=== Act I ===
It is now 1881. As Carlotta, the Opéra's resident soprano prima donna, rehearses for the evening's performance, a backdrop collapses without warning. "The Phantom! He's here!" whisper anxious cast members. The Opera's new owners, Firmin and André, try to downplay the incident, but Carlotta refuses to continue and storms offstage. Madame Giry, the Opéra's ballet mistress, tells Firmin and André that Christine Daaé, a Swedish chorus girl and orphaned daughter of a prominent violinist, has been "well taught" and could sing Carlotta's role. With cancellation of the performance their only alternative, the owners reluctantly audition Christine, and to their surprise she is equal to the challenge. ("Think of Me")
Backstage after her triumphant début, Christine confesses to her best friend Meg (Madame Giry's daughter) that she knows her mysterious teacher only as an invisible "Angel of Music" ("Angel of Music"). The Opera's new patron, Raoul, the Vicomte de Chagny, finds Christine, his old childhood playmate, in her dressing room. ("Little Lotte") Christine reminisces with Raoul about the "Angel of Music" stories that her late father used to tell them and confides that the Angel has visited her and taught her to sing. Raoul laughs at her "fantasies" and invites her to dinner. He exits and a jealous Phantom appears in Christine's mirror in the guise of The Angel of Music. ("The Mirror/Angel of Music (Reprise)") Christine begs him to reveal himself and The Phantom obliges, pulling her through the mirror and into his underground realm. ("The Phantom of the Opera") They cross a subterranean lake to his secret lair beneath the opéra house. The Phantom explains that he has chosen Christine to sing his music and enchants her with his own sublime voice. ("The Music of the Night") Christine sees a mannequin resembling herself in a wedding dress, and when the mannequin suddenly moves, she faints. The Phantom picks her up and places her gently on a bed.
As the Phantom composes music at his organ, Christine awakens to the sound of the monkey music box. ("I Remember") She slips behind the Phantom, lifts his mask, and beholds his real face. The Phantom rails at her curiosity, then ruefully expresses his longing to look normal—and to be loved by her ("Stranger Than You Dreamt It").
Meanwhile, Joseph Buquet, the Opéra's chief stagehand—who, like Madame Giry, inexplicably knows much about the Phantom—regales everyone with tales of the "Opéra Ghost" and his terrible Punjab lasso. ("Magical Lasso") Madame Giry warns Buquet to exercise restraint. In the managers' office, Madame Giry delivers a note from the Phantom: He demands that Christine replace Carlotta in the new opera, Il Muto, or there will be a terrible disaster "beyond imagination". ("Notes") Firmin and André assure an enraged Carlotta that she will remain the star; ("Prima Donna") but during her performance, ("Poor Fool, He Makes Me Laugh") the Phantom reduces her voice to a frog-like croak, forcing her to withdraw. A ballet interlude ensues to keep the audience entertained as Christine prepares to replace Carlotta. Suddenly the corpse of Buquet, hanging from the Punjab lasso, drops from the rafters. Firmin and André plead for calm as the Phantom's diabolical laughter is heard.
In the ensuing mêlée, Christine escapes with Raoul to the roof, where she tells him about her subterranean rendezvous with the Phantom. Raoul is sceptical, ("Why Have You Brought Me Here?/Raoul, I've Been There") but swears to love and to protect her always, and Christine reciprocates his love. ("All I Ask of You") The Phantom, who has overheard their entire conversation, is heartbroken. He angrily vows revenge against Raoul ("All I Ask of You (Reprise)") and, in a fit of rage, sends the Opéra's mighty chandelier crashing to the stage as the curtain falls.
=== Act II ===
Six months later, in the midst of the gala masquerade ball, the Phantom, costumed as the Red Death, makes his first appearance since the chandelier disaster. ("Masquerade/Why So Silent?") He announces to the stunned guests that he has written an opera entitled Don Juan Triumphant. He demands that it be produced immediately, with Christine (who is now engaged to Raoul) in the lead role, and warns of dire consequences if it is not. He seizes Christine's engagement ring and vanishes in a flash of fire and smoke. Raoul demands that Madame Giry tell him about the Phantom. She reluctantly replies that he is a brilliant musician and magician born with a terrifyingly deformed face, who escaped from captivity in a travelling freak show and disappeared.
During rehearsals, Raoul hatches a plan to use Don Juan Triumphant as a trap to capture the Phantom, knowing the Phantom will be sure to attend its première. ("Notes/Twisted Every Way") Christine, torn between her love for Raoul and her gratitude for the Phantom's teaching, visits her father's grave, longing for his guidance. ("Wishing You Were Somehow Here Again") The Phantom appears, again under the guise of the Angel of Music. ("Wandering Child") Christine nearly falls under his spell, but Raoul arrives to rescue her. The Phantom taunts Raoul, launching fiery missiles at him, ("Bravo Monsieur") until Christine begs Raoul to leave with her. Furious, the Phantom sets fire to the cemetery.
Don Juan Triumphant opens with Christine and Ubaldo Piangi, the Opéra's principal tenor, singing the lead roles. ("Don Juan") During their duet, Christine realises that she is singing not with Piangi, but with the Phantom himself. ("The Point of No Return") When he expresses his love for her and gives her his ring, Christine rips off his mask, exposing his deformed face to the shocked audience. As Piangi is found strangled to death backstage, the Phantom seizes Christine and flees the theatre. An angry mob led by Meg searches the theatre for the Phantom, while Madame Giry directs Raoul to the Phantom's subterranean lair, and warns him to beware his Punjab lasso.
When Raoul arrives at the lair, Christine is wearing the mannequin's wedding dress. ("Down Once More/Track Down This Murderer") The Phantom ambushes Raoul and binds him with his lasso. He tells Christine that he will free Raoul if she agrees to stay with him forever; if she refuses, Raoul will die. ("Final Lair") Christine responds that it is the Phantom's soul that people fear, not his face, and kisses him. The Phantom, at last, understands that he cannot compel Christine to love him, and releases them both. Christine returns the Phantom's ring, bids him farewell, and exits with Raoul. The Phantom, weeping, huddles on his throne and covers himself with his cape. The mob storms the lair and Meg pulls away the cape—but the Phantom has vanished; only his mask remains. | revenge, gothic, melodrama | train | wikipedia | There is a reason this was only aired on television once!!!.
Jane Seymour and "Phantom" fans beware!!!
V. movie has to be the worst adaptation of the famous Gaston Leroux story filmed to date.
Ms. Seymour plays two roles: Elena, a suicidal soprano, and Maria, a bitchy soprano.
Maria (the Christine Daae character) hasn't one good quality about her, making the viewer wonder what the Phantom is so in love about.
Michael York plays the equally irritating director of "Faust", the show that the opera company has been rehearsing for ever.
In a nutshell, Ms. Seymour's hair gets bigger with each scene, her costumes look like a third rate community threatre production of "My Fair Lady" (...she usually looks so beautiful in period costumes!) and her lip-synching only works in wideshots.
Mr. York's hair gets more and more like Orphan Annie's as the film progesses and his costumes look like Oscar Wilde's cast offs.
The one redeeming moment in this film, is when the Phantom's face is finally shown.
Stan Winston's make-up is quite good.I am a fan of both Jane Seymour AND "The Phantom of the Opera".
After seeing this film, I just wanted to call her up and ask her why she made this!!!!.
should be respected for it's faithful unmasking.
Contrairy to what everyone thinks this is not a bad film.
While, true it isn't faithful to Leroux, and the acting can make you feel like your watching a soap opera from the seventies, it is still an interesting take on the story.
Maximillion Schell does a wonderful job as the Phantom, Shandor Korvan who after losing his wife to suicide takes revenge on the Baron and his men who drove her to it and in the process of killing the critic has both acid drip on his face and is caught on fire.
After being rescued by the city ratchacer, did I mention it takes place in Hungary not France, he slowly recovers all the while scheming, waiting for the chance to destroy the Baron.
Then a Italian American girl named Maria, not Christine, who looks almost identical to his wife, comes to sing at the opera.
Korvan thinks Maria is his wife returned to him in a different form and he trains her to sing like he wished he could have taught his wife to sing.
in the meantime Maria falls in love with the director(played by Micheal York) , our Roul.
In the end The phantom steals her, jealous of her love for the director.
She unmasks him; the director rescues her, and then we come to where the movie gets bad.
I think The Phantom is trying to find Maria but gets side tracked and decided to cut down the chandelier while he is on it, maybe he was committing suicide, but he sees Maria is under him and he yells for her to move as it falls in extreme slow motion.
In fact its so slow everyone has time to move out of the way and the only one killed is the Phantom.
Everyone is sad and the end.
There's a lot of bad things about this film, hey its a TV movie, but the thing that redeems it all is the Unmasking scene.
It is fantastic.
The makeup effects for the Phantom's disfigurement is wonderful.
It seems the one thing that they tried to keep accurate to the book is the Phantoms face.
It doesn't even look like a burn; it looks congenital.
He hardly has a nose, his skin is a nasty yellow and parchment-like, and he only has a few hanks of dark brown hair on sides of his head and on his forehead.
His mask is great too, it is a black hood with a blue green full face mask over the face with a movable jaw.
Now, about the unmasking, HE QUOTES LEROUX!!!!
Maria even burns his mask like Christine does in the book.
Schell performances as Shandor Korvan, the Phantom, is great.
As Shandor he seems believable that he is mental unstable and when he becomes The Phantom he is completely insane after the loss of his wife and his body, remember his whole body gets burned.
He plays the Phantom for Horror and sympathy, like Lon Chaney, and I think he would of been a great Erik in a Leroux based movie.
He has the deep voice for it.
What you really have to remember is to not compare it to the book.
Like all Phantom movies its its own work of art.
Just because it not exactly like the book, or what you think is the book, referring to the last summary..
Really the Best Phantom Film!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.
I love this movie, is very close to the original novel, and the actors, Oscar winner, Maximillian Schell (from DEEP IMPACT)Jane Seymour (from Judgment AT NUREBERG) and Michael Your (from THE HAUNTING OF HELL HOUSE) are fantastic!The set was wonderful, and the music is good to!
I think, Schell makes the most darkest and original Phantom, this time named Sandor Korvin, a deformed maestro, who lives on the catacombs below the Budapest Opera House.
This is the best phantom, but why do not have it Oscars?
This is the only disappointment thing.
But this don't stops to make this film, not only the best, but with best actors of all!I really recommend "The Phantom of the Opera" of 1983 to any, one, I am saying, really any one!
And remember this is the best!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.
WHY Screw With a CLASSIC?.
It is incomprehensible to me why some "writers" feel the compulsion to totally mess up a classic story by changing everything about the original that made it worthwhile in the first place.
I long ago noticed an interesting parallel between 2 classic tragic romances, both set in Paris-- THE HUNCHBACK OF NOTRE DAME and THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA.
Each has been redone multiple times.
In the case of HUNCHBACK, each time it seems to have been done with minor revisions, and generally, the results have been excellent.
In the case of PHANTOM, each time it gets mutated further and further from the original, and while the results may be intriguing to behold, each version is like an entirely different story!
So it was that the 1943 remake used the original merely as a springboard for what was really a Nelson Eddy-Jeannete McDonald musical-comedy, pushing the "real" star almost out of his own picture, and completely changing the back-story (while ironically restoring the original ending from the book-- but almost nothing else).
And so it was that the 1963 Hammer version totally ignored the original, and used the famous and popular '43 version (my Dad saw it while in the army and LOVED it) as its springboard, to do the typical "Hammer" thing of "different for the sake of different", crafting a film where every single frame screams "Hammer" (was there ever a studio where the finished product was SO uniquely recognizable?).
AND, so it was that this 1983 TV version appears to haphazardly take elements from ALL 3 previous films, and mix them together in a jumble that, while some bits seem nicely-done, others are just HORRIBLE, and the overall product is just a jumbled, at times nearly-incoherent MESS.Let's take the origin: from '43 we had a composer who was a sad, pathetic man to begin with, who mistakenly believed his compositions were being stolen from him.
This led to the accident of his disfigurement.
The '63 version changed this to an actual theft and called-for revenge that went terribly wrong.
The '83 version changes the hero from composer to conductor-- and its his wife who's "stolen" from him rather than his music, and a critic's office rather than a print shop destroyed by fire.While there was some mysterious figure lurking in the underworld in the '25 version (and we never found out if he had ANY connection with the Phantom or not-- a wonderfully minor detail), the '63 version had both a rat-catcher and a sewer-living derelict.
The derelict wound up causing The Phantom's death in the '63 film-- but, absurdly, in this one, he not only rescues the composer from the fire, he takes him down to the underworld in the first place, gives him the mask, shows him the maps of the catacombs-- in effect, this guy who never utters a single word of dialog CREATES the Phantom!
I found this so annoying, and it reminded me of the similar absurdity of Sean Connery "teaching" Kevin Costner the ways of Chicago in Brian DePalma's deliriously misguided UNTOUCHABLES remake.I'm not sure what to make of Michael York's character in here-- he starts out likable, then turns into a heel, then winds up being the one who investigates and learns the truth about The Phantom, while the police inspector is merely a DOLT.
The scene with the inspector's family merely makes all of them annoying, in a lame attempt at a comic interlude.
(The inspector in the '25 film was that story's "hero"-- if you discount Erik himself, who despite his murderous antics was admirable right to the end, when justice and a murderous mob caught up with him.) The whole thing completely falls apart in the last half-hour, after The Phantom kidnaps Maria.
After going to such lengths to make her the success his wife wasn't able to be, he suddenly changes his mind for no apparent reason and wants to keep her "safe" while the vicious Prima Donna he earlier drove away COMES BACK.
Then, after Maria is rescued (with relatively little fanfare), and the conductor and inspector plot to trap The Phantom (HOW?), he decides to cut the chandelier loose (a bit predicted much, much earlier in the film in one of the worst and most awkward bits of foreshadowing I have ever seen).
Cutting the chandelier at this point makes no sense-- and he does it so badly (in a horrible exercise of "slow-motion" to boot), that nobody gets killed except himself.
This Phantom is not only insane, he's incompetent as well.My recommendation to anyone interested in these films is, START here-- then work your way backward to 1963, then 1943, then 1925.
If you do, EACH version you watch GETS BETTER.
My admiration for the '25 version-- the ONLY one that even attempts to do the book-- has steadily increased over the years with every viewing.
Even more so since I got my hands on the video with the Rick Wakeman score.
(Some might find that bordering on blasphemy-- but I've come to love the music so much, and it managed to make what was already my #1 favorite silent film even more enjoyable.).
One of the best of all "Phantom of the Opera" films!.
This film is all that I could hope for and more!
I am surprised that this great film is so under-rated.
The music is beautiful, as is the young Jane Seymour, and Max a million Smell makes an excellent Phantom, especially with his mysterious deep voice.
He makes his first appearance in the opening scene as the conductor with bed-head.
This film has an excellent atmosphere and gothic mood.
There is some of the most unique and original camera work that I've ever seen in this film.
The film includes the masked ball and a finale that will keep you on the edge of your seat and your heart pounding.
When trying to find this film avoid the Canadian video release which mangles the movie terribly by rearranging scenes, and ultimately the film doesn't really make much sense.
The film is occasionally available on eBay in a version that looks like the master has been dubbed from another, so the quality isn't very good, but it's still a really great film.
I would love to see this film released on DVD..
A Godawful adaptation of the classic tragic romance story....
This was a horrible and disastrous version of Gaston Leroux's love story.
There are now completely different characters, which means goodbye Erik Destler, goodbye Christine Daae, and goodbye Roaul de Chagny, and there is also a completely new storyline.
Let me make the comparison.Gaston Leroux's Version of the Story:A hideously deformed "phantom" known as Erik Destler is born with facial deformity and distortion, which causes him to hide his face away in a mask.
When he sets sights on the beautiful Christine Daae, a soprano at the Opera Populaire, he decides that he loves her and therefore teaches her to sing and gives her lessons daily.
This is all well and good up until the point where Roaul de Chagny, a man who is also in love with Christine and was childhood sweethearts with her, comes into the picture.
Then a love triangle forms and a war begins because of it.This Version of the Story:A man loses his wife to suicide after she receives a bad review, and as a result of his anger and frustration, he is burned in a chemical spill.
The burn causes his face to appear horrifying and frightening, and he hides it away with a full face mask and returns as The Phantom of the Opera five years later to avenge his wife.
He sets sights on a woman who possesses almost identical features of his wife and falls in love with her, but unfortunately, she already has a lover, which results in the final showdown.
This version of the story is distorted and untrue, which brings the value of the movie down by far.
It is also incredibly boring and slow-paced, and that's a lot to say coming from an obsessed freak of the story.
Middling, muddled.
I wonder why so typically French a story was transferred to Budapest.
In the novel, the opera house is as much a star of the story as the characters.
It makes no sense to shift the story.The acting is OK at best and often quite silly.
Overall this is a rather cheezy and lame attempt at the story, with the usual attempts to rewrite and revise the story.I often wish that someone would attempt a version that is truer to the original book, even though it was penny-dreadful claptrap.
All too often they try to make the Phantom so sympathetic that they lose sight of his psychopathic side.
However, in the original novel Christine is such a stupid drip that she does get quite annoying..
Just because it's different, does not mean it's bad..
It took forever to find and purchase, but I am glad to complete my 'Phantom of the Opera' collection with this.
This is a wonderful adaptation.
Sandor Korvin is now the Phantom, disfigured by acid as with several other film versions.
The music, mostly from Gounod's 'Faust', adds a powerful backing to this film.
There are tones of several stories, including Faust, Orpheus, and several other classics.
Though it may begin different from the original story, it blends in wonderfully later on, almost becoming entirely from the Leroux original.
And remember, without various adaptations, there would be no creativity in the world.
The Phantom has yet to fail me..
Quite a respectable adaptation..
This TV film of the novel by Gaston Leroux won't win any awards but it's still worth seeing.
Maximillan Schell is good but he tends to ham it up a little, especially when he becomes the Phantom.
The makeup job is pretty scary.
I shalln't divulge any details but it's worth waiting for.
A number of changes to the original story: the setting being that of Budapest instead of Paris; the Phantom being married before fate intervenes and the title role being about as unsympathetic as can be.
The scale of the production is actually quite small.
There aren't many expansive camera shots on location and the sets look a bit cramped (apart from the ones for the Opera house and the Phantom's lair).
I am not a fan of either Jane Seymour or Michael York, they bloody well irritate me!
The former comes across as aloof and arrogant.
The latter seems boorish and rigid.
I can't understand why Seymour was cast in two roles which are practically identical.
There is nothing in the way of differentiating between the two.
Jeremy Kemp is effective as the sleazy, devious Opera house manager.
A great performance.
The climax isn't too bad, if somewhat depressing.
This version isn't in the same league of greatness as the 1925 film..
So far the worst version of Gaston Leroux's classic.
Robert Markowitz: THE PHANTOM OF THE OPERA (1983) made for TV movie.Story is set in Budapest after the First World War. The vile opera manager doesn't get the newest soprano to his bed so he arranges a critical review of her performance.
Soprano drowns herself, feeling she has betrayed her conductor husband Sandor Korvin.
Korvin goes mad, kills the publisher of the review but also gets burned in the face by acid.
Rat catcher hides him beneath the opera house.
Four years later Maria, the exact replica of Korvin's wife, comes to sing to the opera.
Both Phantom and Michael, the new director, falls in love with her.This kind of story became a great Gothic romance in Dracula (1992).
Unfortunately it gets wasted here.
Director seems to have no skill whatsoever.
The dark opera house provides good surrounding but he doesn't use them in any part.
Also cast is totally wasted.
Maximilian Schell (Sandor Korvin/The Phantom) is a great actor with a deep haunting voice but he seems to be in this only for money.
Jane Seymoure (Maria/Elena) I think has never had any acting talent and this isn't exception.
Even Jeremy Kemp as the opera manager fails to give same kind of a slimy villain as Michael Gough in 1962 version.
So it is Michael York (Michael) who steals to show and is the only enjoyable thing here.Last word: avoid at all cost!
Unless you're die hard York fan. |
tt0032304 | Captain Caution | In the 1840s, Captain Michael Fury (Brian Aherne) is an Irish patriot transported to New South Wales for his political involvement. He is farmed out as an servant to Arnold Trist, a cruel land owner who uses whipping to keep discipline. He is accompanied by fellow convicts Blackie, Coughy and Bertie.
Fury escapes from prison and meets Jeannette Dupre, the daughter of strict Mennonite Francois Dupre. Fury discovers that Trist is trying to drive settlers from the area to take over their land.
Fury organises the settlers to take action against Trist. He returns to prison to recruit convicts to help settlers. Trist's men attack the Bailey ranch. Fury, helped by Blackie, Coughy and Bertie, oppose them.
Jeanette begins to fall in love with Fury. Her father forbids her to see him, so she runs away. Dupre then tells Trist where Fury can be found. Trist double crosses Dupre and imprisons him. Fury and his men narrowly escape and ambush from Trist's men.
Dupre's house is burnt down and a charred body is discovered in the ruins. Fury is arrested for Dupre's murder and sentenced to hang. However Blackie hears Dupre calling from his cell, rescues him and presents him to the Governor.
Trist is exposed. He attempts to escape but is shot by a dying Coughy. The Governor grands Fury a pardon and places Blackie and Bertie in his custody. | revenge, action, violence, romantic | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0073519 | Dieci bianchi uccisi da un piccolo indiano | Clark and Summer, a young married couple, are on their way to see Summer's parents. Their car has a blowout and, as they do not have a spare tire, the couple decides to walk onwards and find help. Upon arriving at a small collection of buildings, they realise that the town is abandoned. It isn't long before a drifter in a cowboy hat comes along. The stranger introduces himself as Joseph, and immediately overshadows Clark with his personality and style. That evening, around a campfire, the three talk: Summer shows Joseph a photo of her older son, Ben, who is Clark's stepson, while Joseph talks about how unlike Clark - who is a slave to society — he is himself, being beholden to no one but God. God is great god is good
The next morning, Joseph suggests that he and Clark walk back to the couple's car and siphon off the gas, then continue on to Joseph's truck and leave the area. Summer wants to accompany them, but Joseph and Clark both say that in her delicate condition, she should remain. Joseph pulls out a revolver and teaches Summer how to use it, touching her in an intimate way. Clark is obviously furious, but he and Joseph still set off together. On the way, Joseph continually mocks Clark for his weaknesses, claiming to know everything about him. Clark is convinced that Joseph is a fanatical, religious hippie. When they arrive, Joseph tells Clark that everything he is about to go through is his own fault, because of his sins, then disappears. Clark opens the trunk of his car to find Ben's rotting body, buzzing with flies. He is horrified, then realises that he has left Summer alone and rushes back.
Meanwhile, Summer has found a room in one of the abandoned buildings with photographs on the wall, including her photo of Ben, with a cross scratched over his face. She turns to find that Joseph is in the room with her. She attempts to shoot him, but the gun he gave her is unloaded. Joseph subdues her and uses a razor to carve a cross into her forehead, saying that she will have the mark forever and will remember what happened there. She begs to know why he is doing this and he claims that it is God's will. At that moment, Clark arrives and attacks Joseph, beating him to the ground.
When Joseph regains consciousness, he is tied to a chair. Clark demands to know how they can escape the town, but Joseph won't say. Clark takes a pair of pliers and cuts off one of Joseph's fingers in order to make him talk. Finally Joseph admits that he is an avenging angel, sent to punish the wicked for their sins. He suggests that Clark tell Summer what was in the trunk of their car but Clark says it was nothing. Joseph then agrees to help them as long as he can first show them something down by the river. Just past the water tower, there is a field of rough, wooden crosses, marking graves. Summer asks if Joseph killed all those people but he claims that he never killed anyone; all did it to themselves and every one of them deserved it.
Further into the makeshift graveyard, there are three empty graves. Joseph again exhorts Clark to tell Summer what his sin is. When Clark refuses, Joseph loads the gun and hands it to Summer, reiterating that she need only cock it and squeeze the trigger. Receiving no response to Joseph's repeated question, Summer assumes it has something to do with Ben and finally shoots Clark. When she asks what she has done to deserve this pain, Joseph tells her that her sin is apathy: she knew something was wrong but did nothing about it.
Joseph raises his hand to the sky and murmurs a prayer, and his finger reappears. His face is no longer wounded and bloody. Leaving Summer at the graveyard with the gun, he walks off. Summer attempts to shoot herself, but there had been only one bullet in the chamber. | western, revenge | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0233422 | Chachi 420 | Jaiprakash Paswan a.k.a. Jai (Kamal Haasan) and Janki Paswan (Tabu) are fighting a divorce case. Janki is the only daughter of Durgaprasad Bhardwaj (Amrish Puri), a staunch Brahmin businessman. Jaiprakash, a Dusadh, is an assistant dance director in films. The duo fall in love and married against the will of Durgaprasad. However, Janki buckles under the pressure of a middle-class life. Other differences crop up between the couple and Janki walks out. The court grants the divorce. Jai is allowed to meet his beloved daughter Bharti (Baby Sana) once a week. But when he sneaks into the Bhardwaj house to steal Bharti, he loses visitation rights.
Meanwhile, Durgaprasad puts ads in local newspapers for a nanny for Bharti. Jai sees this as an opportunity and calls Durgaprasad. Impersonating a female, he introduces himself as 'Mrs. Lakshmi Godbole' and applies for the position. With the help of a drunkard makeup artist Joseph (Johnny Walker in his last and memorable role), Jai undergoes a complete transformation into Lakshmi Godbole, a dignified elderly Marathi woman. He goes to the interview, where he is generally viewed as the last pick. But Bharti has an accident, and Lakshmi acts promptly to give first aid. Lakshmi gets the job and the respect of the Bhardwaj family.
Jai begins the job, but creates plausible stories so that his real work schedule does not clash with the job in Bhardwaj's home. Apart from Joseph, only Bharti (who sees through her father's disguise) knows the real identity of Lakshmi. Jai learns that Durgaprasad's secretary Banwari Lal (Om Puri) is not exactly thrilled at Laxmi's entry. The reasons are various, such as Banwari's womanizing nature (which naturally views an old woman like Lakshmi with dislike) and his desire to siphon off Durgaprasad's money via friendly maids.
Meanwhile, Durgaprasad decides to get Janki remarried to Dr. Rohit (Rajendranath Zutshi), her childhood friend. One day, when Janki and Rohit get attacked by goons in the market, the doctor scampers. Lakshmi saves Janki's life and modesty. Later, Durgaprasad tells Lakshmi that he has changed his mind about the marriage on learning of Rohit's cowardice. Lakshmi also exposes the thefts committed by the maid in the Bhardwaj house. The maid is fired. Banwari has no other option but to let a male cook be appointed instead. Jai runs into his old friend Shiraz (Nassar), a Muslim restaurant chef who is now doing menial jobs as he lost his job trying to help Jai. Laxmi introduces Shiraz to the Bhardwaj household as Pandit Shivraj Sharma, a mute Brahmin cook. Interestingly, even Shiraz does not know that Lakshmi and Jai are the same person.
Jai learns that although Janki likes Lakshmi, who by now has earned the affectionate title of Chachi (a respected aunt), she still loathes Jai. Meanwhile, Jai has other problems in his own home. His landlord Hari (Paresh Rawal) is after him for his rent. After he sees Lakshmi, Hari falls for her. As if that is not enough, a struggler named Ratna (Ayesha Julka) tries to cozy up to Jai. Meanwhile, Durgaprasad also falls for Lakshmi and goes to the extent of proposing to her.
Jai, as Lakshmi, buys time by telling Durgaprasad that 'she' is married but 'her' husband has left 'her' and got converted into a Christian named Joseph. Lakshmi also convinces Durgaprasad that 'she' is still waiting for 'her' husband. On the other hand, Jai tells Hari that Banwari is Lakshmi's husband Durgaprasad. He also tells Hari to harbour no feelings for Lakshmi. At same time, Jai tells Banwari that Lakshmi's husband has converted and calls himself Haribhai.
Banwari intensifies his efforts to discredit Lakshmi in the eyes of Durgaprasad and Janki but in vain. Meanwhile, Janki and Durgaprasad realize that they have punished Jai too hard for all the things he has done. Banwari gets a small victory when he blows Shiraz's cover. But Lakshmi makes Durgaprasad see sense that religion and caste do not matter. Durgaprasad shows mercy on Shiraz, giving a verdict that the cook can stay and need not put up his act anymore. However, now Durgaprasad ends up hurting Janki's feelings.
Banwari and Janki see that there is something fishy about Lakshmi. Meanwhile, Shiraz tries to force Lakshmi to marry Durgaprasad. Shiraz threatens 'her' by covering himself in kerosene, which forces Jai to reveal himself. But, owing to a misunderstanding about this scene, Banwari is able to convince Janki that Lakshmi is a promiscuous woman who is seducing the cook as well as Durgaprasad. Janki, who is very hurt by the turn of events, leaves her father's home and goes to reconcile with Jai. But on seeing Ratna waiting for him, and Lakshmi's clothes strewn about his home, Janki gets the wrong idea that her husband is also promiscuous. Janki goes to commit suicide. Jai/Lakshmi follows on a motorcycle and jumps into the river to save her. There, Jai/Lakshmi reveals his/'her' true self. Janki hears the whole story and reconciles with him. They come up with a story that Lakshmi died trying to save Janki.
To tie up other loose ends, they convince Banwari that Lakshmi is dead. They threaten and blackmail Banwari with his secrets to ensure his silence. They tell Hari to let it go. Joseph almost accidentally betrays some part of the truth, but Jai hushes up the matter by saying that Lakshmi will always remain alive in the hearts of everybody who knew her. Jai and Janaki remarry. | adult comedy, flashback | train | wikipedia | Indian Mrs. Doubtfire...only funnier!.
I LOVED this movie!
I have just recently discovered Bollywood films and this one was on TV recently.
It was much funnier than Mrs. Doubtfire with less goofiness and none of that hit-you-over-the head type of audience pandering.
Even as a Black girl sitting at home I was able to understand and laugh at 100% of this movie.
It's not often that I have the patience to sit and watch a movie that runs for 3+ hours but the complexities and hilarity were so well blended that I felt myself drawn to the screen.
Not only did it have my rapt attention but I had to READ the entire thing so you know it's good when...
Someone commented that they bought it on DVD and now that I know it's available I will do the same!.
Bollywood remake better than Hollywood original.
I first caught this at the Eros Cinema in Bombay.
Even without English subtitles this non-Hindi speaker thoroughly enjoyed it.
Recently I found this on DVD with the subtitle option and liked it all the more.
Much funnier than the original "Mrs. Doubtfire", not nearly so cloying.
I first knew Kamal Hassan (writer, director, lead actor) from a Tmail gangster film, "Narayan".
That he is so funny, and subtle even in a larger-than-life role, was a great surprise.
Don't miss this if you ever get the opportunity.
The fight scene in he baazar is an instsant classic!.
Good remake of MRS DOUBTFIRE.
Kamal Hassan one of the most talented actors we have This is one of his most remembered films after EK DUJJE KE LIYE(1981)The film was also directed by him and the film is a good movie to watch In fact Kamal Hassan looked so perfect as a women that he was unrecognisable The film starts off well but actually kick starts when kamal becomes a women the film has several hilarious scenes like the entire revelation of the servant, Om Puri's lines The escapades by kamal Hassan and the confusionTill the climax the film keeps you entertainedDirection by kamal Hassan is very good Music is goodKamal Hassan is flawless in his role as a women and even as a lover the role got him immense popularity Tabu too does well Amrish Puri is superb always in deadpan humour and he rocks here as well Om Puri too is hilarious in a comic role Johny Walker is good Ayesha Jhukla is okay Paresh Rawal lends some funny moments.
Great Adaptation of Mrs. Doubtfire.
I saw this film for a comedy class and throughly enjoyed it.
It is the only Hindi movie I have ever seen, and it was excellent.
It is somewhat similar to the movie, Mrs. Doubtfire, however, there are many style and plot differences.
It is funnier than the original without losing the touching family side of the story.
It centers around a man, a film choreographer, who loses his daughter when he and his wife get a divorce.
She moves back home and he eventually sees an ad to be his daughter's caretaker.
He ends up enchanting the family with his super "woman" feats.
He also catches the affections of the father of the ex-wife.
Very long, but the movie is great from beginning to end.
Overindulgent but fun remake of Mrs Doutfire.
Kamal Hasan remakes Mrs Doubtfire and gives an inspired performance as Mrs Luxmi Godbole, a god-fearing Maharashtrian matriarch.
'Chachi 420' itself is a bit of a mess.
The film is overlong with messy subplots and Tabu is strangely lackluster.
Yet Kamal Hasan makes it worthwhile with his superb comic timing.
It does get overindulgent at times with some unnecessary songs.
Amrish Puri is good as usual.
Om Puri has a brief but funny cameo.
There are some risqué scenes involving Nasser, so family audiences beware.
Still, the film is well worth watching on television or DVD.Overall 6/10.
Worst movie ever!.
Absolute Entertainment!!
Full of comedy and absolutely the best remake of MRS DOUBTFIRE. |
tt0170107 | History Is Made at Night | Irene Vail (Jean Arthur) decides to divorce her husband, the rich ship owner Bruce Vail (Colin Clive), after he falsely accuses her of having an affair. Bitterly jealous and possessive of Irene, Vail learns that he can prevent the divorce from being finalized if he can provide evidence that she has been involved with another man within six months of filing for divorce. Vail pays his driver, Michael (Ivan Lebedeff), to go to Irene's hotel room in Paris and pretend to be her lover, with the intention of having a private detective catch them in a compromising position. However, an unknown man overhears Irene's startled cry upon finding Michael in her room. A struggle ensues when the man defends Irene against Michael's unwanted advances, and ends with Michael on the floor, unconscious. When Vail and the detective burst into the room, the man threatens them with a gun, demands Irene's jewelry, and takes Irene hostage.
Once they are away, the intruder, Paul Dumond (Charles Boyer), returns Irene's jewelry and invites her to dine with him at the Château Bleu restaurant, where he works as a waiter. They dance the night away and Irene falls madly in love with the charming and handsome Paul. In the morning, Irene returns to find Vail and the police in her room, for Michael is dead. Vail leads her to believe that Paul is responsible for his death, and blackmails her into coming back to America with him in exchange for Paul's freedom. Distraught that he is unable to find Irene, Paul reads in the newspaper that Irene has reunited with her husband and left for America. Sensing something is wrong, he embarks for the United States to find her, accompanied by Cesare (Leo Carrillo), his good friend and head chef of Château Bleu.
In Manhattan, Paul and Cesare rehabilitate a restaurant, with the hope that its reputation will cause Irene to come to dine. The reunion takes place at last, but the happiness is short-lived when Paul learns that Michael is dead and a man has been arrested in Paris for the murder. Unwilling to let an innocent man pay for what he thinks is his crime, Paul embarks for Paris, and Irene joins him. They travel on the liner Princess Irene, which is owned by Vail.
Vail learns they are on the ship. In a rage, he radios orders to the captain to run at full speed, despite the danger of collision with an iceberg in the poor weather conditions, supposedly to break the record for fastest crossing. He actually hopes the ship will be sunk, killing Paul and Irene. The ship does strike an iceberg, and premature news reports state that the ship has sunk with horrendous loss of life. Consumed by guilt, Vail commits suicide and confesses to killing Michael in a suicide note. But the Princess Irene's bulkhead doors manage to hold the water and prevent the ship from sinking. There is no loss of life, and Paul and Irene and the other passengers rejoice when they hear the news. They also learn that other ships are coming to their aid to help the crippled liner. | suspenseful, romantic | train | wikipedia | Good Night, Irene!.
I know this film from the title "Spy Games."It is one of those man versus woman films, that also is West (American) versus East (Russian) and has the familiar James Bond-type scenario in which spies working on opposite sides are still lovers at the same time.Bill Pullman and Irene Jacob play those two roles.
It was shocking to see full frontal nudity on Jacob not once but several times.
Yes, "history was made at night" if you were with her!Pullman was okay but nothing special in his role.
Actually, I had a hard time believing his role.
The same goes for the movie in general: okay, but nothing so involving that you can't put it down.
The premise was more interesting than what was delivered..
Pretty Bad. This film couldn't decide what kind of movie it wanted to be: a serious spy film, a light comedy, a dark comedy, or a romance.
The acting wasn't good.
The screenplay was awful.
The directing was abysmal.
The idea could have worked: a mothballed CIA agent and his former-KGB girlfriend find themselves on opposite ends of a post-Cold War dispute, putting their relationship (and their lives) in jeopardy.
But much of the plot line was completely unbelievable.
Also the film was too choppy and inconsistent, almost schizophrenic at times.
Just when you're starting to enjoy the farcical parts of the movie, BANG!
The movie turns dark.
I blame the director.
It doesn't appear that he had any kind of overarching plan for this movie, seemingly taking each scene individually, and setting the film adrift as a result.
About the only thing going for it was sex appeal, and even that grew tiresome.
Take my advice: avoid this movie.
There are better ways to spend 90 minutes..
Comedy-drama-romance spy flick with unrealized potential.
"Spy Games" sets out to be like the old "I Spy" tv series with West vs East spying going on in exotic locations and lots of clever patter mixed in with a semiserious and intricate dramatic spy plot, a token babe here and there, etc.
However, this unfortunate flick doesn't make it as it becomes convoluted and boring only managing to pull what's left of itself together in the end.
"Spy Games" does have Pullman, Jacob, and Helsinki going for it but little else.
Recommended only for the very bored..
The cold war is over, and secret agents are out of work.
This entertaining poke at the cold war remnants is an interesting little romp that is at times very funny and others very clever and original.Presented at the Toronto International Film Festival by director Ilkka Jarvilaturi, the film goes from one interesting locale to another as we jump from Hellsinki to New York to St. Petersburg.
Bill Pullman and Irene Jacob are secret agents from opposite sides who have romantic entanglements as they try to determine just what they mean to each other while they still have a job to do.A mysterious and coded porno tape is intercepted in transit and the CIA attempts to decode it while stalling for time.
Complications arise in the plot which gives way to some innovative yet ultimately classical comic situations.
I don't know whether it's the fault of the film or the theater's sound system but at times it was difficult to follow what was happening due to the heavy accents of the (presumably) Finnish actors.
Bill Pullman's comic performance in the underrated "Zero Effect" is a good warm up for this similar but distinctly different character, and he is always a pleasure to watch.
Bruno Kirby also provides a solid comic contribution as a disgruntled FBI operative and the stunningly beautiful Irene Jacob graces the screen in a demure yet intriguing role as the KGB agent looking to get ahead in the ranks.Jarvilaturi was gracious enough to stick around for a Q&A after the film and spoke of mostly the music selections and their role in the film.
One audience member pointed out a subtle yet relevant continuity error that they said they were already aware of and intended to fix.
This is an indication of how fresh the film was and how the pressures of festival deadlines can affect the film..
interesting idea, okay film but never really takes off.
He's an American spy, she's a Russian spy, they're both in Helsinki spying on each other and sleeping together.
They both know that, things being what they are in the 90s, they're probably not as relevant as they once were.
They both have superiors who take things slightly more seriously than they do.
Sounds like a good premise, and the film certainly had it's funny moments.
I saw it at the Toronto Film Festival last week.
The audience enjoyed it.
Lots of laughs.
I liked it.
There are worse ways to spend two hours..
What a shame..
History is made at night has to be one of the worst films the Finnish film makers have touched in years.
What a shame that director Ilkka Järvilaturi -who also made the terrible "Darkness in Tallinn"- has failed with a cast and crew like this: Irene Jacob and Kati Outinen, Kari Väänänen and Bill Pullman, Vesa-Matti Loiri and Bruno Kirby for example.
Good performers' talents are wasted in a junk like this!
Do your self a favor and don't watch this awful finnish try to make a romantic thriller that moves in time after cold war.
This is not even unintentionally funny.Porn star Henry Saari has role in this.
He plays a man in a porn video.
Even this video is nicer to watch than the rest of this stupid, ridiculous....
Low expectations is key.
I went into watching the film with no expectations, and found that it actually wasn't that bad.
The film is choppy and inconsistent, but there's lots of little clever touches and running gags.
The actors veer in and out of character and the director seemingly couldn't decide if he was making a light-hearted espionage flick or a sharp black comedy, but it's still fun to notice and pick apart the subtle asides and sight gags.
Not the greatest movie of all time, but an amusing way to spend an hour and a half..
Great Fun movie.
This is one of the most enjoyable movies I have seen in a long time.
Also great scenes of real Finland, not some other place pretending to be Finland.
Bill Pullman and and Irene Jacob have great chemistry..
A jumbled mess.
The Cold War is over and two adversarial spies (Bill Pullman and Irene Jacob) fall in love and dream of living a normal life.
There is trouble in paradise, however, since they find themselves on opposite sides of an attempt to pass satellite codes to the Russians encoded into a homemade porno film.
This is a good premise for an international thriller, but the execution does a belly flop.This film was produced in Finland to very low filmmaking standards.
Since I haven't seen many Finnish films, I can't say whether this is typical or atypical, but it was full of bad scene setups, plot inconsistencies and generally poor directing.
The soundtrack was jazzy and nice, but it often didn't fit with the scenes to which it was applied.Director Ilkka Jarvi-Laturi was trying to present this as a lighthearted romantic comedy and international thriller, but it was marginal on the first count and a disaster on the second.
Bill Pullman can carry off the lovable romantic hero role, but as a spy, he is a joke.
Irene Jacob was better at handling the two aspects of the role, but the dialogue was so excruciating that her acting talent and beauty were not enough to save it.Jacob and Pullman had some chemistry in the romantic scenes, but both seemed flummoxed in the comedic espionage scenes.
This was some incredibly bad writing and it must have been very difficult for these actors to say their lines without kecking.This film is a jumbled mess with terrible writing and amateurish direction.
I rated it a 4/10.
Be sure to miss it..
This is pretty bad..
We love movies of all kinds.
This movie was filmed in Finland by a Finnish director who appears to be trying to imitate spy movies from James Bond to Mission Impossible...and they did a very poor job of imitating.
Sadly, some really good American actors worked on this film.
It was apparently made as a serious movie, but even Netflix lists this as a spy 'farce'.If you like the Scary Movie or Airplane type movies, you might like this one OK - no way you could like it that much.We really like Bill Pullman, but this movie would made you doubt his movie making decisions.The music is awful (retro) and the speaking volume level is way too low compared to the music volume.I'd say, get a different movie. |
tt0052270 | A Tale of Two Cities | === Book the First: Recalled to Life ===
Dickens's famous opening sentence introduces the universal approach of the book, the French Revolution, and the drama depicted within:
It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going direct to Heaven, we were all going direct the other way—in short, the period was so far like the present period, that some of its noisiest authorities insisted on its being received, for good or for evil, in the superlative degree of comparison only.
In 1775, a man flags down the nightly mail-coach on its route from London to Dover. The man is Jerry Cruncher, an employee of Tellson's Bank in London; he carries a message for Jarvis Lorry, a passenger and one of the bank's managers. Mr. Lorry sends Jerry back to deliver a cryptic response to the bank: "Recalled to Life." The message refers to Alexandre Manette, a French physician who has been released from the Bastille after an 18-year imprisonment. Once Mr. Lorry arrives in Dover, he meets with Dr. Manette's daughter Lucie and her governess, Miss Pross. Lucie has believed her father to be dead, and faints at the news that he is alive; Mr. Lorry takes her to France to reunite with him.
In the Paris neighborhood of Saint Antoine, Dr. Manette has been given lodgings by his former servant Ernest Defarge and his wife Therese, owners of a wine shop. Mr. Lorry and Lucie find him in a small garret, where he spends much of his time making shoes—a skill he learned in prison, which he uses to distract himself from his thoughts, and which has become an obsession for him. He does not recognize Lucie at first but does eventually see the resemblance to her mother through her blue eyes and long golden hair, a strand of which he found on his sleeve when he was imprisoned. Mr. Lorry and Lucie take him back to England.
=== Book the Second: The Golden Thread ===
In 1780, French émigré Charles Darnay is on trial for treason against the British Crown. The key witnesses against him are two British spies, John Barsad and Roger Cly, who claim that Darnay gave information about British troops in North America to the French. Barsad states that he would recognize Darnay anywhere, at which point Darnay's defense counsel, Stryver, directs attention to Sydney Carton, a barrister present in the courtroom who looks almost identical to him. With Barsad's eyewitness testimony now discredited, Darnay is acquitted.
In Paris, the hated and abusive Marquis St. Evrémonde orders his carriage driven recklessly fast through the crowded streets, hitting and killing the child of a peasant, Gaspard. The Marquis throws a coin to Gaspard to compensate him for his loss, and Defarge comforts the distraught father, having observed the incident. As the Marquis's coach drives off, the coin is flung back into his coach by an unknown hand, enraging the Marquis.
Arriving at his country château, the marquis meets with his nephew and heir, Darnay. Out of disgust with his aristocratic family, Darnay has shed his real surname and adopted an anglicized version of his mother's maiden name, D'Aulnais. The following passage records the Marquis' principles of aristocratic superiority:
"Repression is the only lasting philosophy. The dark deference of fear and slavery, my friend," observed the Marquis, "will keep the dogs obedient to the whip, as long as this roof," looking up to it, "shuts out the sky."
That night, Gaspard, who followed the Marquis to his château by riding on the underside of the carriage, stabs and kills him in his sleep. Gaspard leaves a note on the knife saying, "Drive him fast to his tomb. This, from JACQUES." After nearly a year on the run, he is caught and hanged above the village well.
In London, Darnay gets Dr. Manette's permission to wed Lucie; but Carton confesses his love to Lucie as well. Knowing she will not love him in return, Carton promises to "embrace any sacrifice for you and for those dear to you". Stryver, the barrister who defended Darnay and with whom Carton has a working relationship, considers proposing marriage to Lucie, but Mr. Lorry talks him out of the idea.
On the morning of the marriage, Darnay reveals his real name and family lineage to Dr. Manette, a detail he had been asked to withhold until that day. In consequence, Dr. Manette reverts to his obsessive shoemaking after the couple leave for their honeymoon. He returns to sanity before their return, and the whole incident is kept secret from Lucie. Mr. Lorry and Miss Pross destroy the shoemaking bench and tools, which Dr. Manette had brought with him from Paris.
As time passes in England, Lucie and Charles begin to raise a family, a son (who dies in childhood) and a daughter, little Lucie. Mr. Lorry finds a second home and a sort of family with the Darnays. Stryver marries a rich widow with three children and becomes even more insufferable as his ambitions begin to be realized. Carton, even though he seldom visits, is accepted as a close friend of the family and becomes a special favourite of little Lucie.
In July 1789, the Defarges help to lead the storming of the Bastille, a symbol of royal tyranny. Defarge enters Dr. Manette's former cell, "One Hundred and Five, North Tower," and searches it thoroughly. Throughout the countryside, local officials and other representatives of the aristocracy are dragged from their homes to be killed, and the St. Evrémonde château is burned to the ground.
In 1792, Mr. Lorry decides to travel to Paris to collect important documents from the Tellson's branch in that city and bring them to London for safekeeping against the chaos of the French Revolution. Darnay intercepts a letter written by Gabelle, one of his uncle's servants who has been imprisoned by the revolutionaries, pleading for the Marquis to help secure his release. Without telling his family or revealing his position as the new Marquis, Darnay sets out for Paris.
=== Book the Third: The Track of a Storm ===
Shortly after Darnay arrives in Paris, he is denounced for being an emigrated aristocrat from France and jailed in La Force Prison. Dr. Manette, Lucie, little Lucie, Jerry, and Miss Pross travel to Paris and meet Mr. Lorry to try to free Darnay. A year and three months pass, and Darnay is finally tried.
Dr. Manette, viewed as a hero for his imprisonment in the Bastille, testifies on Darnay's behalf at his trial. Darnay is released, only to be arrested again later that day. A new trial begins on the following day, under new charges brought by the Defarges and a third individual who is soon revealed as Dr. Manette. He had written an account of his imprisonment at the hands of Darnay's father and hidden it in his cell; Defarge found it while searching the cell during the storming of the Bastille.
While running errands with Jerry, Miss Pross is amazed to see her long-lost brother Solomon, but he does not want to be recognized in public. Carton suddenly steps forward from the shadows and identifies Solomon as Barsad, one of the spies who tried to frame Darnay for treason at his trial in 1780. Jerry remembers that he has seen Solomon with Cly, the other key witness at the trial and that Cly had faked his death to escape England. By threatening to denounce Solomon to the revolutionary tribunal as a Briton, Carton blackmails him into helping with a plan.
At the tribunal, Defarge identifies Darnay as the nephew of the dead Marquis St. Evrémonde and reads Dr. Manette's letter. Defarge had learned Darnay's lineage from Solomon during the latter's visit to the wine shop several years earlier. The letter describes Dr. Manette's imprisonment at the hands of Darnay's father and uncle for trying to report their crimes against a peasant family. Darnay's uncle had become infatuated with a girl, whom he had kidnapped and raped; despite Dr. Manette's attempt to save her, she died. The uncle killed her husband by working him to death, and her father died from a heart attack on being informed of what had happened. Before he died defending the family honour, the brother of the raped peasant had hidden the last member of the family, his younger sister. The Evrémonde brothers imprisoned Dr. Manette after he refused their offer of a bribe to keep quiet. He concludes his letter by condemning the Evrémondes, "them and their descendants, to the last of their race." Dr. Manette is horrified, but he is not allowed to retract his statement. Darnay is sent to the Conciergerie and sentenced to be guillotined the next day.
Carton wanders into the Defarges' wine shop, where he overhears Madame Defarge talking about her plans to have both Lucie and little Lucie condemned. Carton discovers that Madame Defarge was the surviving sister of the peasant family savaged by the Evrémondes. At night, when Dr. Manette returns, shattered after spending the day in many failed attempts to save Darnay's life, he falls into an obsessive search for his shoemaking implements. Carton urges Lorry to flee Paris with Lucie, her father, and Little Lucie, asking them to leave as soon as he joins them in the coach.
Shortly before the executions are to begin, Solomon sneaks Carton into the prison for a visit with Darnay. The two men trade clothes, and Carton drugs Darnay and has Solomon carry him out. Carton has decided to be executed in his place and has given his own identification papers to Mr. Lorry to present on Darnay's behalf. Following Carton's earlier instructions, the family and Mr. Lorry flee to England with the unconscious Darnay, but not before receiving a note from Carton which allows them to pass the France border.
Meanwhile, Madame Defarge, armed with a dagger and pistol, goes to the Manette residence, hoping to apprehend Lucie and little Lucie and bring them in for execution. However, the family is already gone and Miss Pross stays behind to confront and delay Madame Defarge. As the two women struggle, Madame Defarge's pistol discharges, killing her and causing Miss Pross to go permanently deaf from noise and shock.
The novel concludes with the guillotining of Carton. As he is waiting to board the tumbril, he is approached by a seamstress, also condemned to death, who mistakes him for Darnay (with whom she had been imprisoned earlier) but realizes the truth once she sees him at close range. Awed by his unselfish courage and sacrifice, she asks to stay close to him and he agrees. Upon their arrival at the guillotine, Carton comforts her, telling her that their ends will be quick but that there is no Time or Trouble "in the better land where ... [they] will be mercifully sheltered", and she is able to meet her death in peace. Carton's unspoken last thoughts are prophetic:
I see Barsad, and Cly, Defarge, The Vengeance [a lieutenant of Madame Defarge], the Juryman, the Judge, long ranks of the new oppressors who have risen on the destruction of the old, perishing by this retributive instrument, before it shall cease out of its present use. I see a beautiful city and a brilliant people rising from this abyss, and, in their struggles to be truly free, in their triumphs and defeats, through long years to come, I see the evil of this time and of the previous time of which this is the natural birth, gradually making expiation for itself and wearing out.
I see the lives for which I lay down my life, peaceful, useful, prosperous and happy, in that England which I shall see no more. I see Her with a child upon her bosom, who bears my name. I see her father, aged and bent, but otherwise restored, and faithful to all men in his healing office, and at peace. I see the good old man [Mr. Lorry], so long their friend, in ten years' time enriching them with all he has, and passing tranquilly to his reward.
I see that I hold a sanctuary in their hearts, and in the hearts of their descendants, generations hence. I see her, an old woman, weeping for me on the anniversary of this day. I see her and her husband, their course done, lying side by side in their last earthly bed, and I know that each was not more honoured and held sacred in the other's soul, than I was in the souls of both.
I see that child who lay upon her bosom and who bore my name, a man winning his way up in that path of life which once was mine. I see him winning it so well, that my name is made illustrious there by the light of his. I see the blots I threw upon it, faded away. I see him, fore-most of just judges and honoured men, bringing a boy of my name, with a forehead that I know and golden hair, to this place—then fair to look upon, with not a trace of this day's disfigurement—and I hear him tell the child my story, with a tender and a faltering voice.
It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to than I have ever known. | romantic | train | wikipedia | "A Tale of Two Cities" is based on the novel by Charles Dickens.
The story is not focused on the plight of the poor in Victorian England as with many of Dickens' novels, but rather an exploration of France prior to and in the wake of the French Revolution.The nice thing about this film is that it has a sense of the scope of the history it portrays but also tells a personal story with connected people from England and France.
The essential story concerns a hunted French aristocrat, an English barrister and a French woman whom they both love.
Importantly this film is in the end a very touching tale of self-sacrifice.Dirk Bogarde is Sydney Carton, the English barrister of the story.
Dorothy Tutin and Paul Guers were also solid leads Lucie Manette as Charles Darnay.
Christopher Lee is well-suited to his oft-played role as a villain, who in this case is a haughty and despicable French aristocrat.
"A Tale of Two Cities" tells a personal story of a group of characters and self-sacrifice but also how France replaced its former repressors with new ones..
A classic film version of a classic novel.
This is a classic film version of one of Dickin's classic novels.
Arguably his best novel (though the critics tend to dismiss it - it has a straightforward plot and structure), it translates into an exceptional film.
For those who don't know the story, it concerns the fortunes of the Manette and St Evremonde families at the time of the French revolution.
In a Romeo and Juliet type situation, Charles Darnay (alias St Evremonde) loves Lucie Manette, whose father Darnay's uncle had wronged.
Now living in London, neither can escape the terrible events in Paris, and they are drawn to a climatic conclusion as the guillotine falls on aristocrat and commoner alike.The real hero of both novel and film is Sydney Carton (Dirk Bogarde), an English lawyer who initially defends Charles Darnay against a charge of treason, and later comes to love Lucie, now married to Darnay.
The conclusion of the story, for Sydney Carton at least, is both tragic and inspiring, and Mr Bogarde certainly does justice to the role..
I've seen one other, more recent version and although Carton's actor had a good go at it, it totally lacked the amazing charisma Bogarde provided for what is one of Dickens' most poignant characters - flawed, fascinating, cynical, damaged but wonderful.It's a crying shame this wasn't filmed in colour since the producers did consider doing so and then didn't.
I suppose it's always possible the lack of colour actually enhances the drama, and for me this story is the most dramatic and poignant of all Dickens - a work of pure genius..
Ralph Thomas' direction makes this the best adaptation.
Summary: Ralph Thomas' direction makes this the best adaptationThe English 1958 interpretation of Charles Dickens' great novel "A Tale of Two Cities", directed by Ralph Thomas, is a really terrific picture, capturing the essence of Dickens' tale deftly.
Thomas' craftily directed black and white adaptation lends itself quite tangibly and nicely to the purposes of the story, I would say more succinctly than the 1935 interpretation directed by Jack Conway.
The earlier adaptation featured as many fine performances (Ronald Coleman, Edna Mae Oliver, Basil Rathbone, Blanche Yurka, etc), and succeeded in special effects and cinematography a little better, perhaps, than THIS picture, but Thomas' directing emphasizes the key points of the original story, and this becomes the better picture as a result.Dirk Bogarde playing Sydney Carton is quite perfect here, and a young Christopher Lee as the conceit driven supercilious Marquis St. Evremonde is fantastic, as is Rosalie Crutchley as the cruel hearted revenge laden Madame Defarge.
In one scene, during the climactic period of the story in the dungeon of the Bastille, Barsad (Donald Pleasence), a character of low repute working for whichever side will use him, finally catches onto the heroism of Mr Carton and holds his hand out for a respectful shake.
. .the real Mr Carton (Dirk Bogarde) touches his shoulder, just enough to convey that a good angel is bringing hope to the world, even to low characters like Basard.
Only the Ronald Colman version is slightly better, but Dirk Bogarde fits this role perfectly, as he does most of his other roles in film.
Although most of the versions of "Tale of Two Cities" are boring, much like the tired renditions of Beethoven's 5th Symphony, this version is like the Herbert Von Karajan or Carlos Kleiber orchestrations that are spectacular and inspiring, as if played for the very first time.
There are beautifully crafted scenes in this film that create an interest in the humanity of the characters.
The courage of these characters' is awe-inspiring and as one of the character's says, Sydney Carton (Bogarde) shows the best that is in us, and is the best of us, in desperate times.
"A Tale of Two Cities" is the remarkable 1859 story by Charles Dickens that appeared as 31 weekly installments in Dickens' own periodical.
The 30s were a great time for Dickens films, including "Oliver Twist" (1933) with Dickie Moore, "Great Expectations" (1934) with Henry Hull and Jane Wyatt, "The Mystery of Edwin Drood" (1935) with Claude Rains, "Scrooge" (1935), "David Copperfield" (1935) with none other than W.
C. Fields, and "A Christmas Carol" (1938) with Reginald Owen.Comparing the 1935 and the 1958 versions - Sydney Carlton – Dirk Bogarde (1958) does a good job, one of his best, but Ronald Coleman (1935) is my preference.Charles Darney – Donald Woods (1935) is the better player.
Paul Guers is a bit wooden for my tastes.Marquis St Evremonde – Basil Rathbone (1935) is one of the best villains anywhere, exceeding even Christopher Lee (1958).Miss Pross – Edna May Oliver (1935) was a hoot, much better than Athene Seyler (1958).Lucie Manette – Dorothy Tutin (1958) and Elizabeth Allen (1935) both do an admirable job.C.J.Stryver – Reginald Owen (1935) is more compelling than Ernest ClarkBoth versions are 2+ hours long and both don't fully represent the richness of the novel.
I think the 1935 versions moves a bit better with fewer lapses, but both films are pretty well paced.
Recall that Dickens' works are extremely long so no film can capture everything.In terms of production values, the 1935 version is surprisingly good, even though producer Selznick put more effort into other films at the time.
The 1958 version, done in black and white, is certainly OK, but not any better than the 1935 version.The 1935 film was nominated for Best Picture and Best Film Editing.
In this bicentennial of Charles Dickens it's a good thing to examine all the versions of A Tale Of Two Cities and see aspects in all of them that reflect on the story telling abilities of Dickens.
In a Tale Of Two Cities his characters come from a generation or two behind Dickens and it might be the only one of his great work that could be classified as historical.
Such is Sydney Carton who starts out in the novel as a supporting player but who gradually in the story moves to the first rank and his deed at the end climaxes the story.The Thirties version of A Tale Of Two Cities at MGM and this 1958 film the Rank Organisation are the two best known.
Even though MGM's was a Hollywood film it was populated by a cast of British expatriates.
Ronald Colman was the Carton of the Thirties and his performance was colored by his impeccable style and good diction.
I've always felt Colman so typified the British people as they like to see themselves and we would all like to be Ronald Colman if we're male and come from that blessed isle.In this version Dirk Bogarde's dissolute drunkenness is emphasized far more than with Colman.
So is his unrequited love for Lucy Manette the French expatriate played here by Dorothy Tutin.
But she loves another, a fellow expatriate Charles Darnay played here by a French actor Paul Guers whom I find to have been dubbed.
He does bare a superficial resemblance to Bogarde and that is the real key to the story of A Tale Of Two Cities.The rest of the cast boasts some of the best British performers around at the time like Cecil Parker, Athene Seyler, Donald Pleasance, and Christopher Lee as a cunning and vicious Marquis St. Evremonde.
The relationship is changed making Lee and Guers cousins as opposed to an uncle and nephew.Rank Organisation went almost whole hog on this film with an impeccable recreation of late Eighteenth century London and Paris.
Whatever else A Tale Of Two Cities is politics and history aside, it's about a man who no one thinks has any great character, but in the end really steps to the plate for the one he loves.
Excellent adaptation, great cast.
Though I gave the 1935 version of Dickens' "A Tale of Two Cities" a higher rating (before seeing this version), I'd have to say that this film, directed by Ralph Thomas, is probably better for the most part.
This movie, done in black and white, captures the atmosphere of the Dickens novel - the filth and the cruelty - beautifully.
The cast is strong: Dirk Bogarde, Dorothy Tutin, Donald Pleasance, Ian Bannen, Christopher Lee, Alfie Bass.Though Sydney is one of Ronald Colman's great roles, it also proved to be a great role for Dirk Bogarde.
As much as I love Ronald Colman, he can't quite help but come off as noble, whereas, you really could believe that Bogarde was a drunk and a waste before his final moments.
The end of this particular adaptation is very simple and beautiful.I highly recommend both versions.
The second-best adaptation of A Tale of Two Cities after the 1935 film.
The 1935 film is a classic, and this film from 1958 is very close to that, the second-best adaptation by quite some distance.
It looks very beautiful, the black and white photography skillful and well-suited to the story, the revolutionary scenes are still powerful despite not being in colour.
A Tale of Two Cities is very intelligently scripted with a lot of dramatic weight though occasionally a little on the ponderous side, while the story- even when straight-forwardly adapted- is still as powerful and moving as one would expect, with the ending quite heart-breaking in its tragedy.
Dirk Bogarde is great and very charismatic, plus he probably hasn't been more handsome than he is here.
Dorothy Tutin's Lucie is fetching and heartfelt, Christopher Lee is wonderfully vicious and truly hissable and Rosalie Crutchley brings chills as Madame Dufarge if occasionally a little too histrionic.
And it is true that it deserves to be judged on its own terms, the whole "the book is better" and "any film/TV series that doesn't follow the story to the letter is immediately terrible, and books shouldn't be seemingly improved upon"(Agatha Christie and Jane Austen adaptations are prone to this in particular) are tired old clichés.
I'm old now, and I've been watching films (movies!) since the 1940's!This black and white 1958 version of 'A Tale of Two Cities' is a beautiful love story.
Although we owe the wonderful Charles Dickens all the credit for creating such an outstanding act of bravery by Sydney Carton, I defy anyone to suggest a better actor than Dirk Bogarde to play this part.Dirk Bogarde starts the film as a drunk who has nothing to live for.
Dirk Bogarde does a masterful job of portraying the complex character of Sydney Carton.
As an avid admirer of nineteenth century novelist Charles Dickens' work, with an interest in the French Revolution, then I felt compelled to watch this Rank adaptation of; A Tale of Two Cities, directed by Ralph Thomas.
Although I have not yet read the original novel, I got the impression that this film adaptation of; A Tale of Two Cities stuck as much as possible to the original novel as Dickens intended it to be.We see in this film adaptation of; A Tale of Two Cities the social origins which culminated in the French Revolution.
The over-throwing of the French aristocracy subsequently made way for a new elitist ruling class to emerge in the form of industrialists and businessmen, thereby creating a new type of class consciousness for modernity.As to the acting in the film, it is an eclectic bunch of British character actors playing the parts.
Bogarte illustrates that he is able to become the character he plays in such films as; The Blue Lamp' (1950), where he acts the part of villain Tom Riley with a real and definite intensity.
If there was to be any accolades for acting in; A Tale of Two Cities, it would go to the actor, Christopher Lee who played the part of the bombastic French nobleman,Marquis St. Evremonde .If the film is going to be defined as worthy of watching, it is due to the director's ability to keep close to the original Dickens novel..
This is a straightforward version shot in black and white with some location shooting at Loire Valley in France.Pinewood Studios is used effectively enough, it is uniformly well acted and Bogarde gives an effective enough performance as the lead and a young Christopher Lee is a hiss-able French Aristocrat.The story deals with the strands of the two most notable characters in the novel by Charles Dickens.
Charles Darnay and Sydney Carton.
Darnay is a French aristocrat who turns his back to the life of wealth and privilege but falls victim to the indiscriminate wrath of the revolution when the reign of terror begins.Carton is an English barrister with a taste for drink who attempts to redeem his misspent life out of his unrequited love for Darnay's wife.There is not much humour in the film because of the subject matter but the pared down story does do the film justice..
There are differences between this film and Dickens's novel and other film adaptations.
The narrative is coherent and convincing, despite the unlikely premise of the ending of the story - and you can blame that on Dickens.
Another reviewer has complained that Darnay and Carton were not played by the same actor.
The excellent Dorothy Tutin puts in a convincing performance as the beautiful Lucie and the supporting cast is generally very good.
A Far, Far Better Role for Dirk Bogarde.
This version of Charles Dickens' classic "A Tale of Two Cities" betters the 1935 film in some ways, and equals it in others.
The earlier version, which starred Ronald Colman, aspired to become a "Yuletide" tale (including Christmas songs), while this one "blessedly" plays it more straightforward.
The most grievous error is very plain to see
The way to distinguish this production would have been to shoot it in color, which they had the money to do, and did not.Looking beautiful in black and white or color, dissipated English barrister Dirk Bogarde (as Sydney Carton) defends suspected French spy Paul Guers (as Charles Darnay) while falling in love with his client's fetching fiancée, Dorothy Tutin (as Lucie Manette).
The casting of the three leads is very much like Mr. Colman's MGM version.
Mr. Bogarde is excellent, playing "Sydney Carton" in a lower key makes him more believable in this film's context, and draws you closer.
Another mistake is not having Bogarde play both "Sydney Carton" and "Charles Darnay" (the latter is played, herein, by Mr. Guers and a dubbed voice).
Bogarde could have easily played both roles.******* A Tale of Two Cities (2/28/58) Ralph Thomas ~ Dirk Bogarde, Dorothy Tutin, Paul Guers, Rosalie Crutchley.
I always thought Dirk Bogarde (Bogarde NOT Bogarte) was a lightweight actor with occasional flashes of excellence.I always thought Ronald Coleman was a great movie star who could act a bit.Having said that I prefer Coleman's version of 'Lost Horizon' to the others and I think his performance as Carton shades Bogarde.
Bogarde's best performances were in 'The Night Porter' and 'The Victim'There was, however, a version of this movie (maybe made for TV) with John Mills playing Carton - easily the best..
Mr Dirk Bogarde was impossibly handsome in 1958.Photographed by Ernest Steward who,along with director Ralph Thomas,was to have a long professional association with him,he was,at 38,at the peak of his physical beauty,and well on the way along his journey from matinée idol to serious actor.In "A Tale of Two Cities" he plays Sidney Carton,a rather louche London lawyer who finds redemption in the turmoil of the French Revolution.It is as near a perfect adaptation of Dickens' novel as you could hope to find,and one of the masterpieces of 1950s British Cinema.
Of the triumvirate of English actors on top of the heap in 1958 only Mr Bogarde could possibly have played him.Mr More would have been too chirpy,Mr Hawkins too intense.So it was left to the youngest of the three to play one of the nineteenth century's most popular fictional heroes and to speak Charles Dickens' best known valediction,which he does exquisitely..
A TALE OF TWO CITIES is the British 1958 version of the Dickens novel, shot in black and white and with an all-star cast by prolific director Ralph Thomas.
The cast is full of seemingly every character actor going, with the likes of a villainous Christopher Lee and a slightly sinister Donald Pleasence standing out.
Dirk Bogarde stars in one of his most sympathetic turns and the film doesn't shy away from the more brutal moments of the book.
Parts of the story are out of order, characters consistently appear in places they do not appear in the text, and Lucie does not meet Darnay on the Dover Mail in the text.
This misguided interpretation has her seeing Sydney long before the trial that opens Book the Second and mistaking him for Charles.
As an English teacher who holds this as one of her favorite books of all time, I wish I had never watched this version. |
tt0213105 | Nagina | Rajiv (Rishi Kapoor) comes from a wealthy land-owning family, and lives in a palatial home with his mother (Sushma Seth), who would like him to get married to a beautiful young woman named Vijaya Singh, the only daughter of Thakur Ajay Singh (Prem Chopra). Rajiv, however, is in love with Rajni (Sridevi), who is an orphan without connections. When Rajiv informs his mother of his intent to marry Rajni, she refuses to give her blessings, but relents after a favourable meeting with Rajni. The marriage is arranged and they enjoy their marriage - until the arrival of Bhairo Nath (Amrish Puri), a sadhu capable of controlling snakes. He informs Rajiv's mother that Rajni is a shape-shifting venomous snake who has married Rajiv to avenge the death of her spouse during Rajiv's childhood. To remove her from the household, Bhairo and his disciples do a snake dance song, forcing Rajni to dance for them as she is a snake. However, when Rajiv comes into the house, Rajni escapes, only to be caught by Bhairo, who reveals his plot, to control the world with the Mani, a sacred jewel that only Rajni knows is hidden. However, Rajiv comes and engages in a fight with Bhairo. Bhairo is bitten by two snakes and dies. Rajiv and Rajni live happily ever after. | gothic | train | wikipedia | Worth watching for fans of the golden age. Nutan shows much promise (if not the depth and nuance of her later roles) and of course exceptional beauty in one of her earliest films. The music by Shanker & Jaikishen is typically great: for me, this if nothing else makes the film worth watching. A couple of musical numbers, including the initial one, feature a female singer ("picturized" I suppose) with a chorus of women dancers, all in Western dress. The first one especially shows Western influence in the music and dancing, like big band boogie-woogie. Very peppy. The second number with this group features an all-girl band dressed in sailor suits. Both numbers also feature the fat comic relief male neighbor. The romantic male lead (Nasir Khan) picturizes 3 songs that are also extremely well-wrought; I wish I knew who the singer was. But honestly his songs were less to my personal taste, as they are basically of the pretty, lovesick hero variety. One has to be in the right mood.The film has a good look. At first it seems like it's a ghost story, and there are atmospheric night scenes.I don't speak Hindi, and the subtitles appeared to translate only the first few phrases of any speech. That was kind of annoying, but at least there were subtitles. |
tt0046435 | Titanic | In 1996, treasure hunter Brock Lovett and his team aboard the research vessel Akademik Mstislav Keldysh search the wreck of RMS Titanic for a necklace with a rare diamond, the Heart of the Ocean. They recover a safe containing a drawing of a young woman wearing only the necklace dated April 14, 1912, the day the ship struck the iceberg. Rose Dawson Calvert, the woman in the drawing, is brought aboard Keldysh and tells Lovett of her experiences aboard Titanic.
In 1912 Southampton, 17-year-old first-class passenger Rose DeWitt Bukater, her fiancé Cal Hockley, and her mother Ruth board the luxurious Titanic. Ruth emphasizes that Rose's marriage will resolve their family's financial problems and retain their high-class persona. Distraught over the engagement, Rose considers suicide by jumping from the stern; Jack Dawson, a penniless artist, intervenes and discourages her. Discovered with Jack, Rose tells a concerned Cal that she was peering over the edge and Jack saved her from falling. When Cal becomes indifferent, she suggests to him that Jack deserves a reward. He invites Jack to dine with them in first class the following night. Jack and Rose develop a tentative friendship, despite Cal and Ruth being wary of him. Following dinner, Rose secretly joins Jack at a party in third class.
Aware of Cal and Ruth's disapproval, Rose rebuffs Jack's advances, but realizes she prefers him over Cal. After rendezvousing on the bow at sunset, Rose takes Jack to her state room; at her request, Jack sketches Rose posing nude wearing Cal's engagement present, the Heart of the Ocean necklace. They evade Cal's bodyguard and have sex in an automobile inside the cargo hold. On the forward deck, they witness a collision with an iceberg and overhear the officers and designer discussing its seriousness.
Cal discovers Jack's sketch of Rose and an insulting note from her in his safe along with the necklace. When Jack and Rose attempt to inform Cal of the collision, he has his bodyguard slip the necklace into Jack's pocket and accuses him of theft. Jack is arrested, taken to the master-at-arms' office, and handcuffed to a pipe. Cal puts the necklace in his own coat pocket.
With the ship sinking, Rose flees Cal and her mother, who has boarded a lifeboat, and frees Jack. On the boat deck, Cal and Jack encourage her to board a lifeboat; Cal claims he can get himself and Jack off safely. After Rose boards one, Cal tells Jack the arrangement is only for himself. As her boat lowers, Rose decides that she cannot leave Jack and jumps back on board. Cal takes his bodyguard's pistol and chases Rose and Jack into the flooding first-class dining saloon. After using up his ammunition, Cal realizes he gave his coat and consequently the necklace to Rose. He later boards a collapsible lifeboat by carrying a lost child.
After braving several obstacles, Jack and Rose return to the boat deck. The lifeboats have departed and passengers are falling to their deaths as the stern rises out of the water. The ship breaks in half, lifting the stern into the air. Jack and Rose ride it into the ocean and he helps her onto a wooden panel only buoyant enough for one person. He assures her that she will die an old woman, warm in her bed. Jack dies of hypothermia but Rose is saved.
With Rose hiding from Cal en route, the RMS Carpathia takes the survivors to New York City where Rose gives her name as Rose Dawson. She later finds out Cal committed suicide after losing all his money in the 1929 Wall Street crash.
Back in the present, Lovett decides to abandon his search after hearing Rose's story. Alone on the stern of Keldysh, Rose takes out the Heart of the Ocean — in her possession all along — and drops it into the sea over the wreck site. While she is seemingly asleep or has died in her bed, photos on her dresser depict a life of freedom and adventure inspired by the life she wanted to live with Jack. A young Rose reunites with Jack at the Titanic's Grand Staircase, applauded by those who died. | historical, melodrama | train | wikipedia | Holds Its Own. Although not as honored as the 1997 Leonardo DiCaprio-Kate Winslet story about the Titanic disaster, this version of Titanic starring Clifton Webb and Barbara Stanwyck can definitely hold its own.
Also look for good performances by Thelma Ritter as the Molly Brown in all but name role, Richard Basehart as the defrocked priest and Allyn Joslyn as the eager social climber.It's Webb and Stanwyck who carry the story.
And Barbara Stanwyck's last moments as the film ends are some of then best in her long distinguished career.It's your father's Titanic and a good one too..
This film has been overshadowed by the 1997 blockbuster, but this 1953 story of the tragic ocean liner certainly stands tall on its own merits, not the least of which are the star performances by Clifton Webb and Barbara Stanwyck.Built around the domestic drama of a fictional family, the well-known story of the sinking of the Titanic unfolds in an unrelenting and straightforward fashion.
This film instead focuses (touchingly) on the human drama involved with the ship, with many of the elements of real passengers' accounts rolled into the story of Clifton Webb and wife Barbara Stanwyck (Both excellent; when Isn't Barbara Stanwyck excellent?) and their children.
Barbara Stanwyck, Clifton Webb, Richard Basehart, the young Robert Wagner (looking positively "DiCaprioesque," as it were!), the (unfortunately) near-forgotten Brian Aherne, and the underrated Audrey Dalton all give sterling performances.
Both wonderful actors, if they seem an unlikely couple at first, you probably won't think so by the end of the movie, they are so superb.In this version, Stanwyck is actually leaving her husband (Webb), unbeknownst to him, but when he realizes what's happening, he bribes the father in a lower class for his ticket.
Webb's last scene with Stanwyck will leave you in tears, and if it doesn't, there's also the poignant scene on deck with his son, Norman, which is beautiful.I don't pretend to be an expert on the Titanic - however, I know a little more than a friend at work who, announcing she was seeing the Cameron version when it first came out, said, "Don't tell me how it ends." I realize that the Fox script drew a good deal of information from the navigation reports of the ship; however, I saw a documentary which showed footage of this film while it demonstrated that in this telling, the underwater scene shows the iceberg hitting on the wrong side.I have also seen "A Night to Remember," which I also remember as being a very emotional experience.
Stanwyck is rarely this on, imhb.The set up is all about the people, not the ship, and it works because when the iceberg strikes, it's as if we never saw it coming, and now these good folk mean the world to us.The pacing is superb, and I can assure you that you will wish the film were longer.
The love story is sweet and unlike the newer version makes sense since both characters are from the same class, the only way in that era that they would mingle, class division was too ingrained at the time for people to move freely about the ship.
It just isn't the amazing spectacle that the 1997 film is--and could be because of improved movie making technology.Exceptional and so good that I want to see the British version, "A Night to Remember".
Rather average Hollywood attempt to tell the story of the 1912 marine disaster, the sinking of the Titanic, this one focuses on Clifton Webb and Barbara Stanwyck as an unhappily married couple reevaluating their union and their children surrounded by the splendour of the most wonderful (and unsinkable) tub ever launched.However, when compared to 'A Night to Remember' and to the occasionally-shown documentary which speaks to the survivors of the disaster who were children at the time, it pales into insignificance.
What I like here is the contrast between the personal pettiness of Julia (Barbara Stanwyck) and Richard (Clifton Webb), against the ominous and overarching doom toward which they are unknowingly moving.Similarly, Captain Smith (Brian Aherne) goes about his ship duties in a most nonchalant manner, just one more voyage among countless others.
Casting and acting range from acceptable to great; Thelma Ritter gives an unusually good performance.Some Titanic films convey a semi-documentary look and feel; characters in these films are mere props, lacking humanity.
This movie remains, on it's own terms, solid big studio Hollywood entertainment.Right at the start we're given a good fictional story, with Barbara Stanwyck taking her two kids on The Titanic, to get them away from her snooty husband, wonderfully played by Clifton Webb in one of his best roles.
This set's up a great scene later on, as the ship is sinking, but it is also about as much of the people on the lower decks that you'll see in this version.The scenes between Clifton Webb and Barbra Stanwyck are outstanding, There is one scene in particular, when they are arguing about the fate of they're children, that she tells him a long kept secret, that though brief in nature, is played to perfection.
The likes of Clifton Webb, Barbara Stanwyck, and Robert Wagner are fine actors, but you're not watching to see the husband and wife bickering or to watch the young guy fall in love.
The effect on Sturgis is something like that of the Titanic hitting the iceberg, which comes later.All the supporting players are quite good, but Stanwyck and Webb are the movie.
Of course the whole point about any "Titanic" film is how to fill the space until the iceberg hits, which naturally means concocting fictional dramas amongst the passengers and on this occasion, slightly melodramatic as they were (an alcoholic priest, a tug-of-love between an American townie and her high-falutin' husband...), with sympathetic writing and strong playing, they certainly engaged my interest and by the bitter end, emotions too.Clifton Webb and Barbara Stanwyck make an unlikely couple at first, but one comes to believe in their story, especially after Stanwyck makes her shock revelation to Webb as she desperately tries to maintain the loyalty of their two young children against the high-life allure of Webb's nomadic lifestyle.
Their last scenes in particular have a rare poignancy as Webb at last shows the sacrifice and devotion that as both a father and husband he's sorely lacked before.In the lesser tales, we get to see Richard Basehart deliver a good performance as a fallen priest, who again rediscovers his vocation at the hour of greatest need and a young lantern-jawed Robert Wagner as the freshman suitor of Webb and Stanwyck's somewhat stuffy daughter.
Occasionally you feel there aren't that many people on the boat itself and it's noticeable that there's very little coverage of the below-deck drama as the ship fills up with water, but the final scenes, especially the largely non-judgemental treatment of the captain and crew, seemed about right to me; there's no doubting the valour and devotion to duty of this particular captain in going down with his ship unlike a certain Italian captain in the modern disaster of the Concordia.This feature succeeds therefore in the quality of its writing (which was Oscar-nominated) and sensitive direction and acting rather than the special effects, which surely is as it should be..
Like "Titanic (1997)", it tells the story of a tragic young love set against the sinking of the famous ship.
(What you see in Cameron's version and "A Night To Remember" is more realistic--the rest of the passengers are panicking as the band plays on.) Furthermore, I think what the real priests did on Titanic is more heroic than Richard Basehart's character.
It's not very likely that they reconcile, however, since they're sailing aboard the ill-fated Titanic, and Barbara's already found herself a boy-toy, Robert Wagner!While this movie doesn't have the lush, epic, grandness of James Cameron's masterpiece, it's sufficiently sad enough to be recruited whenever you're in the need of a good cry.
I Dissolve Every Time I Watch It. Obviously the inspiration behind James Cameron's '97 blockbuster, but more than makes up for its lack of special effects in the sterling performances by Webb, Stanwyck, Ritter, Wagner and others.Moreso than A Night To Remember, this '53 version hews closer in some respects to what is actually known about the 1912 maritime disaster (survivors said they recall the ship's orchestra playing "Nearer My God To Thee", as they do in the movie).
I would normally say actresses like Barbara Stanwyck and Thelma Ritter are reason enough, but their talents are wasted on this ridiculously thin screenplay, which inexplicably won writers Charles Brackett, Walter Reisch, and Richard Breen an Oscar in 1953."Titanic" was also nominated for its black and white art direction, and it's kind of interesting to see how similar the recreation of the ship's interior is to the 1997 version (the answer is....pretty similar).Grade: C.
Indeed the all-important shipwreck takes up less than a third of the film's typically lean 98-minute running-time and, for the previous hour-plus, we are regrettably treated to the class- conscious disintegrating marriage between "common" Barbara Stanwyck and snobbish Clifton Webb and the blooming romance between 'common' Robert Wagner and snobbish Audrey Dalton (the legitimate offspring of the Stanwyck-Webb union – there is also much eye-rolling emoting over the younger son's attachment to a father who has chosen to disown him!).
Apart from the obligatory lush production values, what remains to tickle the viewer's flagging interest is the fine cast assembled to impersonate the fated vessel's crew (stolid captain Brian Aherne and concerned second officer Edmund Purdom – who is surprisingly uncredited despite the amount of screen time and the importance of his role!) and passenger list (defrocked alcoholic priest Richard Basehart, indomitable Molly Brown stand-in Thelma Ritter and cowardly cad Allyn Joslyn); the film's concluding morose statistical narration is provided by a similarly unacknowledged Michael Rennie..
This version is definitely worth a look, if for no other reason than to watch Barbara Stanwyck and Clifton Webb go at it like a dog and a cat.
For this story, the focus is on one particular family - headed by wealthy husband Clifton Webb (as Richard Ward Sturges) and his exceptionally well-dressed wife Barbara Stanwyck (as Julia).
While falling a little short of "A Night to Remember" (1958), "Titanic" (1953) hits all cylinders successfully and remains a fine example of Hollywood-produced product from the 1950s.******** Titanic (4/11/53) Jean Negulesco ~ Clifton Webb, Barbara Stanwyck, Robert Wagner, Richard Basehart.
That's why I also went to see every other movie on the ship that came across including "Ome Night to Remember", "S.O.S Titanic" and James Cameron's huge "Titanic" too."One Night to Remember" (1958, I think) is supposed to be the most accurate regarding actual facts, but it lacks tension because of a weak plot until the sinking and even Kenneth More looks bored and too calm during such a terrible disaster; a documentary film would have been better if historical accuracy was the target.
Finally, Cameron's version (1997), is certainly a big budget film but has undeniable major flaws such as Billy Zane chasing and shooting with a pistol at Leo Di Caprio and Kate Winslet with the water above his knees and at the precise moment everybody else was trying to save their lives with the ship nearly down.On the other hand Jean Negulesco's 1953 version is a simple movie that narrates interesting and credible situations involving some of the doomed passengers.
The supporting cast which includes a young Robert Wagner, Thelma Ritter, Richard Basehart and the always reliable Brian Aherne (as Captain Smith), is also very good.The crash and the sinking sequences are very well done even for special effects of 1953.
The drama and desperation atmosphere all over the sentenced liner is also perfectly managed.If you just consider that Negulesco's film gives Cameron's version more than 40 years of handicap in film technology there can be no doubt that the first is a far better movie.The opening scene where you can see the iceberg cracking out of an ice mountain, fall into the ocean and start its voyage to meet the Titanic is an intelligent idea that puts you into the matter right from the start.In all a very good dramatic movie based on actual facts, not matched yet by the numerous cinema and television versions that came later.
Clifton Webb and Barbara Stanwyck play a quarreling American couple on what is supposed to be their voyage home, after years in Europe, and how the sinking of the great ship changes them; for the better, as things work out, though with tragic consequences.
So, they don't seem as natural or real, but more like people in a play or movie.The beauty of this film is that one can fit in and feel as though you are a passenger on board the Titanic with the Sturges family and others.
This was the Cameron film's namesake - 1953's "Titanic." It's the third movie account of the sinking of the ship that I've seen - along with the Cameron film and 1958's "A Night To Remember" - and it's actually, as far as I know, the earliest film version made.
The drama Titanic is directed by Jean Negulesco and stars Clifton Webb, Barbara Stanwyck, and Audrey Dalton.
The same is to be said about Audrey Dalton and all the other actors in this film, most of it centered on Webb and Stanwyck's characters though.Now I would like to compare this film to James Cameron's Titanic which is far superior.
I like this Titanic-film very much, but I can see that they used a model when they made the movie.The directing by Jean Negulesco is very good.
Clifton Webb and Barbara Stanwyck, two pros, are memorable in this fantastic version of "Titanic."Their marriage has gone southward as they embark on this ill-fated journey.Audrey Dalton, and Robert Wagner along with Thelma Ritter, who both starred the year before in "With A Song in My Heart," more than hold their own.
It is also interesting to note how calm everybody seemed to be as it sank too, unlike the other Titanic movies I've seen.This movie has an excellent cast: Clifton Webb (Laura), Barbara Stanwyck (The Two Mrs Carrolls), Robert Wagner (Hart To Hart), Thelma Ritter, Audrey Dalton, Richard Basehart (Voyage To the Bottom of the Sea) and Brian Aherne.
In this version of the Titanic there is a romance with a real young and good looking Robert Wagner playing a college student who is on the ship with a bunch of his classmates trying to act like they are Cornell students because their college has the same initials.
Most of the main characters are completely fictional, even more so than 1997's Titanic, but this is a good thing in that you're not putting words or actions into the mouths of real people.The family at the centre of the story are the result are being torn apart, not least by certain major revelations, but as the ship goes down disaster at least brings redemption and forgiveness.Whereas the 1997 movie has the stunning effects, the 'event' feeling, few would say it was well scripted or acted, and rightly so.
As the young 'love interest' couple Robert Wagner and Audrey Dalton are more believable and wholly less irritating than 1997's Jack and Rose.Many mentions have already been made about the father and son ending, and they're right, it is genuinely moving, the son clearly worships his father like a hero and makes the brave gesture of giving up his seat on a boat to 'make a swim for it' Enough to make any father proud.It's clear to me as a longtime (pre 1997) Titanic fan that if you want the best film re tellings of this story, you are best off with the two films of the 1950s..
Jean Negulesco's 1953 version of Titanic tries to be like a historical drama and fictional drama at the same time, succeeding in some areas, but failing in most areas.Rich, upper-class married Julia Sturges (Barbara Stanwyck) separates from her stuffy and uptight husband Richard (Clifton Webb), wanting to bring up her teenage daughter (Audrey Dalton) and young son as middle class Americans in Michigan.
Aboard the ship, the daughter strikes up a romance with an American college student (Robert Wagner), a defrocked priest (Richard Baseheart) is running away from his own problems, and the eventful April 15 sinking of Titanic will change everyone's lives forever.Let me start off with the positives.
There are also a number of other fine performances in this great ensemble cast: a young Robert Wagner, Allan Joslyn (who originated the part of Mortimer Brewster of "Arsenic and Old Lace" on B'way) as the cowardly Mr. Meeker, Brian Aherne in a very idealized but well-played role as Captain Smith, The young Harper Carter as Norman Sturgis and the very under-rated Richard Baseheart in the most moving portrayal as the defrocked alcoholic priest.To this day the end scenes with Clifton Webb and Harper Carter on the sinking ship with a hysterical Barbara Stanwick on a lifeboat hysterically screaming for her lost son still make me weep.
*SPOILERS*This movie was made by Jean Negulesco in '53, and is basically one of the worst Titanic movies ever made, if not *the* worst.We have a bickering couple (Barbara Stanwyck and Clifton Webb) along with daughter (Audrey Dalton) who predictably finds love (Robert Wagner) and little son, Molly Brown (Thelma Ritter) and a lot of other people I'm supposed to care about but I don't.It's the zenith of boredom!Then, the iceberg hits, and so does stupidity!
To die with his father?PLEASE!And then, everybody still on board sings 'Nearer My God To Thee' and DOESN'T MOVE AN INCH as the ship SINKS?What the HELL were they smoking?Titanic (1953): Starring Clifton Webb, Barbara Stanwyck, Robert Wagner, Audrey Dalton, Richard Basehart, Thelma Ritter, Brian Ahene, Allyn Joslyn, James Todd, James O'Hara, William Johnstone, Frances Bergen, Charles B.
The movie stars Clifton Webb, Barbara Stanwyck, Robert Wagner and Brian Aherne plays Captain John Smith.
Also the interior sets are good looking.The movie has a decent cast with Clifton Webb, Barbara Stanwyck and an almost unrecognizable young Robert Wagner in an early role. |
tt0093489 | Man on Fire | In 2003, burnt-out ex-CIA(SAD/SOG) Paramilitary operations officer and former U.S. Marine Corps Force Reconnaissance officer John Creasy (Denzel Washington) visits his old comrade Paul Rayburn (Christopher Walken), who runs a security firm in Mexico. Because of the extremely high rate of kidnappings in Mexico City for ransoms, wealthy businessman Samuel Ramos (Marc Anthony) hires Creasy through Rayburn to guard his nine-year-old daughter "Pita" (Dakota Fanning). Samuel, however, is having money problems, and intends to keep Creasy on only long enough to satisfy the requirements to renew his kidnap and ransom insurance on Pita. Creasy suffers from alcoholism, depression and severe guilt as a result of his former black ops work. Drinking heavily, Creasy attempts suicide with his pistol, but the bullet fails to fire when he pulls the trigger. He calls Rayburn, who says that "a bullet always tells the truth." At first, Creasy distances himself from Pita, but soon he becomes a surrogate father to the girl, allowing him to stop drinking and find a purpose in his life.
One day, while Creasy is escorting Pita from her piano lesson, a group of gunmen try to kidnap her. Creasy kills four of the kidnappers, including two corrupt policemen, in a shoot out, but he is shot multiple times and collapses from his wounds, and the abductors escape with Pita, who Creasy had commanded to flee, but returned to the collapsed Creasy. Creasy is hospitalized, but is moved to a veterinary hospital by Miguel Manzano (Giancarlo Giannini), a senior agent of the Agencia Federal de Investigación (AFI), who suspects Creasy will be killed by rogue police. Meanwhile, the Ramoses agree to deliver a dead drop ransom of US$10 million per the instructions of "La Voz" ("The Voice") (Roberto Sosa), the mastermind behind the kidnapping ring. Samuel's attorney, Jordan Kalfus (Mickey Rourke), arranges for the ransom money to be collected from Samuel's kidnapping insurance policy, then delivered to the kidnappers. The drop, however, is ambushed by members of "La Hermandad", a powerful crime syndicate composed of corrupt police officers, who steal the money and kill The Voice's nephew in the process. The Voice notifies the Ramoses that Pita will be killed in retribution.
Creasy leaves the hospital before fully recovering, swearing to Pita's mother Lisa (Radha Mitchell) that he will kill everyone involved in her daughter's abduction. Rayburn helps Creasy purchase black market firearms, a rocket-propelled grenade launcher and explosives. Mariana Guerrero (Rachel Ticotin), a journalist investigating kidnappings, and Manzano also offer their support. Creasy tracks down low-level operatives involved in various stages of the kidnapping, torturing each for information about other operatives, then killing them in brutal ways, eventually learning from the "president" of "La Hermandad" that the bags they stole at the ransom drop contained only $2.5 million of actual currency while the rest was blank paper.
Creasy finds Kalfus murdered and then finds evidence of his questionable financial dealings with Samuel. He confronts Samuel and Lisa for the truth behind the kidnapping. Samuel confesses to Creasy and Lisa that he agreed to Kalfus' plan to stage Pita's kidnapping, so he could pay off business debts by fraudulently collecting the insurance money. He planned to keep $5 million for himself and split the rest between Kalfus and the kidnappers. He was told that Pita would watch cartoons for a couple days and be returned after the ransom was paid. Samuel confesses to killing Kalfus, and Creasy leaves Samuel with a pistol and the misfired round, which works for Samuel when he commits suicide.
Using the information provided by Creasy, The Voice's identity is revealed by Manzano to be Daniel Sánchez, who Mariana exposes on the front page of her newspaper. Creasy sneaks into the home of Sánchez's ex-wife and children, and is shot by his brother Aurelio (Gero Camilo), whom Creasy then captures. Creasy calls Daniel Sánchez and threatens to kill all of his family unless he gives himself up, but Sánchez reveals that Pita is still alive, and offers her in exchange for Aurelio and Creasy. Creasy and Pita share a tearful goodbye before he surrenders himself to Sánchez' men, as Pita is released into her mother's arms. Creasy succumbs peacefully from his gunshot injuries. Daniel Sánchez is later killed by Manzano during an AFI arrest raid. | murder | train | wikipedia | Scott Glenn gives a suitably haunted and melancholic performance, despite his dorky 80s wardrobe; no man can look cool with puffy shoulder pads like Joan Crawford and his coat-sleeves pushed up past his elbows.
Seems to me that the reason why this movie isn't liked and known any better is because the world was not really ready yet for a this sort of action movie, at the time.
So the movie was actually ahead of its time and I could understand Tony Scott's interest in this movie and why he decided to make a remake of it, back in 2004.It's definitely not an usual revenge flick.
It of course is still being filled with plenty of straightforward action, in its second.And you would think that this is when the movie becomes truly good and interesting.
I just liked the story and far slower pace of the movie its first half way better.
It was a genuinely good movie, while its action part comes across as far more standard and the story suddenly got pushed to the background.
In that regard this movie is totally the opposite of its remake, in which the second half and all of its action parts were its highlights.With its pacing and buildup this definitely feels more like a foreign movie, which is not all that surprising really, considering that it had a French director at the helm.
especially of course when you are expecting a more straightforward action flick.And for such a low key movie, it definitely has a great cast in it.
Scott Glenn, Joe Pesci, Jonathan Pryce, all in one movie, that's pretty awesome!
Scott Glenn is a great leading man to have, when the main character is supposed to be a grumpy, tough guy, with his heart still at the right place.Maybe it's only just a half successful movie but it's still really worth giving a go!7/10 http://bobafett1138.blogspot.com/.
When most people today hear the title "Man on Fire", they probably think right away of the 2004 film starring Denzel Washington and Dakota Fanning.
The 1987 version of "Man on Fire" is probably a film that I would have to consider schlock.
And the other half will simply despise it.For me, "Man on Fire" was in deed unusual and strange and definitely not the most creative film ever made.
Scott Glenn was absolutely flawless as Creasy and he pulled off the character as being mysterious, cold, and unusual.
Jade Malle, an actress who unfortunately did not do much acting after this debut, was fairly good as Sam. Yes, she wasn't the best child actress in the world and not a patch when compared to Dakota Fanning, but I found her to a fairly decent addition to the cast.
And Joe Pesci, while definitely one of the unusual aspects of the film, pulled off a fairly good performance as well.Action sequences in "Man on Fire" were fairly decent.
And what I will always remember about this film was that unlike the 2004 version, there was a scene here that just made me jump.So what doesn't work in "Man on Fire"?
Maybe that's what the director intended.The original 1987 "Man on Fire" is not the kind of film for everybody.
Personally, I might prefer this version for its colorful acting, its not-so-gangster style, Scott Glenn's wonderful performance, the great music score, and just the great thrills of a 1980s European thriller..
Friends Like Us. Although several films are entitled "Man On Fire", this one (1987) has Scott Glenn playing the lead.
With the combined talents of both and then add Joe Pesci as David, Jonathan Pryce as Michael, Paul Shenar as Ettore and especially Danny Aiello as Conti, the film becomes a unique stage upon which abundance talent is configured to provide an explosive outcome.
Not being fan of director Tony Scott's 2004 remake starring Denzel Washington and Dakota Fanning, it however did get my attention that this novel adaptation was also attempted in the late 80s in a very European style.
Not as easy to get a hold off, but it turned out to be a solidly atypical, if unspectacular, lean revenge thriller with a striking performance by Scott Glenn in the central role as former CIA agent turned bodyguard Mr. Creasy.
It's the cast that makes this one work (where can you get Joe Pesci doing what he does best; getting angry; yelling profanity, breaking radios and singing "Johnny Be Goode"), outside some methodically stylish directorial touches (like the opening slow motion intro) and stunning Italian backdrops and decors.
The music score is atmospherically edgy and always complements the on-screen action with the cinematography fluidly projecting the details.The pacing is rather stodgy, as it does take awhile before it builds up some momentum (soon after the ransom kidnapping by some terrorists), there it crackles along (Creasy gaining health and then going on the warpath finding those involved to only dispatch them) until reaching its abrupt, if confused climax.
Instead it's rather understated - more so moodily brooding in its activities (and Glenn's husky narration), as it's quite a lyrical character drama, spending a lot time developing upon the relationship of the young girl and her bodyguard.
Unlike "Menteurs" where Chouraqui constructs a (French) movie within a (French) movie, his earlier work "Man on Fire" deftly collides elements of European and Hollywood moviemaking by putting American actors inside the universe of Italian political thriller and making them look utterly un-American....A man is dying in some Italian military hospital.
Bodyguard Chris (Scott Glenn) is hired to protect Sam (Jade Malle), 12-year old daughter of American businessman (Jonathan Pryce).
The direction is elegant (if a bit slow), but movie's biggest assets are its two leads: Jade Malle with her sincerity and freshness and Scott Glenn - one of the most underrated American actors.
You'd have to dig a bit to discover that Man On Fire with Denzel Washington is actually a remake, or rather another version of a book that's out there somewhere, but there is indeed film from 87' bearing the same title and basic plot outline, albeit with a heavy dose of melodrama.
Swap out Denzel and Chris Walken for Scott Glenn and Joe Pesci, Mexico City for Italy and Tony Scott's neo-punk visual aesthetic for a more stone-faced, straightforward approach and you'll have some idea.
Glenn is Creasy, a mopey ex CIA soldier who gets a job from buddy Pesci protecting a wealthy businessman (Jonathan Pryce) and his family, mostly driving their precocious young daughter (Jade Malle) around.
It's still a decent piece though, with the distinct cast doing fine work, especially Pesci who is volatile and unpredictable, almost stealing the film from Glenn.
Awaking in hospital, Creasy decides to take matters violently into his own hands.It was the sequel that made me come back to this film and, given Scott's heavy use of style I was hoping that this would be a much more slimmed down and gritty film but still keeping the violence and desperation.
It is very American in cast but yet very European in style and delivery, like it is an attempt to ape the American movies without stepping too far from it.
When the violence finally comes it lacks conviction and is surprisingly dull.It is a shame because I was hoping that the low budget feel would mean a very gritty and desperate feel to the film but there is never much in the way of urgency.
Pesci, Pryce and Aiello are all so-so at best but it is Malle that is the worst cast not only is she a bit irritating, but she doesn't have the chemistry with Glenn that the film requires.I wanted to like Man on Fire because it is a bit of a cult film that few people have seen.
The remake is not a great film by any means but it is certainly better than the original and maybe that was the point Scott wanted to prove!.
Scott Glenn just doesn't work as Creasy.
As has been said, when people think of the title 'Man on Fire' one immediately think of the far better known 2004 film.
'Man on Fire' is not a great film exactly and can totally see where the critics are coming from.
The music is dynamic and haunting.The script has some nice tension and, contrary to what some critics have said, it does have wit and coolness (especially Scott Glenn's lines).
The direction has been criticised, can understand as it is sluggish to begin with but there is a real sense that Chouraqui is more comfortable.Scott Glenn is an intensely charismatic lead and carries the film brilliantly.
Her and Glenn's chemistry is the heart of the film and it is dealt with a believable amount of charm and that it developed gradually rather than them hitting it off straight-away was a good move.
In support, a fun Joe Pesci and sinister Danny Aiello (despite an inconsistent accent) stand out.Not everybody comes off well, more to do with screen time than performance quality.
Jonathan Pryce and Brooke Adams just have too little to do to make much impression, Adams in a role little more than the smallest, blink-and-miss of cameos is particularly wasted.In summary, not a bad film and has enough to not make it fizzle but some elements bring it down from being on fire.
It stars Scott Glenn as John Creasy, a former C.I.A. agent living in Italy who forever mopes about his traumatic past.
Then his good friend David (Joe Pesci) finds him some work, as a bodyguard for Sam (Jade Malle), the daughter of a financially well off couple (Paul Shenar, Brooke Adams).
Once he's recuperated, he's determined to get her back using the most ruthless means available to him.The 2004 version of the same story, directed by Tony Scott (originally considered as director of this adaptation) and starring Denzel Washington, Dakota Fanning, and Christopher Walken, may be much better known, but this version offers a well paced, watchable enough (and very rainy) revenge flick, full to the brim with violence.
The deeply affecting music score by John Scott will make you think you're watching a better movie than you really are.It is somewhat fun to see the under-rated Glenn join the ranks of cinematic bad asses.
Though billed and treated by most as an action/thriller/revenge film it's much more than that.
The aspect that really grabbed me was the development of the relationship of Scott Glenn's Chris Creasy and Jade Malle's Samantha.
The gradual development of the Creasy character from an isolated and emotionally shut down loner first into a friend and finally into a surrogate father and mentor to Samantha is touching and believable.
You're going to tell me that Scott Glenn is a much better actor than SS, Arnold and co:that's true and he looks sometimes jaded,depressed,and even moving.But it's the same old story all over again:the little girl,the daughter of rich wealthy Italians is kidnapped by villains and so begins the task.
Main objections:why ,when the movie takes place in Italy and only one character is American ,does almost everyone speak English in the original version?This is not natural,particularly for the girlie ;why were the prologue and the epilogue filmed in slow motion:it does not bring anything.
If you are a fan of Scott Glenn, Joe Pesci, or Danny Aiello, I have two words "don't bother".
"Man on Fire" opens with a truly tedious relationship build up between Glenn and the twelve year old kidnapping victim, Jade Malle.
Joe Pesci more or less just revolves around Glenn's character, and really never gets involved in the action.
Character development is weak, and the film is way too dark in places.
While there are remakes that could be deemed unnecessary (though studios never think that, especially financially), this one was more than ripe and really easy to top.While I do like Scott Glenn in general (you might also remember him from "Silence of the Lambs", but he's done quite a lot of other work, mostly small roles in a lot of movies), I don't think he adds anything to the mix here.
When he was wearing the sunglasses it could have been outtakes from "Doctor Who".That's really all I have to say, but there's this dumb "10 line" restriction.Ho, hum.It was a good movie.I can't see what prompted Denzel Washington to remake it; he added very little to the role.Is that enough text yet?.
Glenn truly is the epitome of the title of the film, and is far less methodical than the 2004 updated version (this aspect is neither better nor worse, but different).
The 80's version does not have same pyrotechnics featured in the latter film, and the action is a bit less satisfying.
More satisfying than the far more melancholy ending with Denzel Washington and a rather obvious tacked on final resolution to the final baddie yet to be dealt with on Creasy's list (watch it, it looks like it was filmed at the last second with just 2 actors in someone's backyard), the 80's film has an interesting bookend with it's unusual opening and ending.
The finale is almost nightmarish as Scott Glenn's Creasy is insanely calling out his young charge's name, but it all ends with a far more sweet resolution than what we would have predicted.
Without giving away who all lives and dies, it is a long belief of mine that the best films make you feel for characters that you are convinced will die, but then don't.
People love the illusion and sensation of being in some great danger, but (barring strange accidents) walk away just fine.**END SPOLIER**Scott Glenn's Creasy deserves to be seen.
And although Fanning is absolutely amazing as Denzel's charge in the remake, the original has the rare distinction of having a bit more ethnic child being the focus of Creasy's devotion and not the unlikely blond and very pale skin offspring of Marc Anthony.
Denzel's 2004 version is one of my favorite one-man-army revenge flicks, so when I saw this title at the truck-stop $1 bin, I grabbed it.
Scott Glenn is a top-notch tough-guy actor who never got his big break, but he always does a great job and this is clearly some of his best work, IMO (also check out "The Challenge", 1982).
This French/Italian 1987 version had only a small fraction of the budget of Denzel's film and it quickly sank out of sight in America, but it works on different levels and is very entertaining in its own peculiar way.Glenn's Creasy is a great version of the burned-out, PTSD-suffering, haunted, depressed former Special Ops bad*** soldier who has seen and done too much and has totally given up on life.
Yes, this character is an action movie stereotype, but Glenn breathes a lot of life into him.
After all Hell breaks loose, then he shaves and gets a haircut and the audience knows he means business from that moment on.Jade Malle was a 12-yr-old French actress, so it's a very different dynamic from Dakota Fanning's little girl, but it's interesting in a special way.
Glenn's Creasy still sees her as the daughter he never had, but being older she's more of a pain in the butt than a sweet little girl would be.
Also, among many other great actors and actresses in the supporting cast, we have Joe Pesci in the Christopher Walken role and he's fantastic as usual.Anyway, for fans of the one-man-army revenge films, this is a fine example of the genre.
Thanks to his friend David (Pesci), he takes a job in Italy, protecting a 12-year-old girl, Samantha (Malle) from the kidnapping danger sweeping Italy at the time.
Her parents, Jane and Michael (Adams and Pryce, respectively) are never around so Creasy ends up spending a lot of time with Sam, as she likes to be called.
But truly the star of the show is Scott Glenn, who puts in a great performance as the troubled Creasy.
The movie is worth seeing for Glenn alone.Acting as his foil is Joe Pesci, who really rocks out on his own version of "Johnny B.
That aside, what sets apart Man On Fire is the fact that it takes its time to develop the relationship between Sam and Creasy.
Just like (see my other reviews) the actor chosen to play the lead in SHOOTER looked nothing whatsoever like the character as described in the source novel by Stephen Hunter, Scott Glenn in this film looks nothing like Creasey in the Quinnell series, nor does he act like him.
(Creasey was huge, and a stone-faced killer.) Which is not to say this is a bad film -- I ACTUALLY PREFER IT OVER THE DENZEL VERSION -- merely to point out that this is just one more sad example of the film biz "having its way" with a good work of fiction, and leaving mainly ashes in its wake.
I think that I had read the book after seeing the film starring Scott Glenn as I had never heard of the author before reading the book man on fire.The Scott Glenn movie may be a little dated as for the time that it was made but there is good value with the amount of stars that are in the movie and if you liked the remake it will be worth a look at the original as the book is set in Italy and this original movie is as well and I still feel that denzel Washington is too young for to play the character as he is an ex-legionnaire and had served in the army for decades.I do like the remake but it could have done without the words coming up on the screen at certain points of the film and I would have loved it if he done what greasy had done in the book as he started at the little guys that carried out the actual kidnapping then ended up going after the top man in the mafia. |
tt1541718 | Dragon Age: Origins | === Setting ===
The game is set in Ferelden, one of several countries in the fictional world of Thedas. Demonic creatures called the Darkspawn dwell within the Deep Roads, an underground highway system created by the dwarves long ago, deep beneath the surface of Thedas. Every few hundred years, the Darkspawn swarm the surface world in a movement known as a Blight. Ever since the first Blight, Thedas has relied on the legendary order of warriors known as the Grey Wardens to drive the Darkspawn back. Dragon Age: Origins begins on the eve of Thedas's fifth Blight.
Thedas is a world in which race and class combine to determine social class. Elves are often viewed as second-class citizens by humans, while human nobles are treated with respect. Mages, on the other hand, are cloistered by the Chantry: they have access to the Fade, the unconscious realm that is the home of spirits, and a single lapse in vigilance could cause them to be possessed by demons. Apostate mages, who live outside the Chantry's control, are considered extremely dangerous, and the Chantry has a militant wing, the Templars, to seek them out and subdue them by any means necessary. Dwarves live in the Deep Roads, their kingdom a shadow of what it once was before the first Blight. Their society is rooted in tradition and a rigid caste system
=== Characters ===
The chief protagonist of Dragon Age: Origins is the player-controlled character, whose biography and combat specialization are determined by the race and class chosen at the start of the game. While the player can choose his or her avatar's first name, the character is usually referred to as "The Warden" by other characters and the game's narration.
Many of the game's non-player characters (NPCs) are companion characters, who appear throughout the game and may volunteer their services. Companions include Alistair, a reluctantly heroic Grey Warden with a sarcastic wit; Morrigan, the sultry but cynical dark mage who has little regard for authority or social mores; Leliana, an ex-member of Ferelden's Chantry whose optimistic and virtuous demeanor belies an aptitude for espionage and combat; Sten, a proud but stoic warrior of the militaristic Qunari people who often questions human ways; Oghren, a brutal dwarven warrior whose love of alcohol is only matched by his penchant for violence and loyalty to his friends; Wynne, an Elder Mage of the Circle, a maternal figure to the party and a powerful healer; Zevran, a rakish elven assassin who is fond of treasures, sex and innuendo; and a loyal Mabari War Hound, which the player can name and use for scouting and combat. In the DLC, Shale, a sarcastic Golem with a mild ornithophobia (fear of birds phobia); who was a female dwarf in her prior life, is also available. There is also a so-called "secret companion" who can be recruited, but that will cause Alistair to leave the Warden. The secret companion is Loghain.
Outside of companion characters, NPCs significant to the Origins plot include Duncan, the Grey Warden who recruits the player; King Cailan, Ferelden's naive but courageous leader and son of the legendary King Maric; Queen Anora, Cailan's politically-savvy wife, whose youth and beauty are matched by a commanding personality but somewhat offset by her ambition and ruthlessness; and Flemeth, Morrigan's mother, who appears to be a harmless old woman in public, but in truth is an infamous dark witch of Ferelden legend.
The faceless Darkspawn horde is led by the archdemon Urthemiel, supposedly one of the Old Gods of the Tevinter Imperium, incarnated in the form of a powerful and corrupted dragon with total control over the darkspawn. The game's other main antagonists are Teyrn Loghain Mac Tir, father of Queen Anora, a once-respected war hero gone mad with ambition and paranoia; and Rendon Howe, the amoral and corrupt Arl of Amaranthine who allies with Loghain to further his own ambitions.
=== Plot ===
Depending on the player's chosen race and class, they will begin the game with one of six predetermined origin stories. In each origin story, the player is introduced to Duncan, the commander of Ferelden's Grey Wardens, who is trying to find recruits to join the order. At the end of the origin story, the player's character is selected as a potential Grey Warden, and leaves with Duncan.
The player and Duncan journey to a fortress in southern Ferelden called Ostagar. There, they join Cailan, the King of Ferelden, and his father-in-law Loghain, a legendary general. The three leaders plan to make a stand against the encroaching Darkspawn before a new Blight overwhelms Ferelden. Duncan senses the influence of an Archdemon, a god-like being hosted in the body of a powerful Dragon that commands the Darkspawn, which makes this the first true Blight in over 400 years. Duncan emphasizes the importance of defeating the Blight before it can gain enough momentum to threaten the rest of Thedas.
Duncan initiates the player into the Grey Wardens through a dangerous ritual called the Joining. The Joining involves imbibing Darkspawn blood, which will either kill a person or imbue them with the powerful darkspawn essence known as the Taint, granting them the ability to sense Darkspawn and a rudimentary connection into their hive mind. After surviving the Joining, the player and another Grey Warden, Alistair, are given the task of lighting a beacon at the top of the fortress which will signal Loghain's men to charge the horde's flank. However, upon seeing the signal, Loghain abandons the battlefield with his army. Without Loghain's reinforcements, King Cailan and Duncan are overwhelmed and slain by the Darkspawn, who massacre Cailan's army, seize control of Ostagar and begin advancing into southern Ferelden.
The player's Warden and Alistair are saved by Flemeth, a powerful witch who lives in a secluded hermitage with her daughter and apprentice, Morrigan. The player, Alistair, and Morrigan decide that in order to stop the Blight from destroying Ferelden, and possibly all of Thedas, they will need to gather a new army and slay the Archdemon. Using ancient Grey Warden treaties, the player's Warden must travel across Ferelden to enlist the aid of the Dalish Elves, the Dwarves of Orzammar, the Circle of Magi, and the soldiers of Redcliffe, loyal to Arl Eamon. In addition, Alistair reveals that he is a bastard son of King Maric Theirin, Cailin's father, putting him in contention for the recently vacated throne.
Meanwhile, Loghain returns to Ferelden's capital city, Denerim, to inform his daughter Queen Anora of King Cailan's death. Loghain scapegoats the Grey Wardens for the defeat at Ostagar; accusing them of betraying Ferelden, Loghain outlaws the order and demands the deaths of any surviving Wardens. While Anora inherits her husband's authority, Loghain quickly declares himself her regent and effectively seizes control of the kingdom. Loghain swiftly becomes a brutal and tyrannical ruler willing to do anything to retain power, igniting a civil war between himself and Ferelden's nobility, who refuse to acknowledge his authority. Both sides battle to an inconclusive stalemate, and the darkspawn take advantage of the chaos to advance further into Ferelden unopposed.
After the player successfully obtains the assistance of each of the primary factions, a Landsmeet is called among the nobles of Ferelden. There, the player confronts Loghain, ultimately either executing him or making him a Grey Warden (in which case he joins the party, replacing Alistair). The player also settles who will lead Ferelden against the Blight (Alistair, Anora, or both) and rallies support from the rest of the kingdom to face the Darkspawn. At this point, the player learns that only a Grey Warden can slay the Archdemon because of the Taint present in a Grey Warden's body. Killing the Archdemon releases the demonic essence within it, which is drawn to the Taint in the Grey Warden and effectively kills them as well; if anyone other than a Warden slays it, the Archdemon's essence survives and finds a new host in the nearest Darkspawn, making the monster effectively immortal.
On the night before the final battle, Morrigan offers the player's Warden a way to slay the Archdemon without sacrificing anyone: Morrigan believes that if the player succeeds in conceiving a child with her, the child would also carry the Taint. Once the Archdemon dies, its demonic essence would be drawn away from any Grey Warden to safely merge with the unborn child instead. The resulting child would be born a demigod, which she plans to raise on her own. The player can accept Morrigan's offer, convince Alistair or Loghain to take part instead, or refuse the witch's proposal, which will cause her to leave the party.
The next day, the player and the newly assembled army of Ferelden fight their way through the city of Denerim, which has been overrun by the Darkspawn. After fighting their way through the Darkspawn horde, and a final battle against the Archdemon atop Denerim's highest tower, the player is given the chance to deliver the killing blow or to let Alistair or Loghain do it. With each choice, the Archdemon is killed and the leaderless Darkspawn army retreats from Denerim, marking the end of the Fifth Blight. Unless the ritual with Morrigan was performed, whoever slew the Archdemon also perishes. The story ends with a ceremony attended by the people of Ferelden during which the player and their companions are honored for saving the kingdom. The game then presents an epilogue in text and pictures which details the ramifications of the player's in-game choices on the future of Ferelden and the lives of his or her companions. | revenge, romantic | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0038908 | A Scandal in Paris | The rogue (George Sanders) who would later call himself Eugène François Vidocq is born in a prison cell, the twelfth child of a woman who steals a loaf of bread each time she needs shelter to give birth. As the boy grows into a man, he is constantly in and out of jail. As the story begins, he and his cutpurse cellmate and associate, Emile Vernet (Akim Tamiroff), escape using a file hidden in a birthday cake provided by Vernet's aunt Ernestine.
While making their way to Paris, they are hired to pose for a painter (Fritz Leiber), Vidocq as Saint George and Vernet as the dragon. As the church painting nears completion, the pair steal the horse on which Vidocq is posing.
In Paris, Uncle Hugo (Vladimir Sokoloff), the head of Vernet's criminal family, decides the safest place for the fugitives is in the army. He has a forger relative provide Vidocq with a fake commission as a lieutenant. After two years, the pair leave the army. Returning to Paris, Lieutenant "Rousseau" encounters a singer named Loretta (Carole Landis). She is intrigued with him, while he is more attracted to her ruby garter. Accompanying her when she goes to meet her boring admirer, Vidocq manages to steal the garter.
As Vidocq and Vernet make a detour around the church adorned by their likenesses, they come across the jewel-laden Marquise De Pierremont (Alma Kruger). Vidocq wrangles an invitation to her chateau after retrieving her pet monkey from a cemetery (where he also claims to be a relation of a Vidocq buried there). He is a bit alarmed when he discovers that his intended victim's son-in-law is the Minister of Police (Alan Napier), but also enchanted by the official's daughter Therese (Signe Hasso). Unbeknownst to him, she had fallen in love with the image of Saint George, and is greatly disturbed by the uncanny resemblance to their guest. Vidocq and Vernet steal and hide the jewels, intending to return for them later.
However, when the minister fires Richet (Gene Lockhart), his chief of police, for not recovering the jewels, Vidocq devises a much grander scheme. Through "deduction", he leads the minister to the hiding place of the jewels, and wins for himself Richet's old job. In that capacity, he gets Vernet's relatives hired at the Bank of Paris, which he intends to rob.
A complication arises when he bumps into Loretta, who turns out to have married her beau, Richet. After learning his new identity, Loretta blackmails Vidocq into resuming their relationship. Vidocq tells Vernet to go ahead with the robbery that night. That day, he goes out walking with Loretta and her younger sister Mimi. When they are alone, Loretta informs him that she has figured out that he stole the jewels. However, she does not care. She is quite willing to follow him, even if it means embarking on a life of crime. Meanwhile, a jealous Richet bursts in on his wife and threatens to kill himself. Instead, in a fit of anger brought on by her cold response, he shoots and kills her.
With that impediment out of the way, Vidocq informs the Vernet clan that he has changed his mind; he will hunt them down if they go through with the robbery. Nearly everyone is content with their new jobs - all that is except Emile. He ambushes his former friend, forcing Vidocq to kill him. Then he confesses to the minister. He is forgiven by all of the De Pierremonts and welcomed into the family. | murder, historical fiction | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0114419 | She Fought Alone | Caitlin Rose is a shy 17-year-old in the new town of Lockhart, Illinois. She is not very well known at her school, but with the help of her best friend, she is accepted into the popular group at school, known as The Crew. While partying one night, she bonds with Ethan, and eventually she's sleeping with him while being secretly watched by his best friend, Jace. Acting under peer pressure, she soon starts to rebel, neglecting school and getting into trouble. A lot of the teachers are bothered by their behavior, complaining to administrators that they get away with everything to no avail. While at the movies one night, Caitlin finds out Ethan is dating another girl. Upset, she confronts him. Trying to keep up a tough image, he claims they were never serious, but she responds that she sees right through him, before leaving. Back at home, she receives a visit from Jace, who lies his way into her home by saying that he wants to comfort her. Inside, he tries to kiss her, but when she refuses, he becomes aggressive and ends up raping her while her little sister listens through the door, unaware that her sister is being assaulted.
The next day, she distances herself from everyone, not wanting to talk to her mother. When Avon demands to know what happened last night, Caitlin admits that Jace raped her. She, however, doesn't believe Caitlin, claiming that she probably seduced him. Feeling betrayed, she leaves home, only to be told the same by her friends. She directly accuses Jace of rape, but nobody believes her, and the rest of Caitlin's friends soon turn their back on her. Determined to prove she is not lying, she goes to the hospital for an examination, but the doctors can't find any sign of rape because of the fact she was already sexually active before being raped. Nevertheless, Avon decides to believe her and offers to press charges, but Caitlin responds she just wants to forget everything that happened.
She is soon troubled with nightmares, and at school, people start bullying her. At first, she considers dropping out and going to college, but she soon realizes she could be able to stop it by winning over Ethan's trust. She is unable to, however, and the harassing continues. This results in Caitlin getting into a fight with another girl, Hanna, who is subsequently suspended not only for fighting Caitlin and writing graffiti, but for arguing with the chemistry teacher. Her mother threatens to step to the mass media, which angers the principal. Trying to prevent the school from getting a bad reputation, she suspends Ethan and Jace from two football games. As revenge for the suspension, the group lures her into an abandoned house and assaults her, cutting off her hair as a "punishment". However, Ethan sees how scared she is and lets her go. Devastated, Caitlin decides to fight back, calling an investigator the next day, and the two begin collecting evidence and preparing to sue the school.
Meanwhile, Jace reveals to Ethan that he indeed raped Caitlin. Stunned by this revelation, Ethan tries to make it right with her, but she initially doesn't want to see him. However, after much discussion, Caitlin finally relents, and an uneasy truce is made between them. Feeling betrayed by his best friend, Jace starts vandalizing Ethan's property and car. Finally, he picks up Caitlin, ready to flee the town, but they are stopped by the rest of The Crew. During the ensuing commotion, a knife fight breaks out between Ethan and Jace, which ends with Jace being stabbed in the leg, after which Ethan leaves with Caitlin. Later, they kiss in a church, and a court trial follows, during which the school district promises to update their policies. Jace testifies he will never play college football because of muscle damage sustained in the knife fight, and that he's ready to move on with his life and go to a state college. In the end, Caitlin leaves town for college, leaving everyone behind. | violence | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0032779 | Melody Ranch | Gene Autry (Gene Autry) returns to his hometown of Torpedo as guest of honor at the Frontier Days Celebration, where he meets his childhood enemies, the Wildhack brothers—Mark (Barton MacLane), Jasper (Joe Sawyer), and Bud (Horace McMahon)—who are now local gangsters. The Wildhacks own a saloon next door to the school, and when their shooting and brawling endangers the safety of the children, Gene protests and threatens to expose them during his next radio broadcast. The Wildhacks stop the broadcast and beat Gene up.
Realizing that Hollywood life has softened him to the extent that he can't hold his own against three assailants, Gene decides to remain in Torpedo and get into shape again. He is encouraged by his friend Cornelius J. "Corney" Courtney (Jimmy Durante) and Pop Laramie (George "Gabby" Hayes). Refusing to return to Hollywood, Gene now broadcasts his radio shows from Torpedo.
Julie Sheldon (Ann Miller), a debutante with theatrical aspirations, sees Gene in his natural setting and begins to take an interest in the cowboy she formerly scorned. Meanwhile, Gene rounds up the Wildhacks and fights them single-handed, forcing them to sing on his broadcast. When the brothers become determined to get revenge, Gene runs for sheriff so he will be in position to clean up the Wildhack political machine for good, and also make use of the "Vote for Autry" song. During the battles that ensue, one of Gene's friends is killed. Gene discovers evidence that identifies the Wildhacks as the killers. | murder | train | wikipedia | Gene Autry cleans up his hometown Torpedo.
This is my favorite western film.
I would gladly recommend it to anyone who enjoys clean entertainment.
It features 2 great actors Gene Autry and Jimmy Durante.
It provides the family with great entertainment that even young children can enjoy.
This film features some very nice songs, among them the title song "Melody Ranch" and "We Never Dream the Same Dream Twice".
It is one of the best examples of adventurous musical westerns.
Comedy routines including Jimmy Durante make the movie appealing to fun loving audiences as well.
I would highly recommend this movie to anyone who likes Gene Autry and his western style of crooning the songs of the old West..
Singing is nice, acting is average.
Gene Autry has a radio show with singing and a drama each week.
His co-star, Ann Miller, thinks he his, shall we say, less than sophisticated.
She thinks she is too good for him and the show.
His hometown wants him to come back as honorary sheriff during a special celebration.
While there he tangles with three brothers who run the town headed by Barton MacLane.
And Gene develops a love interest toward Ann.
As a movie the acting is somewhat weak.
Ann Miller goes around with a smile plastered on her face regardless of the type of scene.
If she had put more into her performance I would have rated this movie higher.
Then there is Jimmy Durante (who has some very good scenes) and Gabby Hayes (who always does his 'Gabby' role very well).
They used their scenes very effectively.
Bartin MacLane as the bad guy also used his talents effectively in the few scenes he was in.
In other words, the character actors put some real effort into their roles and they are quite enjoyable.
Not a movie that you will see over and over again but it certainly worth seeing once.
Conflicting Talents....
Take your #1 Box Office Star of Republic Pictures, GENE AUTRY the 'Singing Cowboy' sensation.
Now insert a love interest in a very young ANN MILLER, 'Tops In Taps'.
Support GENE with comedic side-kicks JIMMY DURANTE and GEORGE 'Gabby' HAYES with character actors like JEROME COWAN.
Garner in a opposition more suitable too a Warner Brothers (WB) gangster film, like BARTON MacLANE, JOE SAWYER and HORACE McMAHON.
Then add in the typical mixture of GENE singing and two-fisted Republic action and you have MELODY RANCH (1940).The plot is typical of a AUTRY film.
Set in a West that is a cross-breed of 1890 and 1940.
GENE needs to promote his Radio career, bring 'law and order' to a town gone wrong and win the girl.
This is effectively done in 84" which is rather longer then the typical Republic 'oater' of the time.
The interesting thing is while GENE and the rest act like this is part of the 'Old West', MacLANE, SAWYER and McMAHON perform as if they are working with CAGNEY in N.Y.C. circa 1936 at the WB.The better AUTRY's as well as the ROY ROGERS films are generally a good watch most coming in at a IMDb Six******Stars.
They are entertaining and both Stars will easily transition to the new medium Television.
Not surprising, since Republic's economy and speed of production was well suited as a training ground for T.V..
Better than usual Gene Autry western with surprising co-stars..
A rather interesting Republic western with Gene Autry.
This one is long 83 minutes for one, and although it has a plot done numerous times before is interesting due to the comic relief of Jimmy Durante and Vera Vague, who normally wouldn't be seen in B westerns.
In addition a 17 year old Ann Miller plays his love interest and does one of her customary tap numbers.
Why it almost seems like a small MGM musical..
Needs More Gene and Less Jimmy.
Looks like Republic was angling for a cross-over audience with this bigger-budget blend of comedy, romance, music, and shoot-'em-up.
Comedy prevails since we get three comics ( Durante, Hayes, and Allen) instead of the usual one.
In fact, in terms of screen time, Durante gets more than Gene.
He also gets a number of extended routines, making him the real "center" of the show.
For me at least, that's too bad because a little of his bombastic style goes a long way.The chuckles should have been left to Hayes who can help carry a story and not interrupt it.
In fact, the screenplay appears an awkward cut-and-paste job, at best, which is not too surprising since not one or two, but six writers are credited!
Whatever else, it's certainly not a formula Western.Instead, it's basically tongue-in-cheek.
Check out bad guys Sawyer and McMahon doing a duet that's really rather charming.
Or the little spoof of shoot-outs when a heedless Allen chatters her way through a supposed hail of bullets.
Or a Western town named, of all things, "Torpedo".
At the same time, the movie does have its moments—the great gabby Hayes and a charismatic little Mary Lee, or the trolley car rolling oddly through the desert, or an amazingly accomplished 17-year old Ann Miller.
Still and all, I could have used a lot more Gene and a lot less Jimmy..
Great cast killed by corn.
"Melody Ranch" (1940) is one of Gene Autry's best-known and most popular Oaters.
In reality,while not his best, it's still entertaining as all get-out!
The only neative is the screenplay by Jack Moffitt, F.
Hugh Herbet (norelation to the comic character actor), Bradford Ropes and Betty Burbridge: It's got a little too much comic corn.
The film boasts an unusually strong cast,including Gabby Hayes, Gene's love interest Ann Miller (who never ever looked more stunning - she's a total knockout here at age 17), bad guy Barton MacLane, and Jerome Cowan (a year before Mary Astor bumps him off when he played Bogie's Sam Spade partner Miles Archer near the beginning of "The Maltese Falcon").
Serving as Gene's back-up band...Bob Wills & His Texas Playboys!
The fella who gets the lion's share of the corny jokes is that wonderful legend, Jimmy Durante.
His role is similar to his Banjo in "The Man Who Came to Dinner" four years later, in 1944.
I absolutely love the two-reel B film "Oater" westerns of the '30 & '40s and the western TV series of the '50s.
This one comes close to being included among them but the high corn factor keeps it off the list.
But Ann Miller is really great to look at here..
Gene Autry's First Big Budget Western.
In the 1930s and early 1940s, Gene Autry was America's number one cowboy on the silver screen.
At the same time Melody Ranch was the name of his weekly radio variety show.
As was already pointed out, these two themes were united in Republic's big picture of feature length (84 min.), which includes a nice supporting cast.
In the movie, Gene has a weekly radio show on station KRL in LA.
His cast includes Cornelius J.
Courtney (Jimmy Durante) and Julie Shelton (teenaged Ann Miller).
There is also Penny Curtis (Mary Lee), but no Smiley Burnette in this one.During Frontier Days celebration in Torpedo, Arizona, Gene Autry has been named honorary sheriff and he accepts the town's invitation to bring his radio show there.
Torpedo looks like an 1895 western town, except that it is electrified, has pay telephone and radio, and a few automobiles.
The trolley line is electrified, a plausible setting for the period.
Folks wear a combination of western and eastern clothing, and there are 1930-style majorettes in the welcoming parade.
A thrilling stagecoach race is featured, and there is a spectacular crash where a stagecoach crashes into the horse water trough while turning a corner; the stunt man (Yakima Canutt?) did a nice job of jumping in time and not getting killed.
That scene has been used in other western movies.Torpedo is mostly run by the uncultivated Wildhack Brothers (Jasper, Mack, and Bud).
As the school adjoins the active saloon (to say the least), classrooms are often disrupted by loud noise, rowdiness, and discharged firearms.
When the Wildhacks disturb the class in the presence of Gene and Pop Laramie (Gabby Hayes), charges are brought against them.
A judge dismisses the charges.
A funny scene is Cornelius playing the role of defendant and lawyer, resulting in a fine of $25.
Nevertheless, Gene exposes the brothers' shenanigans on his radio broadcast.
As the Wildhacks attempt to stop the show, there is a fist fight.
Although outnumbered Gene holds his own fighting two Wildhacks (Jasper and Bud), Jasper (Joe Sawyer) clubs him over the head from behind and knocks him out.
(Mack – Barton Maclane – is passive, wears business clothing, and does not engage in the fist fighting.) Nevertheless Pop says that Gene lost because he is out of shape and needs toughening up on his spread, called Melody Ranch.
Gene agrees, and begins his routine of rising at 5:00 AM and working the ranch.
Later Gene gets his revenge when he fights Bud (Horace MacMahon) and Jasper Wildhack individually on Pop's Torpedo trolley and wins.
Cornelius calls the rounds.
Now the humiliated Wildhacks are forced to sing on Gene's radio show, and they do not do a bad job.
During an earlier show Ann Miller did a routine that showed off her shapely dancing legs.
Originally scorning Gene, Julie begins to take a liking to him.Meanwhile Gene decides to runs for sheriff against the corrupt Barstow, backed by the Wildhack political bloc.
"A vote for Gene Autry is a vote for clean government." The bad guys try to keep out the honest faction by erecting a barricade across the main street, near the town hall.
Understanding that the days of the "Wild West" are over, Mack instructs the shooters to aim high so as to avoid bloodshed (Just "scare 'em until the polls close at 7:00 PM!").
But Bud, who has already killed one of Gene's friends, aims low with intent on shooting directly at Gene's assembled relief force.
Noting that the trolley track is perpendicular to the barricade (and town hall), Gene singlehandedly boards the trolley, operates it, and smashes into the barricade.
Jasper Wildhack rallies his desperadoes who retreat into the town hall and shoot a stream of hot lead at the posse.
But Gene sends the trolley crashing into the building, ending the Wildhack dominance of Torpedo.
Cornelius helps round up the bad guys.Of all of Gene Autry's movies, this film is deemed by The American Film Institute to be worthy of permanent movie preservation.
While some viewers may feel that there are several better and more action packed Autry films, this one is worth seeing.
It has better production values than the typical Gene Autry western.
The back-up casting is fine all-around.
Jimmy Durante, already a well-known comedian and movie actor, had his own TV show in the 1950s.
Ann Miller and Gabby Hayes also made their marks in the entertainment world.
Even the bad guys (Joe Sawyer, Barton Maclane, Horace MacMahon) do their best to be appropriately mean.
So stake your claim on Melody Ranch!.
A busy homecoming for Gene Autry..
Just shy of seeming like a big time MGM musical.
I'm happy to settle for this short black & white Gene Autry sagebrush saga.
A very talented group assembled to appear in one of Autry's best.
Gene comes home to Torpedo, Arizona and is declared honorary sheriff during a Frontier Days Celebration.
He does have enough authority to clean up the town and rid Torpedo of some of the worst law breakers in the Old West.
Gene gets to sing the title tune "Melody Ranch" as well as "Call of the Canyon" and a very likable "We Never Dream the Same Dream Twice".This round up of talent features: Ann Miller, Jimmy Durante, Horace McMahon and 'Gabby' Hayes as Pop Laramie and Barbara Jo Allen as 'Vera Vague'..
"A vote for Gene Autry is a vote for clean government"!.
I was somewhat taken aback to see Jimmy Durante in this picture backing up Gene Autry.
No Smiley Burnette or Pat Buttram on hand, and even though having Gabby Hayes around wasn't such a big surprise, he didn't have his usual comedic sidekick role.
In fact, when you get right down to it, this picture had some fairly big name supporting players for a B Western.
Barton MacLane and Ann Miller had headlined pictures of their own, and the rest of the cast were well recognized character actors of the era.
It was cool to see all the disparate personalities in a film together.I got the biggest kick though out of Durante, playing up his persona as the 'man who knowses noses'.
I couldn't quite figure out what the whole idea of the Nose Posse was all about, but with Durante you don't have to.
He'll just misdirect you with his lively patter, like the hilarious cross examination of himself during the courtroom scene.Aside from your standard round the campfire songs, this picture also offered some lively alternative entertainment, like Ann Miller's energetic tap dance routine and the surprising duet by two thirds of the Wildhack Brothers - Sawyer (Jasper) and Horace McMahon (Bud) in a duet of 'Go Back to the City Again'.
It actually sounded pretty good to my tin ear.Unusually lengthy for an Autry flick at eighty four minutes, it would have been interesting if Republic got through the entire thing without resorting to the shoot 'em up action at the finale.
But that's what the matinée fans turned out to see back in the Forties, and on that score they weren't disappointed.
I'm wondering though, did they ever get around to counting the final votes? |
tt3250032 | Sex, Death and Bowling | Sean McAllister (Adrian Grenier) is a successful fashion designer who returns home to Arizona when he learns his brother, Rick (Bailey Chase), has cancer. Sean has been gone for a while ever since getting into an argument with his father. Rick lives at home with his wife, Glenn (Selma Blair), and his live-in nurse Ana (Drea De Matteo). Sean and Rick's father Dick (Daniel Hugh Kelly) owns a local sports equipment shop and is an avid bowler. Rick's son, Eli (Joshua Rush) idolizes his father and his grandfather and wishes to become as good a bowler as the two of them. Sean arrives and immediately begins opening up old wounds with his father. Sean is gay, and an incident when he was younger involving another boy from the high school football team whom a teacher saw brought shame to Dick, resulting in the two becoming distant even after Sean's rise to fame. Sean tries to reconcile with both his father and his brother, but it proves difficult.
Dick is trying to win a bowling tournament, the Fiesta Bowl, but trouble arises when one of his bowlers becomes injured. Trying to reconnect with his father and family, Sean agrees to join the team. They eventually win the tournament, and bring home the trophy to Rick. | flashback | train | wikipedia | Class Treatment of Difficult Material. I'm not a fan of narration. Especially that of precocious, pre-pubescent boys with grown-up wisdom. But that was the only thing that annoyed me here. The rest was excellent.I really like the way they treated the concept of dying at home. Get some friends and family together and some morphine, and ride it out on your home turf. Not in a hospital. It doesn't have to be too depressing, assuming that you built some equity in a community and a family.I also appreciate that they incorporated our changing demographics without bombarding us with politically correct messages. Yes, rural towns in the west have mixed populations with lots of Hispanics. Yes, even All American families may have someone practicing an alternative lifestyle.Grenier did not have to show much range here, but he doesn't generally anyways. That's o.k. He has a unique look and you do perceive his sensitivity. I'm more tolerant of brief flashbacks than narration. I don't like long flashbacks. These were brief but effective. You did sense his pain.The kid was outstanding and everyone else was excellent. The father was very believable. Small towns do revolve around jocks and sports. If you're different it can be a real bitch. You see that here.I'm assuming that reincarnation played some role in the final bowling sequence. I think the spirit of the famous bowler mentioned in the beginning may have inhabited one of the characters.Either way, I like the way they wove the kid's spiritual questions into the plot. He visits a priest and a Hindu. In that sense it was sort of like the Woody Allen move when he does the same, looking for answers.Other than one or two indie folk songs, the music did not play a huge role. The focus was on dialog and relationships without too much manipulation. Personal redemption and revenge play into it.This is a slow film. If you have patience for thoughtful pictures, then you will probably like it.. It was okay but Predictable. Sorry, but I am tired of somebody always having to come out in movies nowadays. This sideline in this film was obvious from the jump. Look for the sequel, where the kid Eli is gay too. I mean, the kid is so "sensitive" and everything. So the guy kisses some jock in the locker room and gets busted in a Jerry Sandusky kind of way. But was that all there was to it? Just a kiss? Was there a scandal at school? Did all the kids know? Is that when he "became gay?" Awwwww, but big brother knew. So then why is the kid so broken up? For dad's approval? The flashbacks of the "incident" do not make sense. Was the kid molested? What happened to the jock he made out with? The pompous, insensitive British boyfriend? Was the bowling match and the fist fight afterward supposed to prove to Dad that his boy is really a man after all? And what was with the suffering young widow? What a mess just to advance a gay storyline. Especially since the guy didn't seem to happy with being gay to me. Kind of like it bothered him. |
tt0059221 | The Ghost and Mr. Chicken | Luther Heggs is a typesetter at the Rachel Courier Express the local newspaper in Rachel, Kansas, but he aspires to be a reporter. One night, observing what he believes to be a murder outside of an old, supposedly haunted house known as the Simmons Mansion, Heggs rushes to the police station with his scoop. Unfortunately, as he relates the details of his story to the Chief of Police, the murder "victim" walks into the room, a local drunk who had merely been knocked unconscious by his irate wife, who had brought him in to be jailed. The next morning, Heggs walks downstairs to the dining room at the Natalie Miller boarding house and overhears Ollie Weaver (Homeier), a full-time reporter at the newspaper, mocking Luther's mistakes of the night before. Ollie is also dating Heggs' love interest, Alma Parker (Joan Staley). According to local lore, the Simmons Mansion was a "murder house" 20 years earlier, when Mr. Simmons murdered his wife (with some unknown sharp instrument that was never located — ultimately revealed to be a pair of gardener's pruning shears), and then jumped to his death from the organ loft. Legend has it that the ghost of Mr. Simmons can still occasionally be heard playing the organ at midnight.
To increase newspaper sales, Luther is assigned to spend the night in the house on the 20th anniversary of the murder/suicide. At midnight, Heggs sees the old organ begin to play by itself. There are a few other mysterious happenings, including Luther's discovery of a secret staircase to the organ loft, hidden behind a sliding bookshelf, and a pair of gardener's shears in the throat of a painting of Mrs. Simmons. His eerie story gets the town abuzz and causes a delay in the plans of Nicholas Simmons (Philip Ober), nephew of the deceased couple, who intends to demolish the mansion. In retaliation, and to discredit Heggs, Simmons sues both Heggs and the Rachel Courier Express for libel.
In the courtroom, Heggs' credibility is impeached by damaging testimony from his grade school teacher (Ellen Corby) who testifies that Luther was "keyed up" as a child, prone to telling tall tales for attention. Luther's own testimony is twisted by Simmons' attorney, suggesting that Luther concocted the story about his spooky night in the mansion in order to win a job as a full-time reporter. Luther's dramatic denial prompts the judge to order the jury and all interested parties to appear at the Simmons house at just before midnight to allow Heggs to prove his story. But with everyone now inside the mansion, nothing happens, and they conclude that Luther made up the whole story. Everyone leaves the mansion except for Alma, who lingers behind in secret, hoping to find evidence to restore Heggs' reputation.
Outside the mansion, alone and dejected, Luther begins to walk home. However, he hears the old organ playing the creepy music again. Courageously, he re-enters the mansion and discovers his friend Mr. Kelsey (Liam Redmond), the newspaper's janitor, playing the organ. Kelsey, the former gardener for the Simmons family, confesses to being responsible for the mysterious happenings Heggs witnessed (including playing the organ remotely from an additional "tuning" keyboard located under the pipes). He tells Luther that Herkie, the overzealous police officer and acting security guard, kept him from entering the house earlier to help Luther confirm his story for the judge, jury and interested parties. Upon hearing a scream, they both descend the secret staircase to find Nicholas Simmons holding Alma captive. Kelsey confronts Simmons for killing his aunt and uncle for their fortune and leaving Kelsey's pruning shears behind to frame him (Kelsey had removed them before the police arrived to avoid being implicated in the murder). Nicholas Simmons' planned demolition of the house was an effort to destroy the hidden staircase that would ruin his alibi. Luther rescues Alma by knocking Simmons unconscious with a full body lunge ("made my whole body a weapon") from behind.
Nicholas Simmons is arrested and tied to a chair. Kelsey explains the details to the police chief and other persons (who have now returned to the mansion), and the case is closed. Alma takes Luther's hand, grateful for his heroic act in saving her. In the final scene, Heggs marries Alma at a small ceremony. At the end, the wedding's organ music suddenly changes to the spooky organ music of the Simmons' mansion. Everyone turns to see the small organ's keys moving by themselves, hinting that there really is a ghost after all. | murder | train | wikipedia | Pretty much every scene is a classic of comedy, from the malfunctioning elevator operator to the repeated motifs of 'Atta boy, Luther/Carlyle/Judge' and 'And they used Bon Ami!' It's also a treasure trove of fine performances, from Burt Mustin to Jesslyn Fax, not to mention Don K., of course.
The first film Don Knotts made after leaving Mayberry to sign a multi-film contract with Universal, I first saw "The Ghost and Mr. Chicken" as a tiny tot when it played in support of "Munsters, Go Home" at the drive-in, and it was so funny I forgot all about the severe sunburn I had acquired at the beach earlier in the day.
You almost can't watch it, but my seven and nine-year-old sons make me rewind it over and over, laughing their heads off each time.Introduce your kids to this, and other silly movies starring Don Knotts.
"The Ghost and Mr. Chicken" is as much a nostalgic picture of small town life (as is "The Music Man") as it is a family horror-mystery.
Despite the low budget, it looks like every penny got on the screen, and the film was a hit, so much so that it led to other Knotts vehicles such as "The Reluctant Astronaut" and "The Shakiest Gun in the West".
As the spunky, witty typesetter of the local newspaper who is sometimes afraid of his own shadow, Don Knotts goes up against the local legendary haunted house, a garden-shears-carrying nemesis, and a real true to life bad guy in this funny, quirky, endearing mystery from Universal's 1966 archives."Everything I ever needed to know about life, I learned from the Ghost and Mr. Chicken." the Fiend :.This is an excellent, wholesome horror/comedy featuring many of your favorite members of the "Mayberry" bunch.
Playing a type-setter at a local newspaper, he gets his chance to be a reporter when his editor elects him to spend a night in the local reputedly haunted murder house.
Ms. Staley shines as Knott's love interest, helping him to solve a mystery in a haunted house.
Knotts even wears the same salt and pepper suit with white fedora that he wore on "Andy Griffith".This is still a fun movie to watch though.
His stage-fright speech at the town picnic is great ("let me clarify this")and there are two recurring joke lines, "and they used Bon Ami!" and "atta boy, Luther" which keep being said and which will crack you up every time..
My favorite line is "And they used Bon Ami!" Out of curiosity, I've checked with a number of published guides to DVDs available for sales/rental and, to their credit, most of the authors of those books acknowledge that the film, however "minor," has humor and a good deal of charm, and that Knotts is at his best..
The movie trailers refer to Don Knotts' character, Luther Heggs, as the bravest coward and I think that is an accurate description.
There is an excellent supporting cast with many very recognizable character actors, among them Dick Sargent (Miles Beckett, Luther's Editor), Reta Shaw (Mrs. Maxwell), Lurene Tuttle (Mrs. Miller), Charles Lane (Mr. Witlow, Nick Simmons' attorney), and of course Ellen Corby (Miss Tremaine).
Even though Fife was yellow on the inside, he still somehow managed to come out on top at the end of each episode.As Don Knotts ended his stint on the Griffith show after five years, he signed on with Universal Studios to go into the movie business.
His first outing with Universal, "The Ghost and Mr. Chicken", showcased that same weakling quality that helped make Knotts a star.Knotts plays Luther Heggs, a typesetter working in the basement of a small-town newspaper.
The old house is said to be haunted by the ghost of a Mr. Simmons, who allegedly murdered his wife in a fit of jealous rage and then, in turn, leapt to his own death by jumping from the top floor of the mansion.
Luther becomes an instant celebrity when his story of horror is published in the morning paper, and the old Simmons place becomes the hottest tourist attraction in town.The movie is certainly a fine piece of family fare, with Knotts almost creating the Barney Fife character all over again in Luther Heggs.
The initial seed of the story provides for the perfect vehicle for Knotts to perform his "Mr. Chicken" guise.The film overall, though, seems to lack a strong enough, believable storyline.
There are a few holes left unfilled and loose threads left hanging when the mystery is solved, but because of the fine cast and production, the inconsistencies can be easily overlooked.The best moments in the movie, of course, are during Luther Heggs's visits to the spooky Simmons mansion.
Mizzy (who wrote "The Addams Family" theme) even provides the bone-chilling organ music emanating from the old pipe organ inside the ghostly mansion.There's one or two familiar faces working with Don Knotts here.
In The Ghost and Mr. Chicken, Knotts once again takes the character of a bumbling nerd with a good heart - trying to make a name for himself in Small Town America while not always noticing how much he is dismissed by his fellow citizens.
When Luther asks the town drunk what he is doing when he is supposed to be dead, it's the first of several memorable quotes the kids loved repeating.The movie looks clean; the classic Technicolor filming gives the movie the feeling that it was put together by people who knew what they were doing.
None other than Don Knotts.In The Ghost and Mr. Chicken, Knotts stars as Luther Heggs, a local newspaper printer who has just been the witness to a murder...or so he thought.
Now Luther, Ollie, Alma, and the rest of the town try to stop the relative of the Simmon's from tearing the house down to the ground.This movie makes a haunted house seem like a laugh riot.
The Ghost and Mr. Chicken offers up a funny plot mixed with comic genius that make for a great time.
I first saw this in the mid-1970's and it was great fun for a kid to be immersed in a bloody murder mystery that took place in a creepy old house!
It does seem to drag at times when they veer off to build up the budding romance part of the film, but Don Knotts along with a great group of character actors (keep an eye out, most of these actors show up in many 1960's TV shows, mostly on "Bewitched") make this a fun little romp.
For a story, the editor proposes that Luther spend the night in the Simmons mansion.It's a little fun to see Don Knotts stumble around and being scared living off of his TV success.
This movie hails from the traditional straight laced crowd in the 1960's a period in time when the amercian rush to old world family values based suburban perfection was at its Zenith.The jokes are plentifiul and funny if quaint.
In "The Ghost and Mr. Chicken" Knotts plays Luther Heggs, the small town newspaper's typographer who's ready to cover the big story.
Luther takes a challenge to stay a night in the old house before it gets torn down, and the mayhem starts to happen.It's not terribly original, nor is it hard to guess what crime might be involved.
As for fright – can anyone seriously be scared in a haunted house or "horror" film with Don Knotts, Abbott and Costello or the Three Stooges?
Anybody old enough to have seen this movie when it was first released, remembers as a child, the Saturday nights spent piling into the family car and going to the Drive-In to watch multiple movies, eating buttered popcorn, drinking soda pop and overall, having a pretty darn good time.Well, this movie brings back one of those specific memories for me!
Why?Well, Don Knotts, who had just recently left the highly successful Andy Griffith show where he had enjoyed tremendous success as Andy's sidekick deputy sheriff Barney Fife, was pretty popular amongst the populous at that time, and the movie played up on that popularity by not only using a number of "Barneyisms" (my nickname for the wacky stuff Barney Fife was known for saying on the Griffith show), but they also employed several actors who were also synonymous with the show (Otis the drunk, Aunt Bee's gossipy friend Clara, etc., etc.).Also, the show basically had a Good versus Evil plot that if one remembers how things tended to go at that time (at least on TV shows), one can probably figure out how the movie is going to end.
There are lots of good jokes (including several running gags), and the classic Don Knotts formula-- Small town nothing becomes a hero, reluctantly.
Parents won't have to prescreen this one to insure that their children aren't scarred by any shenanigans; adults and kids alike will find the whole venture entertaining and enjoyable; and it is actually refreshing in this age of graphic violence, filthy dialog, insipid TV sitcom (sub)writing to discover a little gem like this that the whole family can enjoy.Make no mistake: This is NOT visionary film-making.
The truly funny lines are character driven throw aways and subtle observations such as "And they used Bon Ami", "She came home and vibrated for an hour", and "my entire body's a weapon." However, you're not watching this to feast on gag lines -- it's Don Knotts who delivers the laughs with his now-perfected brand of physical comedy (you just may spend the next new days after viewing this shouting out "Atta boy, Luther!" when others speak however).Vic Mizzy's score is simple but effective.
Delightful Family Fun. I remember watching this movie back in the 1960's with my twin sister Tammy and being frightened when Don Knott's character Luther was alone in the haunted Simmon's Mansion.
This movie is very funny and by far the best film Don Knotts ever made.
I also own The Love God, The Relunctant Astronaut, The Shakiest Gun in the West, and How to Frame a Fig, all starring Don Knotts, but this is my favorite movie of his.
When full-time type-setter and wannabe reporter, Luther Heggs (Don Knotts) spends the night in the town "haunted" house, he finds far more than a ghost story to write about.
After attaining stardom playing Barney Fife on TV, comedy actor Don Knotts made the jump to feature film vehicles with movies such as this one.
What he really wants to be, naturally, is a reporter, and gets his big chance for a scoop when his bosses suggest that he spend the night in a supposedly haunted house.However, the unaware should know that he actually doesn't spend much of the movie in the house.
Fortunately he chose well and in addition to a character that suited him perfectly he was surrounded by a cast of familiar and tried and true character players, including a few familiar faces from the Andy Griffith Show.The Ghost And Mr. Chicken finds Knotts as a typesetter on his local small town paper with aspirations to be a reporter.
But it's a town landmark of sorts and Knotts goes to investigate and comes up short the first time, but eventually solves a 20 year old murder.
Later on played various character roles, partnered with Tim Conway and those two were hilarious and is best known to today's audience as the mysterious TV repairman in Pleasantville.The Ghost And Mr. Chicken was a fine beginning for Don Knotts as a big screen leading movie comedian..
Don Knotts stars as Luther Heggs, a typesetter for his local newspaper who dreams of being a reporter, and gets his chance when his editor(played by Dick Sergeant) assigns Luther the task of spending the night in the old Simmons mansion, where a murder-suicide occurred 20 years earlier.
It has a bit of everything in it and the whole family can enjoy it and any level or age..Don Knotts was an absolutely one off and his humor will not ever be repeated, i honestly recommend this movie to anyone seeking an honest funny warm movie that you'll remember for a long time if not forever.In summary its fun fun fun for all...I hope everyone who watches this movie enjoys it as much as i have, as i still haven't been able to find another that gives me that good feeling after watching it...............
This underrated Movie stars Don Knotts as Luther Heggs (a nevus jerky typesetter for the local paper) who gets the opportunity to become a full-fledged report if he spends the night in the local haunted house.
I think this was the first film Knotts did after leaving the Andy Griffith Show, so he still had that Barney Fife/nervous man characterization in full bloom.
And the courtroom scene was really funny ("Atta boy, Luther!"- If I ever met Don Knotts, I'd just have to yell that out!) A comedy classic that, until recent years, wasn't even available on video.
He is great in physical comedy where he can make his faces and movements alone be pretty funny.The haunted house as well as comedy scenes seem to be typical of that time.
This also includes the court scene that brought a lot of laughter, the elevator scene which also showed Don Knott's great performance as well as the communism joke that made me laugh and pretty excited when I thought about the times when it was made..
The Ghost and Mr. Chicken (1966) is a Comedy/Family/Mystery/Romance starring Don Knotts as Luther Heggs.
The acting, plot, and dialogue are creative, hilarious, and unbelievably entertaining.I very much enjoyed the performance of the main actor Don Knotts and his authentic portrayal of an awkward man who is not like everybody else but wants to be seen as a success.
Luther (Don Knotts) is a jittery, energetic, nervous-as-all-getout, wannabe news reporter who is asked to spend one night in the scary old Simmons mansion, where a murder-suicide occurred many years before, and write an article about his experience.
Don Knotts made it work.The supposed haunted house was a vehicle that was used plenty of times in plenty of movies as in Abbot and Costello, Bowery Boys, Lewis and Martin , so it was nothing new there.What stood out was a very average, albeit nervous person doing something he was petrified to do.
One of the few movies I have watched over and over since I was a kid and enjoyed every time..
Mild-mannered newspaperman Don Knotts (as Luther Heggs) is assigned to spend a night in his small Kansas town's "haunted house", on the 20-year anniversary of its ghastly murder/suicide.
Not too funny, not too frightening; give it an "attaboy", for trying.**** The Ghost and Mr. Chicken (1966) Alan Rafkin ~ Don Knotts, Joan Staley, Skip Homeier.
So if you just want to see a really entertaining (mildly spooky) and funny movie, one that you can enjoy with your kids, then go out and rent or buy "The Ghost and Mr. Chicken." Unless you're some kind of a chowderhead.ELIMIDATE?
Don Knott's character, Luther Heggs, is challenged to spend the night in this house, writes a story for the newspaper (for which he is a typesetter) and ends up in a lawsuit with the nephew of the deceased, Nick SimmonsThis story evokes all those feel-good times in the 1960's when people drove big convertibles, left their doors unlocked and the biggest thing happening was Telstar.
This is a great comedy from the time when a film could be fun and funny and still remain something that you could show the whole family.
Don Knotts was a very funny actor, although a bit stereo-typed, and the supporting cast is filled with familiar faces from that era of TV and films.
Although a great film to watch around Halloween, it never gets too scary for everyone to enjoy.
Knotts gets his big shot at writing a story when his editor has him spend the night in a local haunted house where a murder-suicide occurred.
Small town schnook Luther Heggs, a newspaper typesetter and would-be reporter (whom everyone sarcastically calls "Scoop"), gets his first assignment: to spend the night in a supposedly haunted house on the anniversary of a murder/suicide which occurred there 20 years ago.
Don Knotts is at his finest when he's offered a newspaper writer contract if he spends the night in the town haunted house.
The janitor provokes Knott's boss to convince him to spend the murder night in the mansion Lot's of great character actors add to this, and Vic Mizzy's classic background and organ music add to the humor.
meek typesetter (Don Knotts) for small newspaper spends night in haunted house.
The title explains all: the star is a milquetoast who works as type setter at a small-town newspaper of course, he really wants to be a journalist (though his inexperience leads him to report a murder solely on hearsay, only to be embarrassed when the alleged victim turns up shaken but very much alive at the Police station!) and eventually finds his great opportunity with a story about a legendary local haunted house (where a violent death and suicide had occurred twenty years earlier).Asked to spend the night there by his editor, the hero comes across secret panels in the library, organs that play by themselves (complete with bloodied keys), not to mention a portrait slashed by a dagger!
Don Knotts is Luther Heggs, a typesetter at a small town newspaper who dreams of being a reporter.
The entire town stands behind him with the exception of the haunted house's owner who intends to tear down the rat trap and doesn't want any publicity.Knotts had left "The Andy Griffith Show" the year before after the lead in the extremely successful "The Incredible Mr. Limpet", and while he didn't explode into a huge comedy movie star, the films he did under his brief contract with Universal were amusing, if sometimes instantly forgettable. |
tt0231448 | Deuces Wild | Leon (Stephen Dorff) and Bobby (Brad Renfro) are brothers and members of the Deuces, a Brooklyn street gang. Ever since the death of their other brother Alphonse "Allie Boy" from a drug overdose at the hands of Marco (Norman Reedus), they keep drugs off their block. This puts them in opposition to the Vipers, another local gang headed by Marco, who want to sell drugs in the neighborhood. On the eve of Marco's return from a three-year stint in prison, a gang war seems imminent. Marco plans revenge against Leon, whom he believes ratted him out to the police.
Bobby falls for a new girl who moves in across the street, Annie (Fairuza Balk), the younger sister of Jimmy "Pockets", a Vipers member and heroin dealer. Their attraction for each other complicates the gang rivalry. Marco attacks the block and Bobby before beating and raping Betsy (Leon's girlfriend) in order to push him over the edge. After a series of skirmishes between the Vipers and Deuces, neighborhood Mafioso Fritzy (Matt Dillon) orders Leon and Marco to make amends hours before the climactic rumble (he previously declined Marco's request to kill Leon). Leon disobeys this order in a fight at the docks where Marco is killed along with Jimmy Pockets, leaving Bobby and Annie free to take her mother to Los Angeles. Leon is shot and killed by one of Fritzy's men in retaliation for ignoring his orders. Before leaving, Bobby drops a wheelbarrow full of cinder blocks on Fritzy's car, presumably killing him. | revenge, murder, violence, flashback | train | wikipedia | With the limited funds to make this film, the scenes were filmed with very few takes - giving it a 'play' feel.The story reminds me of "The Outsiders" and "West Side Story" - which I found to be one of the down sides of the movie, but I still liked it overall.Stephen Dorff gives a great performance as Leon, the Deuces leader.
I liked this movie, it was very unrelenting and dark - The fight scenes are pretty intense especially the last one.
A good story about an exploding gang rivalry, there are good performances from Fairuza Balk, Brad Renfro, Drea DeMatteo and others but the two actors from the Blade series really stood out here.
I'm talkin' about Stephen Dorff(Blade, Judgment Night) and Norman Reedus(Blade 2, Boondock Saints), they were great in the rival roles of Leon and Marco, they really brought their hatred for each other to life, good job....
Those are the moments that you rent movies like Deuces Wild...these kind of titles are never high on your list but you take them anyway because the synopsis doesn't sound too bad and you know the washed up actors in it from their earlier - more glorious - roles.
The only thing movies like this can do is provide the story with a few interesting twists, cool characters and some good looking settings and locations.
It looks like a war between both gangs can't be avoided even though the true king of the Brooklyn streets, Fritzy ( a small but great role by Matt Dillon ) , strongly warned them not to fight.Deuces Wild contains a lot of decent actors who never really reached the highest status.
But when his brother (Brad Renfro) falls into a sultry - and dangerous - relationship with Annie (Fairuza Balk), the sister of a Viper, and his own girlfriend is brutally attacked, Leon and his gang are plunged into an all-out war to save his brother, his girl - and his neighborhood!" according to the DVD sleeve description.
A sense of sadness and regret permeates the production.*** Deuces Wild (5/3/02) Scott Kalvert ~ Stephen Dorff, Brad Renfro, Fairuza Balk, Frankie Muniz.
The director managed the clever feat of getting horrible performances from excellent actors, although the writers deserve some credit for that also, as the script seems to have been written by a middle school class that was locked in a room with a DVD of West Side Story and a crate of doo-wop albums as their only reference material.I honestly couldn't even get halfway through it.
I don't know if mister person who made that negative comment on the movie even knows what a street gang is living in Alabama, but a lot of people who grew up in or around N.Y.C. know what I mean.
I found myself watching for silly continuity or production errors (one would hot have used a medicine bottle made of brown plastic with a white cap in 1958 and it's generally a good idea to make sure your magazine covers are spelled right....Photosecne?) instead of following the characters or the story.
The line up here includes a very promising cast of Steven Dourff as Leon, Brad Renfro as Bobby, Matt Dillon as Fritzy, Frankie Muniz as Scooch and Johnny Knoxville as Vince.
We start the film with the death of Leon's brother and the imprisonment of Marko, the rival gang leader who gave his brother the drugs that killed him.
This film has everything, the rival gangs (Outsiders), the big show downs (Last Man Standing), the gangster who is in charge of everything (Bronx Tale) and the drug dealing (Goodfellas).
Matt Dillon show plenty of promise but is only given four scenes in the whole movie, Johnny Knoxville is a nobody that serves no importance and is hardly noticable and Frankie Muniz hardly mutters a word the whole time.
Now don't get me wrong, the movie is not a total waste and there are probably lots of people that this sort of thing will appeal to but its lack of originality cancels out any power of emotion and even though we have a cast of characters that I really didn't care about except for Leon, it's an hour and a half of my life that I don't regret..
Alright, aside from that , this film still manages to entertain , i mean we have to expect something from the guy who directed the gritty Basketball diaries(1995).with the usual plot of a rigtheous gang that will stand againts the odds , no doubt cinema geeks have seen this before , i call it a blend of Rumble fish (1984) and the Young and Dangerous series (Hongkong Productions).Stephen Dorf plays Leon, the righteous gang leader who still cleans the mosaic windows of churches, probably as an act of redemption, Bad kid Brad Renfro plays his younger angry brother, who also acts as the narrator of the story.
Norman Reedus the annoying scuddie from Blade 2 plays Marco Vendetti the villain, well it seems that he have to be supported with a shiv and non-stop utterings of profanity to be a real bad ass, almost a bad job.Not really a crucial role here, but James Franco as one of the uber deuces looks like a reincarnation of the original Rebel without a cause fella...have to see to be believed.None of the female characters in here seems to be presented as at least a decent accountable character; One alcoholic mother, one nuts mother, a girlfriend only acts as "the-chick-of -the-badass" played by Madonna look alike Drea De Mateo, and yeah....talking about the most mismatched coupling, A teenage Renfro with close to thirty-ish Fairuza Balk.SInce the budget seems to be constrained, audience with keen sense of frame could possibly tell that most of the scenes was shot in a backlot set.In a film like this violence is expected, however oftenly becomes an annoyance as we see packs of Elvis/Dean haired brutes pulverizing each other for five minutes(which is a long time), some of them wield butterfly or flip knifes, amazingly none of them managed to get stabbed.
The bone crunching sound effects also add mild bittery aftertaste.Folks , like i said, this is an alright film , which manages to entertain if you feel violent because somebody ruin your haircut, however an act of purchasing is highly questionable.2.5 outta 5 stars.+2.5 for the entertainment value.-2.5 for all the Balderdash already seen so many times..
Deuces Wild is about two rivial street gangs the deuces and the vipers.The vipers want to put drugs on the street while the deuces never want drugs on the street.The leader of the deuces Leon brother died of an drug over dose Leon thinks the leader of the vipers gave it to him.The leader of the vipers has been in jail for three year and is soon to be free.These two gangs are going to face off after 3 years of no fighting.Deuces Wild is pure excitement that keeps you watching until the end ..
Wasted roles for Vincent Pastore and Johnny Knoxville, too many worthless fight scenes, and a horribly underdeveloped & misused plot made this film a major disappointment in my book.
Leon (Stephen Dorff) and Bobby (Brad Renfro) run the Deuces and are determined to keep drugs off their turf, while a rival gang called the Vipers wants to flood the streets.
The performances ate all pretty forgettable except for Norman Reedus as Marco, a positively evil rival gang member with bloodlust for the Deuces.
Like I said it ain't the best movie, but the cast will keep your attention and there's a few moments of tension to keep it going..
The leader of the rival gang is just getting out of prison and wants revenge.The movie didn't really do it for me.
That being said, I think the biggest problem with the film is that it's overacted, but what can you expect with a poorly written script.Why do they continue to put little Stephen Dorff in the role of tough guys and bad asses?
I am left with a question at the end of this movie: "What?" I wonder if anyone actually read the script before or even during shooting this film.
But what Deuces Wild has going for it is a strong cast, great performances, awesome fights scenes, and a somewhat surprise ending.
The acting and script were very strong, borrowing the absolute best plot points from movies like West Side Story (love conquers gang lines) and A Bronx Tale (movie title, name of hangout, soundtrack, emotional depth).
When things get ugly, the fights go down, and loyalty and love are put to the ultimate test.As seen in Sleepers, the movie starts out with the narrator explaining their lives in 1950's Brooklyn.
Stephen Dorff and Fairuza Balk give the performances of their lives, and director Scott Kalvert gives a stunning introduction film for his career.
All in all Deuces Wild is a great fight movie, but not much more as the story goes.
It's just like the other greaser movie but I think it has something more...Great fight scenes.
Now, I've been wanting to see this movie since last year because Frankie Muniz was in it and I just love him and also Brad Renfro who's also a great actor.
That Saturday I walked into the theater thinking "I know I've been wanting to see this for such a long time, but is this really worth my money?" Turns out after I saw this movie I loved it.
Besides the fact that it WAS closely related to the plot lines of other movies like it, it still kept me guessing as to what was going to happen next.
This movie had really great points in it and overall was a pretty good film.
The fight scenes are like nothing I have ever seen and the overall look of the film, is a romantic memory for all people who have lived through the 1950's.
I personally loved this film...a fun, exciting,50's gang flick has not come out for a long time...and it was a good change compared to the same old stuff coming out these days...the story is detailed and very interesting throughout the film with excellent, adreniline pumping fight scenes(fight club fans will enjoy this).
As I said, it is a homage movie that is a great watch.Deuces Wild's most parallels are from The Outsiders as I mentioned, but what makes this more unique from The Outsiders is the characters.
The Deuces are rivals with another Brooklyn gang called "The Vipers," and chaos spews when Bobby falls in love with one of the Vipers' sisters, who is played by Fairuza Balk.
Premiere actors Stephen Dorf, Norman Reedus and Matt Dillon show you how it's done in Deuces Wild, a powerful, tragedy of gang-related, white-on-white crime.
She looked like she should be joining the gang fights instead of watching.
The movie focuses on Leon (Stephen Dorff- "Blade", "S.F.W") who, after his brother's death from a drug overdose, vows to keep the streets clean and creates a gang called "The Deuces" to make sure it stays that way.
Aided by his kid brother, Bobby, (Brad Renfro- "The Client", "Sleepers") Leon is able to put the city's biggest drug dealer, Marco (Norman Reedus- "Gossip", "Blade II") in prison for 3 years, and the streets remain safe.
I had wanted to see DEUCES WILD when it was out at the theatres, because who wouldn't want to see a film about rival gangs in 1950's Brooklyn?
The film ultimately comes off like a silly cross between THE OUTSIDERS, STREETS OF FIRE (you remember that Greaser movie with Rick Moranis and Wilem Dafoe?), and of course WEST SIDE STORY.
Stephen Dorff, a wonderful actor, portrays a character we at times love and hate.
Only those nostalgic for nostalgia are likely to be very impressed by `Deuces Wild,' a film that seems somehow more attuned to the 50's-crazed 1970's a time when popular culture was embracing backward-looking fare like `American Graffiti' and `Happy Days' than to the era in which it is actually set.
That happens to be Brooklyn in the summer of 1958, when the streets were overrun with denim- and leather-clad hoodlums who smoked cigarettes, drove cool cars, and strutted around looking for fights to protect or extend their seemingly God-given `turf.' `Deuces Wild' feels like it is about 25 years out of date, especially since it adds nothing new to a well-worn genre that can pinpoint its beginnings as far back as 1961's magnificent `West Side Story.' In fact, this is little more than `West Side Story' sans the music and dancing.
The closing rumble scene is so confusingly shot and edited that it takes the voiceover narration to straighten out for us who got killed and who didn't.The cast of mostly youthful actors does its best with shallow, stereotypical roles, but one should at least pity poor Frankie Muniz, that charming young star of TV's `Malcolm in the Middle,' who delivers a surprisingly dorky performance in the extremely sketchy and underwritten part of Scooch, the neighborhood `good kid' whom Leon, the Deuces' leader, takes under his wing.
No wait I laughed.The movie is filled with mostly B actors but they're on the line between A and B,maybe B+ I mean they've done some good flicks, but Matt Dillon should have stayed in his trailer and even Brad Renfro was lame.I dont know what happens at the end because I left and It's probably some great twist ending, oh wait no, it's probably predictable and cliched.Oh yeah and Basketball Diaries was 50,000 times better..
It is "Romeo & Juliet", fixed up like "West Side Story", with fights that would no doubtingly see the award ranking at that year's MTV Movie Awards.
I believe that if Dorff would have taken control of Renfro's character and vice versa, perhaps a better film would have come from this conclusion, but alas, we were stuck with what was the final product.
Well if you take into account that this is a movie set in the 50s...and we are watching it 50+ years later then you should probably take into account that the whole good guys vs.
When a tough but an good hearted young man by the name of Leon (Stephen Dorff) tries to control his younger out of control teenage brother by the name of Bobby (Brad Renfro).
Leon tries to keep drugs off the streets that killed his brother, When the leader of the Vipers (Norman Reedus) is out of prison for being there for three years.Since he wants revenge, because someone did rat him out to the cops.
Keep drugs off the block, even if it's comes to Violence.This underrated film is stylish, tough, passionate and good looking brutality strong gang drama.
"Deuces Wild" is one of the worst movies that I have seen in quite a while.
but I'll try.The film's about a Brooklyn gang called the Deuces, circa 1958, and centers on two people, Leon, the gang leader, and his younger brother, Bobby.
Now three years later, Leon and his other brother Bobby (Brad Renfro) and a bunch of other guys have formed a street gang called The Deuces and will do anything to protect the neighbourhood.
When I saw the previews for this one, I, like everyone else thought it would be cool, I mean, a 1950's movie about two greaser gangs duking it out with a whole trunk load of familiar supporting actors (Norman Reedus, Matt Dillon, Brad Renfro, Stephen Dorff, that chick from the Sopranos, and 'Big Pussy', also from the Sopranos).
The acting (except for the always good and sinister Norman Reedus and Matt Dillon) is pure crap, especially coming from the more credible big star turned indie-flick/b-movie stars like Renfro and Dorff.
To the Producers of this film: If you want me to FEEL something other than rage for being duped by your deceiving marketing scheme, then give me my 3 bucks and 90 minutes back from my life!To anyone else who is interested in watching a good gang flick, look else where, this ain't West Side Story, Once Upon a Time in America or Goodfellas...oh no no no.
I did not expect much from this movie, but I rented it mainly because it had such good actors as Brad Renfro, Stephen Dorff and James Franco in it.
i will say that they don't make many movies that look like this, or have this kind of feel to them.
and for girls like me, who like to look at hotties, but also like a good fight scene, will enjoy this movie even more!
The film has a talented young cast in everyone from Brad Renfro to Johnny Knoxville.The fight scenes and cinematograpgy are all good and Scott Kalvert has made a film on par with his first one..
DEUCES WILD (2002) *1/2 Stephen Dorff, Brad Renfro, Fairuza Balk, Norman Reedus, Baltahzar Getty, Matt Dillon, James Franco, Drea de Matteo, Vincent Pastore, Frankie Muniz, Max Perlich, Joshua Leonard, Johnny Knoxville, Debbie Harry.
Leon (Stephen Dorff) and Bobby (Brad Renfro) formed the Deuces after their little brother died from a hot dose of heroin,and vowed never to let the drug hit their streets again.The lethal dose was supplied by the Vipers' leader Marco (Norman Reedus) who after three years' prison time, comes back to the neighbourhood to seek vengeance and get the powerful backing of mob boss Fritzy (Matt Dillon)to sell heroin on the streets.Marco believes it was Leon who snitched to the police and the violence begins with a bloody fight in the park.
Life in a street gang rarely ends happily and the parting of the ways is inevitable for the Deuces.If you are still young enough to remember the thrills of teenage rivalry and like your films to mix good fight scenes with angst and passion, then you should sit back and reminisce about your adolescent fantasy as the cool gang leader who didn't take sh*t from no one. |
tt0081491 | Shaan | DCP (Deputy Commissioner of Police) Shiv Kumar (Sunil Dutt), returns home to his wife Sheetal (Rakhee Gulzar) and their young daughter and announces that he has been transferred to Bombay. He has two brothers, Vijay (Amitabh Bachchan) and Ravi (Shashi Kapoor), who live in Bombay. They are intelligent, capable guys but spend their time loafing about the city and swindling unsuspecting people. A mysterious man (Shatrughan Sinha) tries to assassinate Shiv Kumar twice in the city. Shiv survives both the times.
After being swindled by Chacha (Johnny Walker) and Renu (Bindiya Goswami), the twosome decide to join forces with them. They are quickly joined by a glamorous thief Sunita (Parveen Babi). One of their tricks eventually backfires and lands Vijay and Ravi in jail. Shiv bails them out and reads them the riot act at home. After the two attempts on his life, Vijay and Ravi advise him to find a different line of work, arguing that his profession is unpredictable, dangerous and unsuitable for a family man. Shiv stands firm, citing his undying patriotic commitment to his corps and his country.
Shakaal (Kulbhushan Kharbanda) is an international crime lord operating from a remote island outside India. Shakaal is a sadistic villain who rejoices in pain of his enemies and traitors. Shiv gets progressively closer to the root of the crimes in the city. Shakaal has Shiv brought before him. He compliments Shiv on his wits and valour, and offers him to come to the his side. True to his form, Shiv firmly refuses the offer.
Shakaal tries to kill him, but Shiv breaks loose and tries to escape from the island. Shakaal unleashes wild dogs upon Shiv and eventually shoots him dead on the beach from a helicopter. As Vijay, Ravi and Sheetal lament their tragic loss, the mysterious man who tried to kill Shiv shows up. Sheetal angrily identifies him. The man introduces himself as Rakesh, a marksman and former circus performer who used to shoot targets blindfolded. He was recruited by Shakaal to assassinate Shiv, by holding Rakesh's wife hostage.
Rakesh confesses that he deliberately missed Shiv on the two previous instances, hoping it would buy him time to rescue his wife. On realizing this, an angry Shakaal killed his wife. Rakesh sought out Ravi and Vijay so they could work together to bring down Shakaal. The trio seek the aid of a homeless cripple, Abdul (Mazhar Khan) and manage to find and destroy Shakaal's contraband warehouse in the city. Finding that Abdul was providing Ravi and Vijay with information, Shakaal has his men kill him. Enraged with the destruction of his warehouses, Shakaal kidnaps Sheetal and has her brought to his island.
Vijay, Ravi and Rakesh fume, knowing that Sheetal will almost certainly be killed and that they have no clue about the location of Shakaal's island. At this point, Jagmohan (Mac Mohan), another of Shakaal's aides who has been mercilessly crippled by him, offers his help to the group to gain entry to Shakaal's hideout.
Posing as a musical troupe (a familiar stratagem in many Bollywood films), Vijay and Ravi (with Renu, Chacha and Sunita) enter the island and perform for Shakaal. Shakaal, however, reveals that Jagmohan was sent by him to trap them. Jagmohan's fracture was a lie. Their cover is blown and they are captured. An elaborate sequence ensues as the three men escape. The trio and the widow avoid the booby traps and henchmen, ultimately capture Shakaal and finally end his ignominious existence. Shakaal, with his dying breath, sets his island hideout to blow up but the heroes escape via helicopter to safety. | good versus evil, revenge, murder, violence, flashback | train | wikipedia | 5 years after the breakthrough success of SHOLAY, director Ramesh Sippy once again teamed up with Amitabh Bachchan - and this time they're taking no prisoners.
SHAAN is a grandly conceived epic of action, adventure, comedy, romance, drama and a bald supervillain who keeps a man-eating crocodile in his underground lair.Amitabh Bachchan and <some other guy> are bad guys!
But their plans of living an ordinary life are foiled when they get caught up in the investigation of super-villain Shakal, a bad guy in the best James Bond tradition played brilliantly by Kulbhushan Kharbanda.
The good bad guys have to go up against the really bad bad guys!SHAAN is like every movie ever made all rolled up into one, and barrelled through at a pace that makes the 195 minute running time seem very brief.
It's not as carefully crafted as the masterful SHOLAY, but it does provide the same kind of fun and thrills that make DON such great entertainment.
It's the kind of movie they just don't make anymore!A movie so grandiose can only work with a cast up to the task, but Amitabh rises to the occasion, oozing cool and commanding the screen most of the time.
As with SHOLAY though, the bad guy nearly upstages the heroes - he definitely has all the best lines (plus an island fortress surrounded by sharks!).SHAAN may borrow most of its elements from other movies (notably the James Bond movies), but it has enough personality of its own to make them seem fresh and special all over again.
One of the best Indian films ever made!.
I consider Shaan to be one of the best Indian films ever made.
It looks like a very professionally made film, which is quite rare in Indian Cinema.The fight sequences are very good.
Mr Sippy (the director) wisely chose to use the same style as in his previous blockbuster, Sholay.
This adds a touch of realism to the fights, as opposed to the norm in Indian films, where we get to see the hero beat-up about 20 guys on his own.Another highlight of the film was the music.
Sippy had an original music soundtrack created for this film, as opposed to stealing bits and pieces from other films.
I don't generally like the songs in Indian films, but they were quite good in this film.The cast is excellent, with everyone performing well in their roles.
I find that a lot of films with all-star casts suffer problems as the director tries to give everyone equal screen-time to the detriment of the plot.
Shatrughan Sinha's character is wisely introduced half-way through the story, thus avoiding trying to introduce too many lead-characters at the start od the film.
Amitabh Bachchan and Shashi Kapoor play well off each other as always.
As usual, the female characters don't have much to do in the film, with the possible exception of Rakhee Gulzar.The villain is brilliantly played by Kulbushan Kharbanda.
It's blatantly obvious that this character (Shakal) is modelled on Blofeld from the James Bond movies, as is much of the film itself.
One gets the feeling that the Sippy was trying to create a villain that would be remembered in Indian Cinematic history in the same way as his earlier creation, Gabbar Singh.
Although Shakal is not remembered as fondly as Gabbar Singh by many people, he's still one of Indian Cinema's more memborable villains.The plot of the movie is sometimes a bit silly (for example, we get the heroes dancing with their girlfriends in a bus soon after they discover that one their family members has been murdered).
However, this is a minor criticism in an otherwise brilliant film.If you like Indian films, Shaan is essential viewing.
James Bond + Bollywood = Great Fun. Shaan is a Big budget movie from the Great Director Ramesh Sippy, who has given us the Best Bollywood film of all time Sholay.
His next film is bigger in budget and star cast.
Shaan is a Highyly enjoyable movie that has lots of comedy with action and fun.
Shaan has a classic villain Shakaal played by Kulbushan Kurbandar in his best movie of his career.
Shakaal is a james bond style villain who has his own island with guns, secret rooms, rotating chairs, sharks and crocodiles.
Shaan in full on entertainment and a must see if you haven't seen it..
Shaan has everything you would want in a film - there's comedy, drama, action, great music, and an all-star cast.
Not only that, but there also is a car chase, a hostage crisis, a shootout, a jewel heist, and a deadly marine animal!Characters include a pair of con-artist brothers who get conned themselves but end up joining their crafty foes (an uncle and niece team), another brother who just happens to be a police officer, his wife and daughter, a mischievous club singer, a hitman who turns good, a diabolical villain and his cronies, and a disabled informant.
As if the movie itself is not enough, the music is excellent as well.
"Pyar Karne Wale" is a hit as well, and fits perfectly into the movie, unlike most songs in Hindi films which just appear out of nowhere (and I must say, Parveen Babi looks great as she "sings" and dances to it in the movie).This film is a 10/10 all the way.
Shaan may be older than I am, but it's a film for the ages, and my father having a rather large video collection, Shaan being among them, I must have seen it at least a half dozen times since I was little.
If you love watching Hindi movies, but haven't seen it yet, put it on your list of ones to watch.
The biggest Indian blockbuster film!!!
Shaan tells the story of an honest inspector named DCP Shiv Kumar (Sunil Dutt) who lives a very peaceful life with his wife (Rakhee Gulzar), daughter and two brothers Ravi & Vijay.
However, later on his two brothers Ravi (Shashi Kapoor) & Vijay (Amitabh Batchchan) was persuade by a circus master and a marks man (Shatrughan Sinha) that a man called Shakal (Kulbhushan Kharbanda) who keeps a man-eating crocodile was responsible for his death.
They, however, after fighting a prolong battle of great difficulty they manage to reach the island where Shakal is holed up and killed him and also have there brother's revenge taken..
After the super duper success of Sholay the Sippy's came up with this lavish James Bond type action flick.
I really can't give the Sippy's enough credit for making Shaan so different to Sholay.
Whilst Sholay was a mesh of different genres Shaan is more or less a straight forward action epic.
You can see it's inspiration from the title sequence, which is reminiscent of the Bond movies.
Amitabh Bachan,Shashi Kapoor and Shatrughan Sinha perform well whilst Sunil Dutt and Rakhee Gulzar provide fantastic support.
Shaan also benefits from having a good number of villain character actors, from what I remember there was Dilip Tahil, Sharat Saxena,Goga Kapoor,Sudhir,Mac Mohan and quite a few more.
Kulbushan Karbanda had a tough job on his hands trying to match upto the tyrant Gabbar Singh but he delivers.
Although half of that credit goes to writers Salim Javed for creating such a fantastic villain in the form of Shakaal Let me take this opportunity to mention an interesting fact, I had seen Kulbushan Karbanda in many movies as a child and had seen Shaan over 30 times yet failed to recognise him as Shakaal because I had never seen him bald.
The songs by R.D. Burman were great, especially Pyar Karnewale and Yamma Yamma.
Salim Javed had a tough job on their jobs trying to write a script to rival their previous movie Sholay but they delivered.
The script was good but the action scenes were fabulous.
Shaan is further proof that with Amitabh on board the Sippy's can create classics, even further proof was their next venture Satte Pe Satta..
Indian James Bond film!.
If you like James Bond, you'll love it!!!Pure action, good roles, good songs!
The only good thing about this movie is that it gave us Kulbhushan Kharbanda.
Poor Ramesh Sippy tries every trick in the book but was never able to come even close to his 'Sholay (1975)' success.Watch this movie if you like rubber crocodiles..
no Sholay but definitely a good movie.
If you compare this movie with other Ramesh Sippy movies like Akayla (Amitabh, Meenakshi, Amrita, Jacjie and Aditya), Bhrashtachar (Rekha, Rajnikant and Shilpa in her debut role), Zamaana Deewaana (Shah Rukh, Raveena, Shatru and Jeetendra), Andaz (Hema, Rajesh and Shammi) this is an absolute classic.
Ramesh Sippy as a director is in good form (not topform).
R.D. Burman gave a better soundtrack than in Sholay which songs like Jaanu meri Jaan, Yamma Yamma and others.
Amitabh Bachchan is THE HERO with support from Shashi kapoor, Shatrughan Sinha, Sunil Dutt (in a special appearance) , Raakhee, Jhonny Walker, Parveen Babi and Bindiya Goswami.
Kulbhushan Karbanda makes a mark as Shakal bur he is no Gabbar Singh.
This movie can be best describes as Sholay in the city.
If you don't expect a Sholay this movie certainly entertains.
The story is about three brothers Sunil Dutt ( a police officer), his wife Raakhee, his two brothers Amitabh and Shahsi who are two conmen.
They get unexpected help from Shatrughan who has become a good man.
No super plot but like almost all Ramesh Sipy films the execution is perfect.
Definitely worth a watch and far far much better then the crap action movies that come out now.
Definitely worth a watch, not only for Amitabh Bachchan -the only great Indian Actor (except for Rishi Kapoor) but the supporting cast is good as well.
Watch out for the scene with Amitabh and Prakash Mehra's Raquela Padmini Kapilla in a special appearance.
All in all a very good movie.
"If you have read my reviews for Elaan-e-Jung or Return of Jewel Thief, you already know that I survived the end of Shaan.
Yes, Sippy and I had planned a sequel - Shahkaal vs Gabbar - but the box office put paid to our plans of world domination." - Shahkaal circa 2005.Ramesh Sippy is among the best Indian directors of the 70's and 80's but has had a very sporadic output in the late 80s and 90s.
Like many other directors of his time, he was caught in the downward spiral of Amitabh Bachchan's box office draw in the late 80s and 90s caused by the star's increasing desire to not allow himself to be overshadowed by other actors or a plot.Shaan was the first film to be a victim of this phenomenon.
Technically, it is among the most slickly filmed and edited films of its time, and has a very good case - Amitabh, Shatrugan, Sunil Dutt, Kulbhushan, etc.
The film has an excellent soundtrack and the first hour is very good with Sunil Dutt subduing a desperado aptly named Durjan by his parents.
However, the film is a little too long and Bindiya Goswami puts in a very cloying performance.The most important flaw is that fans did not react well to Kulbhushan Kharbanda's breakout portrayal of the villain Shahkaal.
The neighborhood kids laugh at his baldness and ironically shout "Shahkaal" behind his back and run away - not knowing that he is actually an aged super villain.
The same thing happened to Amitabh - but alas no TV comebacks for Shahkaal.
If anyone reads this, and is looking for a genuine super-villain, Shahkaal still has his chops.
The Indian blockbuster pays James Bond a visit !.
Ramesh Sippy is an excellent director.
So since his start he was determined on marring his commercial homeland cinema with the western in (Sholay), or James Bond in (Shaan).
For the first half it runs as a crime comedy, with schemes and heists, then for the second as an action about a war between 3 heroes and one super-villain imported from many Bond movies; he lives on an island (Dr. No), has an office with sharks around it (The Spy Who Loves Me), disposes of a failure henchmen by exploding his chair (You Only Live Twice), and he's bald (Blofeld).
Come with that some "Bondy" touches here and there : opening credits that roll while showing parts of the movie's events on a sexy girl's dancing body (From Russia With Love), the good guy fights a monster and beats it underwater (Thunderball), survives an alligator (Moonraker), and – sure – a theme song at the start and a ticking bomb at the end (nearly all of Bond movies !).The cinematography did grand.
Amitabh Bachchan is a walking movie industry, with unbelievable charisma and wit.
The ambition to overtop (Sholay), the most successful hit up to that point, is felt.
While (Sholay) remade (The Seven Samurai) to Indianize a western movie, now (Shaan) remade many points of Bond to westernize an Indian blockbuster and give it another flavor.
Thus it had a more than enough foreign atmosphere, looking strange sometimes, missed the human dimension, with light pain and more fun, and – unfortunately – suffered a load of cheese !Bone Cheese : There is absolutely no difference between Kapoor's and Bachchan's characters; they're the same happy-go-lucky guy, just one taller than the other !
The leading dual fight Shakaal, a *super* bad guy, the same way Sholay's leading dual was fighting Gabbar Singh; without appropriate advanced gadgets !
The villain has a secret way to release the bonds around his victims' hands hidden under his main table, why ?!
The villain dies right beside the secret key to destroy his island (strange coincidence).
While Shatrughan Sinha's character is a circus man, he can run a helicopter cleverly ?!
In terms of writing, the best addition this movie came up with was dividing James Bond, the forever *one* hero, into 3 guys.
It's someway the opposite of what Sippy did in (Sholay), when he remade the 7 Samurais with purely 2 guys.
While making 2 ends for (Sholay); one where the violence wins which was canceled by the censor, then one where the law wins which was used, this round as if he wanted to revenge, declaring that killing must be faced with nothing but killing, and he did it rightly : Shakaal tries to kill the 4 leads, so they act naturally with self-defense, finish him with 3 bullets, and make Sippy eventually happy !It's an Indian good vs.
bad blockbuster that visited Bond to borrow some super bad material.
Though, despite (Shaan)'s faults it is better than many of Bond movies (at least it has a plot !).
I had seen Shaan a lot of times on TV, since my childhood.
Coming to the film, its a very well made, long, big-budgeted, multi-starer, total blockbuster entertainment-action movie, though not being a typical bollywood one.
Its a movie of international standards (of that time).
It was directed by Ramesh Sippy after basking in the super-success of Sholay.
Its sets were humongous and like bond flick, specially the don's den.
Its direction is brilliant and Ramesh Sippy has really shown his great filmmaking skills, which only could have been done, with ample budget and no creative restrictions.
Even the music is somewhat different than typical bollywood movie.
Also, all the songs are great, specially Jaanu meri jaan and Yamma yamma, which are really evergreen.
Well, of course there were a lot loopholes in script, scenes, etc but was a daring film of 1980, trying to match up with Bond flicks, and it surely reached up a great level.
Few exceptional scenes were Sunil Dutt's capture, chase and death (best), Abdul's death and the final climax..
After SHOLAY, Ramesh Sippy returned after 5 years with SHAAN(1980) with Amitabh, Shashi, Shatru(sources say that he wanted Dharam in lead role again but things didn't work out).
The film has a decent story, starts off with Amitabh and Shashi who play conmen(in DO AUR DO PAANCH released same year too they played conmen) Sunil Dutt is their brother who is killed(in a stupid death scene) and then revenge starts.
Similar to SHOLAY, here too Shakaal the main villain is given lot of prominence,SHAKAAL is based on James Bond type films, he has an island of his own and some weird gadgets(it was very expensive set of it's time).
The first half is spent establishing characters and things take a turn when AB and Shashi alongwith Shatru seek to avenge death of Sunil Dutt.
The problem with the film was it's comparisons with SHOLAY The film may not be as epic as it but yet its quite watchable.
Also scriptwise it's not too tight yet it does seem entertaining The scenes are quite good like Amitabh bashing Goga Kapoor, the final showdown too is good, at times the film doesn't make sense too though it's forgiven for such a genre Direction by Ramesh SIppy is good Music by RD Burman is good, Yama Yama(RD BURMAN and Rafi) is exceptional, Pyaar Karnewala is a good song by Asha while Jaanu meri Jaan though oddly placed yet it's a good number with Kishore singing for Bachchan.Amitabh Bachchan is as always charismatic and cool in his role, Shashi Kapoor compliments him well,though he looks tired and older, Shatrughan Sinha's role was reportedly not in the original script yet he does well, Raakhee is as usual(for once she ws cast as Amitabh's Bhabhi),Parveen Babi and Bindiya Goswami are okay.
Khulbushan Kharbanda had done small roles before but this was his like a relaunch for him, he shaved his head bald and played his role superbly, he is simply perfect, sadly he never played roles of such calibre later Sunil Dutt is there for 1 hour in the film though he is credited as a special appearance and is okay, Amongst rest Mcmohan, Sudhir, Sudhir Pandey, Dalip Tahil, Goga Kapoor are okay, Mazhar Khan is good as Abdul Johny Walker is his usual self rest are okay |
tt0121802 | Thank You Mask Man | After years of saving a small town, its population is angered that The Lone Ranger never stays long enough to receive gratitude for his deeds. After being pressed on the issue, the Lone Ranger explains why with a hypothetical situation: a little boy tells the Ranger “Thank you, mask man.” The simple phrase resonates with the Ranger, who soon demands to hear the phrase every time he performs a deed. One day in the far future, no more “thank you, mask man” greetings come; prophets explain that the Messiah has arrived and that the Lone Ranger is no longer needed. Now addicted to “thank you, mask man,” the Lone Ranger turns evil, vowing to make trouble so that he can fix it and receive his “thank you, mask man” again. Back in reality, the Ranger explains that he does not want to fall into such a trap and that is why he rides away before accepting anything in return.
The townspeople are still annoyed at this and insist on giving the Lone Ranger some sort of gift. The Lone Ranger points to an Indian, Tonto, and says that he wants him. Asked why The Lone Ranger wants Tonto, he replies "To perform an unnatural act.", explaining that he is not a homosexual, but that he had "heard a lot about it and read exposés" and would like to "try now to see how bad it is. Just once." The Lone Ranger also requests a horse. When asked why he wanted the horse, he replied "The act." suggesting that he wants to perform bestiality. The townspeople react in disgust as The Lone Ranger and Tonto ride off into the sunset. Bruce intended to deconstruct homophobia and other issues explored within the routine. | cult, comedy, satire | train | wikipedia | Unnatural acts with Tonto.
Easily the best thing about the Lenny Bruce: Performance Film video.
While the performance portion is one of Bruce's worst, this short shows him at his satirical best.
The riff on homophobia isn't even the best part...the commentary on accepting thank-yous and the resultant egotism and self-aggrandizement are priceless, especially when the Mask Man goes to his mailbox only to discover that the Messiah has returned, and society has no need for him once evil has been eliminated..
Pity he didn't do more of these.
This eight-minute cartoon is essentially some crude animation over a recording of Lenny Bruce's live comic bit about the Lone Ranger, with a few very basic sound effects & music.What's surprising is how well it works.
The animation is timed perfectly with the live recording, & actually enhances the comedy.
It's a very simple cartoon, but the characters look just right.
Although you can hear the audience laughing their heads off at the show, now I can't imagine it being funny without the pictures.It's not Lenny's most savagely satirical or scandalous bit by a long shot, but it was pretty out there for its day, & the cartoon is definitely not for children.Today, we're becoming used to seeing swearing, sex, extreme violence & clever social commentary in animation.
It's a pity that Lenny isn't around - I can see him producing a show called 'The Sick Cartoons Of Lenny Bruce' & becoming a millionaire.Or he'd just become a writer for The Simpsons..
Hysterical!.
Classic Lenny!
I found this on a 'Cartoon Scandals' video that I picked up in Philly in 1989.
Since I can't find this anywhere else, I kept this video even though I've been changing to DVD's.The way the story unfolds is actually pretty good.
And pay attention because he fills it with non sequitors.
("How many times did he take out the garbage?
Sweep the yard?") The best line?
"I like what they do with fags, they put them in jail with other men.
Very clever." Despite the limited animation, this is well worth owning.
I've never seen animation like this anywhere else either come to think of it.I only wish it were easier to find..
ingenious little short, like a newspaper comic strip with sharp wit.
Thank You Mask Man is featured as a bonus on the DVD of the Lenny Bruce performance film, and I was very glad I watched it.
It reminded me of what I saw once in a Carlin special from the 80s where he put in little animated bits that all visualized his bits.
That this comes more than a few years before that is impressive, but more so that it actually works to fit the riff-style comedy that Bruce excelled at.
This is basically drawn like, well, basics- the comic-strip characters could've been taken out of any newspaper or other, and it's all crude to the point of not having to focus as much on it.
Perhaps most of the strengths, aside from the curious, off-kilter nature of the drawings, do spring out of the material, as a story of a bunch of people having to deal with a 'masked man' on a horse.
It happens to be a good Bruce bit on its own, but then the curious thing does happen that towards the end of the film- when the townspeople then all taunt Masked Man to be gay- the comedy and the look of the film do totally gel somehow.
That Bruce is also behind a good part of the style of the picture himself probably explains how some of the same inspired dementia in this story in particular (one with an absurdity to it but also some truth sprinkled around) merges with simplistically weird animation.
It's probably not one of my favorites ever, to be sure, but I had a lot of fun watching it, as a crazy little anecdote given life and still kicking more than forty years later..
Insanely Funny!.
I first saw this Lenny Bruce skit on video when I was in college(20 years ago)....Actually never thought I'd see it again, but I was fortunate to get my hands on a VHS copy!
Lenny was a pure genius and the Lone Ranger skit is so damn funny...Just thinking about the idea of the Lone Ranger being gay is enough to make you laugh..LOL.Too bad that people in the 60's were so uptight....They had the "Leave it to Beaver" family mentality....So of course, they couldn't accept outlandish humor like this!
If Lenny were around doing comedy TODAY, he'd be a big hit!You can find this gem at the END of the Lenny Bruce Performance Film, which is hard, but not impossible to find....
Amazon.com has several sellers offering it as well.I think I better transfer this to DVD...just in case the VHS tape breaks!!.
Hilarious.
This short comic is outright hilarious.
My brothers and I saw it once about 15 years ago and recorded it on a cassette and passed it out to everyone we knew.
We haven't stopped laughing about it or watching it since.
We just ordered it on disc and can't wait until it arrives.
My best friend is gay and could not stop laughing through the entire show.We have gotten dozens and dozens of people hooked on this short cartoon.
We are trying to find other short cartoons like this one.
I can't seem to find any more by this particular comedian.If anyone knows of any, please let me know.
I would definitely recommend this to anyone..
Political satire about homosexuality from the Lone Ranger (Spoof).
This short video must be viewed with a grain of salt.
You must also view it with the understanding of the times.
The Lone Ranger (spoof) makes a huge issue about why he never sticks around after helping the town.
He doesn't want to stick around for his "Thank you, Masked Man".
Then he finally does, and we see an immediate change in attitude.
Then the truth comes out!
You must watch this over and over again, to understand everything the people say, as with Lenny Bruce...he's a fast talker.
Quite ingenious.
A classic of it's own.
I would say, most people that rented the "Performance Film" never saw this cartoon, because it was after the credits..
A (controversial) cartoon classic!.
Usually most (controversial) cartoons are done in Hollywood and they are made by such as Disney, Warner Brothers, MGM, Universal and Paramount and the make fun of Japanese and black people.
This one is an independent film and it makes fun of homosexuals.
This short subject is the earliest form of "Stanimation" (basically it is a cartoon, in which the soundtrack is nothing but a stand-up comedy act) before Comedy Central's "Shorties watching Shorties".
If I am making a Top 11 list of controversial cartoons, this would be number one.
The rest will be all Hollywood-made.
Be surprised who made this cartoon.
Could you guess?
Jeff Hale.
Now what's he known for, apart from playing Auggie Ben Doggie in "Hardware Wars" (1977)?
He is known for doing the Ringmaster segments, the Typewriter guy skits and the Pinball Machine sequences from "Sesame Street".
I bet you are all surprised now by the time you are done reading this comment.Bottom line: Not suitable for children.Not rated: but a PG-13 would do fine due to all the language and sexual references going on..
Exquisite social commentary.
Contrary to the review above, Lenny did not co-write and co-direct this film, unless he somehow managed to do so five years after his death.
If anyone could do that, it would be Lenny.Bruce's stream-of-consciousness comedic riffing, his ridiculing of homophobia and the denigration of Native Americans, his doing all the voices of the various characters, epitomize his genius, accomplished while he encountered endless formidable adversaries, the direct descendants of fanatical Comstockery.
What torment he endured was a product in no small part of religious fanaticism, the same sort of social control that required the Supreme Court to decide against the forces of theocracy in Griswold v.
Connecticut, Roe v.
Wade, and Lawrence v.
Texas.
Commentators here have complained about the quality of the film, but in 1971, lacking both the budget of a Disney studio and the current state of technology that allows for instance, for South Park, it captured the essence of the man and the quality of his work.
Without Lenny, we couldn't have had Richard Pryor..
What was once controversial and edgy is now banal.
It seems everyone that has so far reviewed this short film absolutely loved it and so my review is the odd-ball.
It isn't that I found THANK YOU MASK MAN offensive that I only gave it a score of 2.
Sure, the Lone Ranger in this short is into homosexuality and bestiality--and I am sure this will turn a few heads.
My reasons for giving it a 2 are because I just didn't enjoy the cartoon--it wasn't that funny and the animation quality was poor.
I think the reason I didn't find the cartoon funny or subversive is that times have changed.
What was controversial in 1971 is passé today--or at least well on its way.
With "South Park" and "Robot Chicken" on television (and not even pay cable), talking about these topics is a common thing.
Since it no longer has shock value, I must look at the humor itself--is there anything about the film that is remotely funny other than shocking and dirty words?
Well, in my opinion, no.
Lenny Bruce's stream of consciousness rapid rambling just seemed deadly flat and uninteresting.Perhaps some might enjoy this because it's a stroll down memory lane.
In other words, it either reminds them of Lenny Bruce or it reminds them of watching this "bad film" with friends.
Well, that's fine.
But if you simply look at it for what it is today, it just doesn't hold up over time..
Lacks Any Laughs.
Thank You Mask Man (1971)* 1/2 (out of 4)Lenny Bruce co-wrote, co-directed and does all the vocal work for this seven minute animation movie that is a spoof of The Lone Ranger.
When this was first released it was highly controversial because this is basically a spoof of homosexuality and there are a lot of jokes aimed at them.
Well, watching this film today you can't help but think that the only reason this was controversial is because of Bruce.
I mean, if you know anything about the comedian then you know about his legal troubles dealing with his act so I'm going to guess that this short was attacked simply because of his name being on it more than anything else.
As far as the film goes, I really didn't like it because it simply wasn't funny.
I'm not sure what the point of this thing was but without a single laugh the film is pretty much dead in the water.
At just seven minutes it moves along pretty quick and the animation is nice but that's about it..
One of the weakest Lone Ranger installments out there.
"Thank You Mask Man" is an American English-language short film from 1971, so this one will soon have its 50th anniversary.
It was written and directed by Lenny Bruce and while he was not the only one working in these fields, he was the only voice actor apparently voicing every single character in here and it wasn't just one or two.
nd this was certainly among the better components of this film I would say.
There are weaknesses in other fields that eventually have me give this one a thumbs-down.
One would be the looks.
The 1970s sure aren't known for its beautiful or progressive animation style and visual sides, but honestly it could have gotten less ugly than this one we have here.
By the way, this is an early Lone Ranger movie featuring Tonto too, the characters brought to life by Armie Hammer and Johnny Depp a few years ago, so everybody who enjoyed that one, could maybe also watch this film here.
Oh well or maybe not I must admit hadn't read it, I probably would not even have made the connection.
While the story or characters never feel really interesting due to the looks, this film feels in terms of comedy and also surprisingly graphic language in terms of swearing fresher and newer than early 1970s.
Really would not have expected this one to be almost half a century old.
So I think actually a new filmmaker or a talented one active in the 21st century could turn this film into a quality piece.
But the way it turned out here, it is no such thing, rather on the contrary, even if I would not call it a failure either.
It is mostly known for the characters I think and that's the reason it isn't forgotten now or so despite not gaining an Oscar nomination.
But that would have really surprised me to be honest.
Doesn't seem up the Academy's alley at all.
Okay that's all folks.
watch something else instead. |
tt0043544 | Flaming Feather | A mysterious outlaw, known only as The Sidewinder (Victor Jory), is terrorizing Arizona settlers. A rancher whose property was raided, Tex McCloud (Sterling Hayden), and a U.S. Cavalry officer named Blaine (Forrest Tucker) both decide to seek justice. They even make a friendly wager over which one will get to The Sidewinder first.
A wealthy saloon entertainer, Carolina (Arleen Whelan), tries to persuade Tex to also go after Lucky Lee, a mine owner who owes her $20,000. She also tries to seduce Tex, but he's not interested.
After he changes hotel rooms with Lucky's longtime sweetheart, Nora Logan (Barbara Rush), an ambush is attempted by gambler Showdown Calhoun (Richard Arlen) and his partner, who come to the wrong room. Nora is the one they're after, and she becomes a kidnap victim on the stagecoach. For the second time, though, Tex rides to her rescue.
Nora explains that she's involved with Lucky only out of gratitude for one saving her from a similar assault. Lucky offers a theory that Tombstone Jack is the notorious Sidewinder, but after Carolina sneaks up on Tombstone and kills him, Tex and Blaine begin to suspect that Lucky is the man they're after. Turquoise (Carol Thurston), a Ute woman who loves Lucky, knows for a fact he's the outlaw.
Now the marshal for the territory, Tex and a posse go after Lucky, who has snatched Nora and ridden off to a hideout. Lucky conspires with a band of Utes to attack the posse. Carolina and Showdown are killed. Tex and Blaine get to the hideout, but the jealous Turquoise has already killed Lucky, beating them to the punch. The men call off their wager. | revenge | train | wikipedia | This a good picture for what it is.
This a good picture for what it is.
It seems to start out as a formula western with an age old plot, white man running with Indians doing bad things, lone hero sets out to stop him, etc.
However the script is pretty good, there is some suspense, though we sort of know from the get-go who the bad guy is,the moment he shows on the screen.
I love Sterling Hayden...for a guy who really didn't like being an actor, he does all right.
Barbara Rush is beautiful and appealing.
Forrest Tucker just shows up, and Victory Jory steals the picture with his oily charm.Edgar Buchannian is wasted in a role he really isn't suited for.However, all in all, a pretty good picture.
I enjoyed it..
Sidewinder in their sights..
Flaming Feather is directed by Ray Enright and written by Gerald Drayson Adams.
It stars Sterling Hayden, Forrest Tucker, Arleen Whelan, Barbara Rush, Victor Jory, Edgar Buchanan and Richard Arlen.
A Technicolor production, music is by Paul Sawtell and cinematography by Ray Rennahan.The mysterious outlaw known only as The Sidewinder is in cahoots with the Native Americans and terrorises Arizona's settlers.
But when The Sidewinder chose Tex McCloud (Hayden) as one of his targets, he hadn't banked on Tex linking up with the U.S. Cavalry to hunt him down.Enjoyably energetic Oater that makes up for what it lacks in originality with gorgeous location photography and a barn storming finale.
Ray Enright was a good old pro at this sort of thing, and here he doesn't waste any time with pointless filler scenes or drawn out conversations that don't advance the plot.
From the get go we are thrust into an action sequence, and from there on in the film rarely pauses for breath.Hayden and Tucker make for a beefy coupling, and although the mystery element is not exactly rocket science to work out, the presence of three lovely lady characters does spice up the intrigue surrounding The Sidewinder and those in pursuit of him.
It all builds to a wonderful finale that starts out with a Little Big Horn type siege, which then develops into a pursuit and battle up at the Montezuma Castle Monument in Arizona, where fire pit punch ups and ladder skills enthral greatly.It isn't hard to pick holes in it, it is after all one of those quintessentially early 1950s Westerns that was ignorant to intelligent scripting and screenplays.
Yet for sheer gusto and consistently airy beauty this is a must see for Western and Hayden lovers.
A fine, nostalgic western adventure.
Sterling Hayden stars as a cowboy who hits the trail in search of a renegade white man leading a band of Indians who burned his ranch and ran off his horses and cattle.
The mysterious raider is responsible for the killing and looting of towns and wagon trains manages to elude the pursuing cavalry until events conspire to unmask the villain.
Barbara Rush is the romantic interest of Hayden and also the renegade and her role is that of a damsel in distress throughout the picture.
Forrest Tucker is good as an army lieutenant and there are comical exchanges between old timers Edgar Buchanan and George Cleveland.
Victor Jury is also good as the dark, saturnine trading post owner.
Arleen Whelan's role as a saloon singer doesn't have much to do with the film's plot but is quite a looker nonetheless.
The technicolor is excellent, as is Paul Sawtell's spare music score..
Pesky redskins attack white settlers.
A band of renegade Utes, led by a sneaky, low down, forked tongue white man, burn, loot, and pillage across the southwest.
A rugged settler and the Army go after the elusive skunk and his gang of dirty rats and meet in a blazing gun battle in the mountains.
Above average western..
Ruffled feathers: a pretty good western.
Presumably, the title relates to the Red Feather Saloon, and flaming-haired Arleen Whelan, who sometimes sings there.
Arleen's character: Carolina, is your iconic 'bad' girl, as opposed to Barbara Rush's 'good' girl, Nora.
They both have occasional incidents with the lead male: Sterling Hayden, as Tex. Tex saves Nora from great harm on several occasions.
Thus, naturally, she is friendly with him.
But, she also feels gratitude toward wealthy local, Lucky Lee, who looked after her, after her parents were killed and their house ransacked and burned by The Sidewinder and his band of renegade Utes, who have been the terror of Arizona Territory for 20 years!
Now, Lucky has asked her to marry him, and she has accepted.
However, Nora has also developed an obvious attraction to Tex, and worries about his safety.
Meanwhile, Lucky has a beautiful Ute mistress in Turquoise(Carol Thurston), which doesn't seem to bother Nora.
Turquoise thinks Lucky should marry her, but he says a man in his (exalted) position should marry his own kind.....
Caroline has an attraction/repulsion relationship with Tex. Sometimes, she tries to have him killed.
Other times, she saves him from being killed.
Sometimes she's angry at him.
Other times, she proposes that they run off together.
Caroline also has a thing going with cowboy Showdown((Richard Arlen).
Most of these romantic conflicts will be resolved in the spectacular climax battle between The Sidewinder plus his Ute vs.
most of those characters I've talked about, plus the US cavalry.
This battle takes place in and around the Montezuma Castle Pueblo cliff dwellings, with a number of successive ladders to climb to the top......The main point of the story is the search for the identity of The Sidewinder, and eliminating him and his Utes......Some of the other characters include: Tombstone(Ian MacDonald): a shady gunslinger type, Forrest Tucker as Lt. Blaine, and his sidekick: Edgar Buchanan, as Sgt. O'Rourke.
Another easily identified character actor is George Cleveland, who plays the aged Dr. Fallon: horse and people doctor, dentist, lawyer, justice of the peace, and no doubt a few other odd skills.......The location shooting takes place in various scenic areas of Arizona, and complements the 3 beautiful women included.
You can see it all free, at YouTube.
Flaming Feather casts Sterling Hayden as a rancher and Forrest Tucker as a cavalry lieutenant who make a bet as to who will catch the notorious outlaw known as the Sidewinder.
Hayden whose ranch was recently burned out and cattle stolen is not satisfied with the performance of the army in catching this desperado.
The Sidewinder has as his gang a collection renegade Ute Indians which makes him the army business as opposed to civilian law enforcement.
Hayden and Tucker have a wager on who will catch him first as no white people know his identity.It wasn't hard to figure it out just look at the casting.
Even without IMDb identifying the Sidewinder on Flaming Feather's page it was easy to figure out by the kind of roles this player is usually cast in.
The real suspense is whether Hayden or Tucker will wind up with leading ladies Arleen Whelan and Barbara Rush.
Another good part is that of Carol Thurston who played many exotic types in her career and is the Indian mistress of The Sidewinder.Flaming Feather is good, but highly predictable..
Disguised.
This is strange and enjoyable, an odd mix of straight genre and novel plot.Superficially, it is a genre western in all its component parts:Army, including a rough and tumble, betting, chewing sarge.
A redheaded owner of a bar, essentially that abstraction of a whore that only exists in movieland.
A more beautiful "innocent" woman, goodhearted.
A lone rancher on a mission of revenge.
A gang of thieving, murdering Indians, led by an evil mastermind.
A solidly honest gambler.
Color.
Traditional score.And most of the action is of the ordinary kind: barroom fights, barroom singing (in the Red Feather, where our redhead works -- guess that's where the title comes from).
And there's the cowboy rescuing the pert damsel again and again.
He ends up with her after thwarting her wedding to the unrecognized bad guy.
(who she doesn't know killed her parents).But this has some twists that actually make it interesting, enough unpredictable that you may find it interesting.The shootout at the end involves ladders and dimension, rare for a picture of this era.
But the big deal for me: the setup for the first three quarters of the movie is that the redhead and the guy who turns out to be the mysterious "sidewinder" have a big quarrel.
We expect to learn that she is his wife or sister.
Or that she is the sidewinder.
Or that she is the sidewinder.
We expect that the bad guy will die, but that the tart with a heart will survive.
That's the west, right?No. The whole thing leads up to a massive shootout which just happens to involve her and a group of men who mysteriously would follow her into such a thing.
No problem, we think, her hidden power and role will be uncovered in some way.Nope.
An errant bullet in the shootout -- not even from anyone important -- fells her.
She dies.
We never learn the puzzle that has captured us throughout.
We've been tricked by the shape of the thing, which so clearly is a genre movie, but at the end, no genre ending?What a thrill.Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 3: Worth watching.
It's pretty good but I wasn't QUITE as in love with the film as the other reviewers..
Often I wish we could give scores like 6.5, as "Flaming Feather" isn't quite good enough to merit a 7 but better than a 6.
I also notice that the other reviewers really liked this one.
Well, I did too--just not quite as much.The film begins with a rancher (Sterling Hayden) having his homestead attacked by an Indian bandit named 'The Sidewinder'.
In the attack, Hayden loses everything but his life and is naturally determined to watch this bandit and punish him.
Along the way, he meets up with the Cavalry--and Hayden isn't particularly nice to them.
After all, they should have stopped the Sidewinder, as he and his gang have been at it for years and no one STILL has any idea who he is.
He and the Commander (Forrest Tucker) make a bet as to who will get the Sidewinder.In town, Sterling meets up with two interesting ladies--a crazy red-head who seems like poison and a gorgeous and nice dark-haired lady (Barbara Rush) who is headed west to marry some guy named 'Lucky'.
However, twice folks try to either kill or kidnap her--and both times the hero, Sterling, rescues her.
What's next and what the fiancé (Victor Jory) has to do with all this is something you'll need to see for yourself.I think the film's biggest strength is that the plot is unusual--something pretty rare with a western.
And, it never hurts to have Sterling Hayden starring in a film.
But the film also has a few problems--such as wasting Edgar Buchanan in a support role, a ridiculous fighting scene where tiny little Jory is a match for the hulking Hayden as well as a final scene where the Indian lady runs up and grabs a gun and shoots someone--as Forrest Tucker just sits there and lets her do this.
This final complaint is just sloppy and with a better finale, I might have scored this one a bit higher.
Worth seeing--just not brilliant..
reasonable western whodunit - or whoisit.
At one time the IMDb cast list did rather spoil things by telling us who the Sidewinder is, but since I wrote this review some years ago it seems to have been amended.
So I'm altering what I wrote then.There are several possibilities about who the Sidewinder is, and I had my own suspicions (which eventually proved to be correct) as soon as he appeared.
Sterling Hayden was his usual wooden self in the lead role, Forrest Tucker was sufficiently rugged as the army officer, but Edgar Buchanan made an unconvincing sergeant - almost as much so as Andy Devine in "Two Rode Together".In the opening shoot-out at his ranch, Tex seems to have a revolver that never needs reloading; I counted 17 successive shots, though six of these were fired when he was sheltering in the cattle pen; arguably he could have reloaded out of camera, but he then gallops off, firing another 11!
And when the stagecoach leaves town it's picturesquely filmed from under a distinctive tree - which features again later in the coach journey after Tex has done his rescue act.The film is redeemed by a good closing fight between the whites and the Utes, with an unusual setting for the inevitable concluding fisticuffs. |
tt0065737 | Fragment of Fear | Tim Brett (Hemmings) is a former drug addict who has written a book about his experience and has been published. He has been clean for about a year. He had recently become acquainted with his aunt (Robson), a philanthropist who expresses interest in helping some of Tim's former acquaintances. She is found murdered soon after. Tim starts a relationship with Juliet (Hunnicutt), the woman who found his aunt's body, and they are soon engaged.
Dissatisfied with the progress that the police are making in his aunt's murder case, he begins to ask questions of some of his aunt's acquaintances. He then begins to receive warnings from unknown persons to stop his inquiries. He meets an elderly woman on the train. She hands him a note of supposed comfort, asking him to read it at home. The note turns out to be a warning about leaving matters to the police, apparently typed on his own typewriter. There's also an ominous laugh recorded on Tim's own tape recorder, indicating that someone had been in his apartment.
Tim is then visited by a police sergeant, Sgt. Matthews, who informs him that the woman on the train had lodged a complaint against Tim. Sgt. Matthews takes Tim's information but after the woman is also killed, Tim finds out that there is no sergeant by that name working at the police station. Tim is later assaulted on the streets at night by two men who leave him lying on the ground with a hypodermic needle. Tim throws the needle away down a gutter. He makes contact with a secret government agency which tells him that they are after the people who are threatening him, but all is - again - not what it seems to be. As the situation continues, Tim and Juliet's wedding fast approaches. | murder | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0041790 | Red Light | Bookkeeper Nick Cherney is sent to jail for embezzling from Johnny Torno's trucking company. In a California prison, he sees a newsreel showing Johnny welcoming home his brother Jess, a heroic Catholic chaplain just returned from a World War II prisoner-of-war camp. Just before his release four years later (and to give himself a clever alibi), Nick hires Rocky, an inmate who has just finished his sentence, to murder Jess.
Jess is staying in a local hotel room, about to depart for his first parish in another city. The brothers meet with a local priest, Father Redmond. It is during that meeting that Johnny finds out Jess is moving away.
Johnny arrives at his brother's hotel room not long after Jess is shot by Rocky. Knowing that he is about to die, Jess vaguely indicates that a clue to his murderer can be found within the covers of the room's Bible. Johnny takes this to mean that the name of the killer himself is inscribed somewhere therein. However, the book is not there.
Johnny refuses to wait for the police to investigate. He tracks down and questions several strangers who occupied the same room, among them Carla North. He believes that one of them has the Bible. Once he satisfies himself that Carla is not a suspect, he hires her to help in the search, inviting her to stay at his luxury apartment, while he moves to his office. Although a bit suspicious of Johnny's motives, Carla agrees.
While Johnny is questioning another hotel guest, he notices Rocky watching him. Setting a trap, he lets Rocky see him buying a book from the former guest and wrapping it up, then leaves it lying around while he gets his shoes shined. When Rocky steals the book, Johnny catches him and reveals that it is just a cookbook. Rocky manages to escape, though Johnny wounds him slightly with his gun.
Later, aboard a train back to town, Rocky tells Nick that he is through, and that he intends to blackmail Nick. Nick sucker punches him, causing him to fall off the rear of a moving train. Then, Nick goes to Torno's office to witness the search of the Gideon Bible found earlier by Carla.
When Johnny finally locates the missing Gideon Bible, he finds written within not information about the killer's identity, but a plea from his brother not to seek revenge. Nick thinks he is off the hook. Relieved, he turns to leave.
However, when he gets to the head of the stairs, he spots Rocky on the floor below. In a shootout, Nick fatally wounds Rocky, but before he dies, Rocky identifies Nick as the mastermind behind Jess's murder.
Johnny pursues Nick to the roof, out in a rainstorm. Nick accidentally steps on the main power supply to Torno's huge neon sign and is electrocuted. | revenge | train | wikipedia | The Lord may say: "Vengeance is mine," but Georgie says "the heck with that noise -- this one's MY baby!" He rampages through a multi-state search-and-destroy mission in his quest to find the message hidden in the Gideon Bible that was in his brother's room when he was killed.
One man (Raymond Burr) avenges being sent to prison for embezzling from a San Francisco trucking company by having the younger brother, a priest played by Arthur Franz, of the owner of the trucking company (George Raft) killed, shot in cold blood in a hotel room by Burr's prison associate Henry Morgan.
Burr is in top form looking downright menacing, and basically carries a lot of this film, as Raft's part goes way overboard as the vengeful older brother, though the Gideon's Bible angle of the film gives the part some saving grace.
Virginia Mayo's role as one of the people who stayed in the hotel room where the murder took place, does not add much, as she is used by Raft to help find the Bible in which there is supposedly a clue to the killer's identity.
The role of the Bible itself makes the film a bit of a religious noir, an element that is also captured in some superb cinematography by the great Bert Glennon.
Mystifying title for a revenge crime melodrama featuring George Raft and The Bible....
With so much of this gangster melodrama revolving around the Gideon Bible holding the clue to the murderer, it's no wonder that Dimktri Tiomkin plays up the pious "Ave Maria" every time any mention of "the clue" is made.
George Raft's monotone voice and intense expression never changes much throughout, but he's convincing as a man on a mission to find and kill his brother's murderer.Along the way, he enlists the aid of the lovely Virginia Mayo, who helps him track down the killer while reminding him that his brother was strictly a "Thou shalt not kill" sort of Army Chaplain.
Thus, the grim ending for the killer comes not from Raft but providence when he's disposed of quite dramatically.Raymond Burr plays the "heavy," a sadistic thug who seems to enjoy every kill, even if it means pushing a man off a train or having a truck falling on top of a man in hiding.
A good cast, including Arthur Franz as Raft's brother, Gene Lockhart, Harry Morgan, Barton MacLane, Ken Murray, William Frawley and Arthur Shields.
Virginia Mayo gives an excellent performance as the gutsy gal who helps Raft in his quest to find a killer.Trivia: Interesting to note that most of the supporting cast would go on to TV fame in an era when that medium was just starting to give film players some iconic breaks.Summing up: Good revenge melodrama with film noir touches..
George Raft stars in the 1949 "Red Light" with Virginia Mayo, Raymond Burr, Gene Lockhart, Arthur Franz, and a host of other familiar faces.Raft plays Johnny Torno, the head of the Torno Freight Company.
When he caught Nick Cherney (Burr) embezzling from him, he had him put in prison.When Johnny's brother Jess, an army chaplain, is discharged, Nick sees a chance to get back at Johnny, who adores his brother.
But the Gideon Bible is missing by the time Johnny gets back there.Johnny sets out to find the Bible by tracking down anyone who had stayed in the room since Jess, determined to find out who killed his brother and killing the murderer himself.The Bible plays an important part in the film, not just the physical Bible, but what's inside.
And it isn't what Johnny thinks.I really liked this movie because of its interesting slant, and also, I don't know what it is, but I like George Raft.
One thing Raft had on screen was warmth, and here, you see Johnny's love for Jess, and his pain when his brother dies.The other thing about this movie that is wonderful is all the familiar faces - besides actors known primarily for films: Raft, Mayo, and Lockhart, we have TV star Burr, Harry Morgan (September Bride, Pete & Gladys, MASH), William Frawley (I Love Lucy), Victor Sen Young (Charlie Chan, Bonanza), Barton MacLane (I Dream of Jeannie), Arthur Franz, who was in everything, Philip Pine, who must have done every TV show ever, Ken Murray, known for his home movies of celebrities, Paul Frees, the "Man of a Thousand Voices" who was the voice of Boris on Rocky the Squirrel), Bob Jellison (Bobby the Bellboy when "I Love Lucy" was in Hollywood), and Marlon Brando's first wife Movita.Dmitri Tiomkin's music ranges from riffs on Ave Maria, Dies Irae, and some Tosca thrown in.
Four years earlier Torno's bookkeeper Nick Cherney (Raymond Burr) was sent to prison for embezzling from Johnny's company - he was embarrassingly guilty and it was really a lot of money.
This starts Johnny on a search for the missing Bible and all of the guests in the hotel room since Jess' death who might have taken it.
Nick, now out of prison, along with the hit man, are right on Johnny's heels hoping their plans are not discovered.It is very odd to see later TV good guys Harry Morgan and Raymond Burr playing such sinister characters but the performances ring true.
Red Light is directed by Roy Del Ruth and adapted to screenplay by George Callahan from the story This Guy Gideon written by Don Barry.
It stars George Raft, Virginia Mayo, Raymond Burr, Harry Morgan and Gene Lockhart.
Music is by Dimitri Tiomkin and cinematography by Bert Glennon.Something of an oddity, Red Light finds George Raft up to his neck in religion, revenge and a smouldering Virginia Mayo.
Find the Bible, find the killer.It is brought into the film noir sphere of things via Glennon's photography, which kicks in at the hour mark and runs concurrent with the murky thematics in the narrative, Frisco a rain sodden place of sleaze.
Even the masterful composer Dmitri Tiomkin turns in a by-the-numbers performance, shoe-horning "Ave Maria" into the score every time a Bible or a priest is mentioned (as well as the "Dies Irae" in the death scenes).This is the only film I can think of where a Gideon Bible plays a primary role.
It's also one of those 1940s flicks that is loaded with actors that were about to become household names through the medium of television: Wiliam Frawley (I Love Lucy, My Three Sons), Raymond Burr (Perry Mason, Ironside), Henry Morgan (Dragnet, December Bride, Pete and Gladys, M*A*S*H), and Victor Sen Young (already known through the Charlie Chan films, but soon to play Hop Sing on Bonanza).
His army-decorated holy brother Arthur Franz (Jess) comes across as an annoying priest who is thankfully murdered at the beginning of the film and thus begins Mr Raft's campaign to dish out some revenge.
His only clue is a bible that needs to be tracked down.The cast are good in this film, especially the bad guys Raymond Burr (Nick) and Harry Morgan (Rocky).
Fine film noir with George Raft bringing a "WB gangster from the '30s" edge to things.
Great cast backing him up, including Gene Lockhart, Raymond Burr, Barton MacLane, and Harry Morgan.
Brutal at Times the Film is Punctuated with Messages from the Bible and the Look is Acutely Dark and Shadowed with Iconic Flourishes.George Raft is at His One Note Best as He goes on a Man-Hunt Looking for the Killer of His Priest Brother.
The Gideon Bible Itself is the McGuffin and Plays an Ending Twist of its Own. Raymond Burr is a Sleazy, Nasty and Violent Thug along with His Partner in Crime Henry Morgan (who was never dirtier).Although the Preaching at Times is a Heavy Load of Thumping it Never Quite goes Over the Top and Film-Noir Wins Out. A Couple of Times Raft Stops the Sermonizing with a Speech of His Own that Keeps Things where They Ought to be..."Save that eyewash for your Sunday Sermon".What a bit of Nastiness this is.
Red Light is an independent production released by United Artists and starring George Raft as a man on a mission.
But when his younger brother who is a priest and an army chaplain from the late war played by Arthur Franz is shot in a hotel room, Raft is going to deal with killers himself and not let it be handled by the police in the persons of Barton MacLane and Bill Phipps.Before checking out of this mortal coil, Franz said he wrote something in the hotel Gideon Bible for Raft.
But the book from that particular room has been stolen and Raft spends most of the film trying to locate it with the help of Virginia Mayo.There's not much suspense in this film mainly because Raymond Burr who was a former employee sent to prison for embezzlement is acting so guilty.
What he gets from the bible are some eternal truths, but what he seeks comes out in its own way.Besides the players mentioned such folks as Gene Lockhart, Stanley Clements, William Frawley, Harry Morgan, and Arthur Shields are all in Red Light.
There's a fine cast for a low budget crime picture, which includes the under appreciated Virginia Mayo, along with Gene Lockhart, Raymond Burr, William Frawley, and Henry Morgan (who nearly steals the picture with his villainous phychotic supporting role).
Solid film noir from the wooden yet watchable George Raft.
Solid film noir from the wooden yet watchable George Raft.
George Raft's brother is murdered, but left a clue as to the identity of his killer in a Gideon Bible, the MacGuffin of the piece, which Raft spends most of the film trying to locate.
George Raft's brother is murdered, but left a clue as to the identity of his killer in a Gideon Bible, the MacGuffin of the piece, which Raft spends most of the film trying to locate.
There's a fine cast for a low budget crime picture, which includes the under appreciated Virginia Mayo, along with Gene Lockhart, Raymond Burr, and Henry Morgan (who nearly steals the picture with his villainous phychotic supporting role).
By a series of of unfortunate but not related incidents the owner of a large freight company named Johnny Torno (played by George Raft) is trying to solve the mystery of a missing motel bible that his recently murdered brother while taking his last dying breath alludes to will solve who murdered him in that motel room.
After eliminating Carla North as a suspect he engages her to work with him in finding out the current location of the other motel room customers who may have stolen the motel room bible that his brother said provides the only clue to his murder.So big brother Johnny ignores his freight company responsibilities and with the help of the motel bellhop and the beautiful Carla North finds out who subsequently rented that same motel room over the next week in an effort to find out who took that bible that is the key to solving his brothers mysterious death and murder.I am sure you noticed that I rated this film a dismal 3 out of 10.
The 3 points are all attributed to the classy Virginia Mayo who plays Carla North, as well as to actor Raymond Burr who plays the recently released convict Nick Cherney.
So the big burly bad convict Nick Cherney sought vengeance from Johnny Torno for putting him behind bars and what better way to seek vengeance than to have Johnny Torno's little priest brother whacked by his cellmate Rocky (Harry Morgan aka Dragnet's detective Bill Gannon) who was being released from prison before he was.This film noir is an okay time waster except for the fact that the so called male star of this film, Johnny Torno, played by the cardboard acting emotionless little George Raft kept sinking the film every time he opened his mouth and/or moved across the black and white screen with his hands stiffly held next to his hips as if he was a robot.
The convict that Johhny Torno is supposed to be laying a beating on Nick Cherney, is played by the burly Raymond Burr who at the time, stood at least 6 feet tall and 250 pounds.
This is just another example of how poorly cast George Raft was in the leading role of Johnny Torno.The Red Light title was merely used as a result of the very recent huge success that was ALL Virgina Mayo's for starring in the earlier 1949 release of another film noir titled "White Heat" which starred a real action/drama star in James Cagney.
It is unfortunate that the attractive and good performance of Virginia Mayo was assigned to work with one of the worst actors of the time period, that being the short cardboard acting of George Raft.Sorry, but I call them like I see them.
First of all, we all agree that George Raft was wooden and didn't have a clue what a good script looked like.
A waste of her time and effort especially since she was in a flurry of excellent films like WHITE HEAT and Colorado TERRITORY.At least Raymond Burr and Henry Morgan bring some life to the proceedings.
Meticulously groomed George Raft was a notoriously one-note actor, but his monotone worked harmoniously in the flattened acoustic of film noir.
In Roy Del Ruth's Red Light -- an unusual "religioso" thriller -- he owns a trucking empire; his brother, a priest and army chaplain, has just been gunned down in a hotel room.
Raft enlists the aid of Virginia Mayo to track down both Bible and killer.
(Spoilers) It's when his kid brother US Army Chaplin Captain Jess Torno, Arthur Franz, was found shot at the hotel he was staying at that Johnny Torno, George Raft, owner of Torno Fraight Lines made it his first order of business to bring Jess' killer to justice.
There was something that Jess with his last dying breath told Johnny who was at the murder scene that it's the bible in his hotel room, that disappeared from sight, that holds the answer to what happened and then kicked off for good.Determined to find Jess' murderer Johnny didn't realize that the person who was behind the crime was a lot closer to him at he could have ever imagined.
As we all saw at the start of the movie Johnny's former book-keeper Rick Cherney played by a pre liposuction 300 plus pounds Raymond Burr, whom Johnny caught embezzling his business, who was behind Jess' murder.
It was Cherney who hired ex-con Rocky, Harry Morgan, who was in the can, San Quentin Prison, together with him to gun Jess down as an act of revenge against Johnny.
In Cherney being dead broke, without a job or any other means of support, at the time to give Rocky the contract to knock off Jess?Looking for the Gideon Bible that was in the hotel-room with Jess at the time of his murder Johnny recruits pretty Carla North,Virginia Mayo, who needs the money and who was in the same hotel-room Jess was in after his death to track down anyone else who spent the night at hotel room #812 after Jess was killed and could have possibly taken the bible.
In the end all turns out to be well and good in Johnny finally seeing the light and when he did have the chance not do in the fleeing Cherney a hesitant and Johnny instead let the supernatural or a bolt of electricity, as Jess advised him in the magic hotel Gideon Bible, do it for him.P.S Check out Johnny's and later Clara's Chinese house-boy at his San Francisco luxury suite Vincent played by former Charlie Chan's goofy #2 son Victor Sen Young..
Raft puts him up at a hotel till he gets settled in again.At the same time, Raymond Burr, a former book-keeper of Raft's is doing a bit in prison.
Raft has Clements bring him a list of people who have stayed in the room since his brother.First up on the list is Virginia Mayo, a night club singer from Los Angeles.
He wants her to hunt down the other names on his list of hotel guests for that room.Now Raymond Burr shows up just fresh out of prison.
He was still in Prison when the murder happened.As Mayo tracks down the names on the list, Raft pays them all a visit.
Raft returns to his office to look for Mayo.While all this is going on, Burr has taken his prison buddy, Morgan for a train ride.
When everyone rushes out of Raft's office to see what is happening, Burr points at Morgan.
Figurative (and, later in life, literal) heavy Raymond Burr plays Nick Cherney, an embezzler doing time for ripping off his employer, shipping company boss Johnny Torno (George Raft).
The cooperative Rocky obliges by murdering Johnny's priest brother Jess (Arthur Franz), but Johnny isn't willing to take his sibling's death lying down - until he reads some marginalia in Jess's bible.
Shot on location in beautiful Carmel, California, Red Light also features Virginia Mayo, Gene Lockhart, and William Frawley (who has an interesting telephone conversation about plumbing), first rate James Van Trees cinematography, and an original score by Dmitri Tiomkin..
I'm sure Burr, who must have weighed twice as much as Raft, could have demolished him with a couple of punches.Then Virginia Mayo is a suspect by Raft in the murder of Raft's priest brother Jess who has returned from a prison camp overseas.
Mayo doesn't have the Bible, but instead has a photo of Jess, because her now-dead brother was in the military with Raft's brother.
At the end, Harry Morgan shows up at Raft's office just as Burr is on his way out and fingers him as the killer.
(Is it a spoiler to say Raymond Burr plays a bad guy in this?
I can't blame that on Mr Raft, that's solely down to the production team.Unless you're a Raymond Burr fan, this film is just a waste of time. |
tt0365183 | Falling Angels | The year is 1969, the place is an Ontario suburb, and the Field family's fragile domestic peace is coming to an end. The story is told in loops and flashbacks. With the opening and final scenes at Niagara Falls, the bulk of the film depicts the events leading to the funeral scene shown at the beginning. In the background looms the tragedy of the suspicious death years ago of the first-born son; a pervasive and never spoken of subject.
The household is ruled by Jim Field basing on his experiences in the military, as is illustrated by a flashback sequence to the two weeks he forced his family to spend trapped in the self-built backyard bomb shelter, for "practice". Jim works as a used-car salesman and he is keen on keeping up appearances in front of the neighbors. He is psychologically unstable, drinks heavily and cheats on his wife although he is also oddly protective of her, insisting that his daughters watch her all the time. His depressed wife Mary, a onetime dancer, has escaped into apathy and alcoholism a long time ago. She lives a catatonic life on the living room couch, staring absently at the television, her ever-present coffee cup full of whiskey impassively filled by one family member or the other.
Each of the three teenaged daughters has her own way to cope with the deleterious family atmosphere. They try to make their own experiences while struggling with their family duties and concern for their mother. Norma is the eldest daughter and the most responsible element of the family; quiet, subdued and selfless, she overburdens herself with domestic tasks and responsibilities, and patiently puts up with her father's antics. She is also the only one intent on keeping the memory of her brother and on uncovering the secret around his death. After unexpectedly becoming friends with a neighboring girl, she lets some pleasure into her dreary life. As the opposite of Norma, middle child Lou fights for her independence, standing up to her father and loving her mother but despising her weakness. She assuages her fantasies of rebellion, experimenting with boys and drugs. Not as involved as Norma in the housekeeping, nor as rebellious as Lou, sweet-looking Sandy devotes herself to becoming a perfect woman, with her own naive sense of femininity and sexuality. She engages in an affair with an older, married shoe salesman which ends up an awkward threesome scene with the man's twin brother, and Sandy learning that she is pregnant.
The story builds from one small event to another. Things climax during one long New Year's Eve night, as a dramatic event and the final admission of the secret definitively put an end to the Fields' "pretend normal" family life. The ending is left open, leaving the viewer to guess whether or not the characters will be able to start a new and more honest life and reconstruct family bonds. | fantasy | train | wikipedia | Learning to survive your family.
Another Canadian offering at the film festival from director Scott Smith who also did indie film `rollercoaster' a few years ago.
It's based on a book by Barbara Gowdy and was filmed in Saskatchewan though it takes place in Ontario.
The story centers around 3 sisters in their late teens, still living at home under the imperious rule of their father, Jim. He has long since succeeded in bullying his wife, Mary, into a defeated alcoholic who spends her days in her dressing gown, staring remotely at the television and sipping whiskey from the ever present coffee cup.
He continues his tyrannical reign over his daughters but the year is 1969 and things are changing.
Authority is being challenged and the traditional `father rules the roost' values are being shot down left and right.
The sisters are all trying to discover who they are and how to break free but are tied to the family out of duty and concern for their mother.The family doesn't talk about secrets.
They bury them and there lies a lot of the problems.
There was a firstborn son that died in a `fall' over Niagara Falls and then there was a two week enforced confinement in a bomb shelter that the father built in the back yard about 10 years ago.
We see this through some flash back sequences.
Norma is the oldest, chubby, plain, she is the one that takes care of everyone else.
She follows father's rules like a good girl yet there's a lot about herself that she won't accept.
Lou is the middle smart mouthed daughter, bent on rebellion.
She sees her father with other women, she hangs out with a new boy in school, riding in his van, smoking dope.
She hates her father and loves yet has contempt for her mother's weakness.
Sandy is the youngest, blonde, pretty and sweet looking and seems attached to her mother.
Sandy sews her own clothes, high necklines, ruffles and peter pan collars but wears a ton of makeup and has no compunction about starting up an affair with a married man of her father's age.
It certainly doesn't seem to be her first time either.
The movie starts off showing the mother in a coffin and the father drunkenly lurching into the funeral parlour.
The rest of the movie retraces the steps that lead up to the mother's death on New Year's Eve.
The actors are all very believable in their roles.
Miranda Richardson plays the remote mother, so immersed in apathy and alcohol that she can't even react to anything in her daughters' lives though she does show glimpses of not being as oblivious as we might think she is.
The flashbacks in the bomb shelter show her a little more spirited than she is now but the destruction of her self esteem has already begun.
Callum Keith Rennie plays the bully control freak father with just the right balance of domination, control and a glimmer of insecurity and affection for his family that does lurk under the surface.
Katharine Isabelle plays Lou, she was also in Ginger Snaps and she's terrific.The director stayed after the movie for a few questions and when asked where he got all the `stuff', the houses and props and cars, replied `We filmed it in Saskatchewan!' implying Sask.
was stuck in the past.
Made the audience chuckle.
Wherever and however they got all the props, they did a great job.
The whole style of the movie was SO 1960's Canada as I remember it right down to the coffee cups, the turquoise blue paint in the kitchen and the wood paneling and stripey tweed carpet in the rec room.
The clothes had me in flashbacks as well.
The ending was a bit ambiguous but it comes down to whether the girls will reject or stick by their father in spite of everything.
Again, I can't see it being everyone's taste but if you like Indie films, you should see it.
Canadian films have come a long way but you know, you can still pick one out of the crowd.
There's just a certain atmosphere and I think that comes from the fact that most of them are made with independent money and means and don't have the gloss and high budgets that Hollywood movies have.
There are good actors, both Canadian and from other countries.
The writing is getting better as well but there is just always something quintessentially Canadian about them, this one included..
Low Key Gem that Never Disappointed.
It seems fair to say that the title "Falling Angels" is plural so as to include not only the baby brother who somehow fell over Niagara Falls and whose picture is later given wings and enshrined behind wood paneling in the Field family's basement.
It also describes the mother, Miranda Richardson, whose spirit has been gradually destroyed by her volatile, controlling, husband, until she is reduced to a morbidly depressed alcoholic with no life beyond the couch and television.
Each of her three high-school age daughters are falling as well, away from the insular family where no outsiders are allowed to observe the sad dynamics, no help is asked for or accepted.
Each family member is alone in coping with their emotions and longings.
Still there is always the sense that this is a family with strong ties and feelings for each other.The three sisters gravitate (fall) into outside relationships, whose merits and wisdom are not judged by the movie, but simply shown.
The girls' future lives are being formed, and will always have been influenced by the events of the past -including forced confinement in a bomb shelter by their father as an exercise in preparedness.
Even that act of well-intentioned cruelty is not judged too harshly by the film.
It's a misguided deed done for the sake of the family.
There is no angst or acting out or weepy reconciliation drama in this family.
Instead there is some anger, some sadness, and some unspoken love.The acting is first rate by all.
Miranda Richardson is excellent as the fragile porcelain-like mother, drained of spirit, quietly detaching from life.
The portrayal of the late 1960's is the most realistic I have ever seen.
It's achieved not by the musical score, or the pop-culture icons of the period.
Instead it is the 'feel' of the house and furnishings, the neighborhood, the clothing.
And also, it shows how life then was somehow different than today quieter, more private at least for some of us and the families we grew up in during that time..
Review for Falling AngelsThe definition of acting, the way I've learned it is creating the illusion of reality.
Now a substitute for that in the dictionary might be see; Falling Angels.
I know that I'm not alone and not doing so bad, when I see other people trying to figure out life.
The three girls in this story are pretty much left to figure everything out for themselves.
Their role models are an absent alcoholic mother and a twisted alcoholic army dad, who every time he sees them, they stick their hands out, for a cleanliness inspection.
This is why I watch independent film.
This is why I watch independent film.
This is why I joined Film Movement and thank you, director Scott Smith.
A slice of life; getting into the personal drama of other peoples lives.
These people react to situations as real people do, without saying, "I'll be back!" and then killing every one in the building with a machine gun..
A sign of Good things to come....
This has to be the most well done Canadian film I've ever seen.
The acting was marvelous; the directing was beautiful and the story was very original and realistically hilarious.
Everything in this film seemed like it was done so subtly, which it gave such a realistic portrayel of the late 60s/early 70s.There was something wonderful about this film.
It just seemed so authentic.
I don't know what else to say about it; I guess you just got to see it for yourself.
It was just such a warm story ---> even with all the depressing aspects it had.8/10.
hauntingly beautiful.
an absolute dream-like beauty to this film.
It possesses the best of say a Wim Wenders masterpiece, coupled with the narrative of a whacked-out indie great.
Every moment is fully realized........never forcing the viewer to "feel" anything.
heartbreaking and hilarious, with art direction that is a knock-out!
The direction and the acting were gorgeous (especially the stunning Katharine Isabelle!).
Both the narrative and pictorial silences in this film say so much more than most films do in the entirety.
So much is left to the viewers politics and prejudices, it almost feels interactive (granted I grew up during this period, so that probably has a lot to do with it).
If you're a child of the 60's / 70's (or a dysfunctional home.......and who isn't.........) this is a must see..
Blame Dad (again)..
Yet another would be shocking but predictable expose of repressed lives in the 1950's (oops, 1960's.
Maybe the revolution arrived a bit late here in Canada).
The father is meant to represent all things wicked and patriarchal, but he comes across as too likable and well meaning to really pull this off--I just couldn't buy that he would keep his young family locked up in a bomb shelter for two weeks and force them to drink dishwater or start knocking down the furniture because he'd been told that he misspelled a word in a Scrabble game (although if I'd had to live with that passive-aggressive little bunch maybe I'd start tossing around stuff too).
And I think there should be a moratorium on the "ironic" use of 1950's ads in modern films--I suspect that people who actually lived in that era were just as skeptical of their ads as we are of our own.That said, there were some elements of the film that worked.
The open concept houses with shag rugs were dead on.
The very strained relationship between the most difficult of the three daughters, Lou, and her father was convincing--in many families there does seem one kid who brings out the worst qualities of a parent and acts as a kind of scapegoat for the other siblings.
And even though it seemed a bit gratuitous, I enjoyed the the very sick and twisted Ron and Reg subplot--pure Barbara Gowdry.Overall, it was worth a look, but I was glad I waited until it came out on DVD..
Not the best, but could be worth seeing.
Basically, the movie is about a family (parents and three daughters) in the 1960's as they deal with issues from the past and the present.
There is also a secret that is eventually revealed, and sort of explains why things are the way they are.The casting was good, everyone played their character well (mostly), except I sort of agree with the other reviewer when they said that you really don't 'dislike' the father, even though his acts can sometimes be inappropriate.There are some scenes I liked with some of the individual characters, and the cinematography is nice.
I especially liked the opening and the closing scenes.Overall, I didn't like some of the story.
But if you like any of the actors or are just somewhat interested, it is probably worth seeing..
Overlooked, breathtaking masterpiece.
It should be a crime of some sorts that movies like "Falling Angels" are so completely overlooked, while overrated garbage like "Shutter Island" and "Iron-Man" get all the credit!
Unfortunately, nowadays people don't care about the substance or acting, all they care about is retarded special effects and 3D!I just watched this movie and it blew me away.
I am speechless, literally!
I won't give away anything, I really think you should see it for yourselves!
The atmosphere, the beautiful scenery, the story, the acting...
It blew me away!
Everyone in the cast did an amazing, wonderful job!
I can't recall the last time I was this pleasantly surprised, no, pleasantly shocked by a film.
Why isn't this movie known more widely?!Amazing movie!
Highly recommended!.
Not a comedy.
This is billed as a comedy, but it is not.
It is a story of a highly dysfunctional family.The house is decorated in the most ugly 1960s style you could conceive.
The furnishings came from a thrift store.The father is a bully, though he stops just short of beating his family.
He threatens them with guns.
He is a bit like the Great Santini, pushing his family around as if he were a drill Sargent.
He later becomes an alcoholic.Mom is an alcoholic, barely conscious.The three daughters are fat, and not very bright.
One smokes non-stop.
One gets pregnant by a gross older man.
They are selfish and unkind to each other.Only one character is in the least sympathetic, the fattest daughter, a lesbian, with a flair for carpentry.There are a couple of awkward sex scenes which are funny in their dreadfulness.The movie opens with mom in a casket.
The film winds back in time to explore how that came to be.It is a bitter film, not a funny one..
great Canadian film.
scott smith's 2nd (i believe) indie film tells the tale of a dysfunctional family, the fields, set in 1969 ontario.
the father (callum keith renney) is a control freak, and all four females in the family must do whatever he says.
the mother (miranda richardson) is an alcoholic, and stares at the TV screen sipping whiskey from a coffee cup.
norma is the oldest, and unlike most of her girls at her school, she's heavyset and wears thick glasses.
she befriends a girl at school, and the two become very close, spending Christmas together and dancing.
lou is the rebellious, outspoken middle daughter, and spends her time smoking drugs in her American boyfriend's van.
together they talk about all sorts of things, presidents of the united states and world issues.
sandy is the youngest, spoiled, and what you would normally call a 'daddy's girl.' after she feels neglected by her family members and father, she starts an affair with a shoemaker, as old as her father.
their relationship develops, and leads to an awkward threesome scene with the shoemaker's twin brother.
i'll just leave it at that.although a bit odd at times, and funny (especially when lou tries to get the attention of the American), it's quite a touching and moving film.
katharine isabelle shines as lou, while sandy and norma (monte gagne), seem kind of bland.
rennie and richardson play above average performances as the father and the mother.
the direction is great, set against the backdrop of ontario in the autumn/winter.
at the end you get a good shot of niagara falls.
this is a movie definitely worth seeing, although a couple of my friends thought it was boring.
one of the best independent Canadian films to date.9/10 |
tt0084843 | Une chambre en ville | The story is set during a workers' strike in Nantes in 1955. Young shipyard worker François Guilbaud is one of the strikers, and he rents a room from Madame Langlois, a widow who sympathizes with the strikers although she is herself upper-class, born a baroness. His girlfriend Violette Pelletier, who works in a shop and lives with her mother, wants to get married but he is unwilling, partly because they have no money and nowhere to live.
In the street François is accosted by a beautiful woman wearing only a fur coat. This is Édith Leroyer, unhappily married to the owner of a television shop, who has taken to part-time prostitution. The two have a blissful night together in a cheap hotel and fall in love.
In the morning Violette comes looking for François because she has learned she is pregnant, but he tells her he loves another woman. Meanwhile, Édith, going back to her husband's shop to collect some things and leave him, has a terrible row with him during which he cuts his throat. She flees back to her mother, who is François' landlady. Next morning, François joins a demonstration which is broken up by the police and is fatally injured. His workmates carry him up to the flat of the baroness, where he dies in the arms of Édith. Unable to live without him, she shoots herself. | romantic | train | wikipedia | A Highly Underrated Film Musical.
'Une chambre en ville' was thoroughly underrated from the start.
In 1982 audiences no longer favoured tragic movies.
A generation earlier television had strongly reduced the audience of the cinemas.
A group is watching a video which may evoke strong emotions in some of the spectators.
Suddenly another catches the remote control, rewinds the movie and makes some comment (e.g., 'Girls should never have such a coiffure').
Repeated exposure to experiences of this kind may reduce the capacity for becoming emotionally aroused by movies.
- Note that this is a recent development.
It is easy to assemble a list of 100 very tragic movies produced 1935-1965, which at that time were highly appreciated by the average film-goer.
I am even convinced that the average film-goer of this period would have loved contemporary movies such as 'Stormy Weather' (by Solveig Anspach) and 'Les diables' (by Christophe Ruggia).If your aim is not emotional experience, you are likely to be disappointed by 'Une chambre en ville', despite its excellent merits.
I intend to say much about the music, and shall reduce all other aspects to the bare minimum.
Workers are striking.
During a demonstration one of them (Francois) is shot by the police.
He dies in the arms of his beloved (Edith).
But only one day earlier he had abandoned his pregnant girlfriend (Violette), because he had met a very beautiful over-class girl.
Francois and Edith were immediately overwhelmed by genuine and reciprocal passion.Even among film musicals it is infrequent that every line is sung.
Hence, it is natural to compare 'Une chambre en ville' with 'Les parapluis de Chèrbourg'.
Jacques Demy directed both.
But different composers (Michel Colombier and Michel Legrand) wrote the music.
I think both got the manuscript most suitable for their specific talent.The music of 'Une chambre' differs from that of 'Les parapluis' foremost in three respects.
Without ceasing to be real film music, it is more introverted, and it is closer to opera music.
But the largest difference is the director's relation to the singers.Whenever two persons sing simultaneously in 'Les parapluis', you can clearly perceive the words of each.
Also, simultaneous singing never transgresses the kind of dialogues that may be found in purely spoken theatre.
By contrast, 'Une chambre' contains a real duet: the loving couple sings the same text together in parallel sixths; a device clearly borrowed from the opera.
- - - To avoid misunderstanding as regards my next point: numerous great composers have borrowed melodies or other things from each other.
Since 'Une chambre' finishes with a love scene in which one of the couple dies, it is not far-fetched to associate to Wagner's 'Tristan and Isolde'.
During the final scene of the movie the main musical theme is presented for the fourth time, and this time with new accompanying melodies played by the orchestra.
Rightly or wrongly, I think that these melodies are to some extent inspired by Wagner's opera (bar 63-73 of the overture).Any competent musical conductor would tell the singers to take some impression of the mood of the text.
But the soundtrack of 'Les parapluis' never differs much from a neutral performance.
Hence, it is hardly possible to decide whether or not Jacques Demy actually directed the singers before the soundtrack was made.
But in 'Une chambre' it could hardly be more manifest that Demy has devoted as much direction to the singers as to the actors seen on the screen.
From Violette's singing voice alone, no one could mistake her distress when Francois abandons her, and her feeling of being treated unjust when Francois tries to excuse his behaviour.
- - - Suppose you do not understand French, and that you are listening to the soundtracks of both movies without seeing the pictures.
You will nevertheless have a fair chance of correctly perceiving the emotions of many scenes of 'Une chambre'.
You will be much less successful with 'Les parapluis'..
Demy-- Classy n Beauty.
I always love Demy, except the one discussing the pregnancy of a male-so called a comedy..
He always give you classical fairy tales which takes you away from your real world.
Please don't pause his movies or you'll definitely find them dull and boring!
For me, his music strengthens the story.
Females are all beautiful princesses or queens.
immersed in love, in a way..
Catherine Denver is, of course, his perfect princess.
State-of-the-art modern opera.
Could be a sequence, although dealing with a different story, to Jacques Demy's Les Parapluies de Cherbourg.
All the dialogues are sung by the excellent vocal team gathered once more by the director (see also Les Demoiselles de Rochefort, Peau d'Ane).
Musical style this time completely different, by competent Michel Colombier, provides fluent and dramatic tension all over.
Who is going to make such well-finished films from now on?.
A Bold Undertaking That Falls Far Short Of Its Potential.
"Une Chambre de Ville" is a tragic opera set during the strike of a shipyard workers union in 1955.
Against the backdrop of clashes between police and strikers, the story is about two star-crossed lovers.Francois is one of the striking workers and Edith is the dissatisfied wife of a television salesman.
Fate brings them together and the result feels Shakespearian.
They sing of never-ending love, but this is a story about unhappiness--for them and the other main characters.Though the lyrics/dialogue are rather unpoetic in a classical sense, the music is powerful and lyrical.
Indeed, the musical score is one of the best parts of the film.Noticeable attention has been paid the scenery, with an emphasis on bright colors, providing striking images.The actors have adequate singing voices, but the central theme--the great love of Francois (Richard Berry) and Edith (Dominique Sanda)-- is unconvincing.
The viewer wants to feel that each is an island oasis of love for the other, driving them to heights of passion and personal transformation.
But instead they feel like two losers who converge for a desperate evening and remain unchanged.
The musical score, which is so strong, promises a classic story of love, like "Phantom of the Opera", but the characters fall far short.The film's ending is abrupt, and it serves to undermine the theme of everlasting love..
Workers during a strike prepare and perform a demonstration, and two personal relations develop against this background.
François (Richard Berry) abandons his pregnant girlfriend Violette (Fabienne Guyon, appropriately dressed in violet), and meets a very beautiful upper class girl, Edith (Dominique Sanda).
This was my first experience with Jacques Demy, and I was immediately smitten.
The backdrop recalls something like "Les Miserables", based on Demy's own witnessing of a shipyard strike, though the focus here is much more on the love triangle, and Francois Guilbard is not the tragic character that Jean Valjean is (in fact, Francois is kind of a rat).Musicals are not my favorite genre, but I think this was done right...
every line sounds amazing, and it works to have it done without any speaking.
The dark themes even hark back to classic operas more than the saccharine musicals of modern Hollywood.
Where the plot may be less than perfect, it is made up for by the mere presence of such striking and talented actors.Unfortunately for Demy, many consider his best years 1961-1967, with the exception of "Donkey Skin" (1970) and completely disregard this film.
A workers' strike, verismo opera, and Dominique Sanda.
The French film Une chambre en ville (1982) was shown in the U.S. with the translated title A Room in Town.
It was written and directed by Jacques Demy.This is an unusual movie because all the dialog is sung, which is like opera.
It's about a labor strike, police violence, and sex--definitely verismo.Dominique Sanda stars as Edith Leroyer, the newly-married daughter of Margot Langlois, played by Demy stalwart Danielle Darrieux.
Edith's husband, Edmond, is portrayed by the great French actor Michel Piccoli.
Richard Berry stars as François Guilbaud, a metalworker and staunch union member.
He falls in love with Edith, and she with him.
(It's actually love at first sight.
And what a sight it is.)Fabienne Guyon plays Violette Pelletier, who is also in love with François.
She's young and attractive, but no match for Edith.
Carmen.)I enjoyed this film because it was complex and multifaceted.
Once you get into the fact that there's no speaking, only singing, you can sit back and enjoy it.Sanda, Darrieux, and Piccoli are all actors with whom I'm familiar.
Berry appeared in over 100 movies, none of which I'd seen.
All four are superb actors, and they carry the movie forward.In my opinion, all of Demy's films would work better on the large screen.
Une chambre en ville has an anemic 7.0 IMDb rating.
I think it's better than that.
It's not for everyone, but there are definitely people who would enjoy it.P.S. If you'd like to know what Dominique Sanda's body looked like in 1982, this is the movie for you..
A More Serious Musical Great from Demy.
Une Chambre en Ville (French: "A Room in Town") (1982)
8/10 Pure French musical,
Love triangle plus mother.
Every word is sung.
Tanka, literally "short poem", is a form of poetry consisting of five lines, unrhymed, with the 5-7-5-7-7 syllable format.
Like "Les Parapluies de Cherbourg" a wholly sung opera and like "Lola" wholly set in Jacques Demy's native city of Nantes, even using several shots of that palatial shopping arcade again.
For much of the time, however, the camera gives us a proletarian Nantes of graffiti-scarred back alleys, barricaded works whose employees are out on strike and squares full of detritus.
No prettily painted streets emptied of people and cars, but a working town full of tension, shot in sombre tones often tinged with blue.
One fatality is the chief protagonist, the shipyard fitter and toolmaker François (Richard Berry) whose room gives the film its title.
One a symbol of ebbing church power, for this drama shows few signs of Catholic faith or morals, and the other standing for state power, incarnated in the lines of identical armoured police decanted from identical vans with menacing sirens.As well as the brooding corporate violence of police and unionists, individuals flare into moments of savagery.
Edmond (Michel Piccoli), the erratic owner of the TV shop, after applying a hot soldering iron to his wayward wife Édith (Dominique Sanda), threatens first his innocent mother-in-law Madame Langlois (Danièle Darrieux) and then his wife with a razor, before finally and fatally using it on himself.
Madame Langlois, François' landlady, favours the strikers but not violence and instead stays sozzled throughout.A dark tale, with only occasional flashes of love to penetrate the blackness.
Violette (Fabienne Guyon), the teenage shopgirl François makes pregnant and abandons, has the unconditional love of her mother (Anna Gaylor), while François has unquestioning support from his loyal workmate (Jean-François Stévenin).
As for the fierce love that suddenly erupts between François and Édith after she picks him up in the street by opening her coat, this seems more operatic than real, a grand passion unlikely to survive the cold light of many dawns.Top acting honours go to the two leading ladies.
As Madame Langlois, the widow of a colonel and daughter of a baron who never leaves her elegant flat, Danièle Darrieux exhibits immense presence in the face of many challenges but is never far from her bottle of chilled white wine and sometimes, so silly of me, knocking over a footstool.
Outperforming her, and at the peak of her womanly beauty, Dominique Sanda plays her daughter Édith as an over-the-top character who for almost all of the film is wearing either a fur coat with nothing under it or just nothing.
As mother-daughter relationships go, this one may amuse at times but underneath carries many layers of pain.
Michel Piccoli is even further over the top as Édith's husband, voluntarily immured in his shop and unable to satisfy the rampant sexuality of his wife, who has turned to part-time prostitution for kicks.
The singing, a continuous récitative without arias that is mostly dubbed, is made deliberately unshowy, as are the unsustained melodies by Michel Colombier and the unpoetic lyrics by Demy himself.
All done with care to keep music and words unobtrusive, so that they complement the images rather than overpower them, fit the place and theme, illuminate the feelings of the characters and move the plot along.Set in the year 1955, when Demy was in his early twenties, the look and the artefacts of the time seem perfectly chosen.
Even the taunting chant of the strikers "police, milice" is redolent of the era, comparing the republic's admittedly tough cops to the hated fascist paramilitaries of the Vichy régime abolished only eleven years earlier.Everybody who has loved "Lola", "Les Parapluies de Cherbourg" or "Les Demoiselles de Rochefort" should see this film immediately.
Everybody else should be aware that it is opera sung to lyrics where, as soon as you adapt to the magical way of marrying song and image to convey emotions and enrich the narrative, you will be hooked.
Underneath the sometimes gritty surface is the skeleton of a fairy tale, the sort of story Demy loved which speaks to something deep in humans..
Nantes 1955, is the setting for this rarely seen film by Jacques Demy, one of French directors most influenced by the American musicals of his youth.
Demy, "The Umbrellas of Cherbourg" and "The Young Girls of Rochefort", both surprising creations of a man who understood how to combine drama and music with good results.On this picture, M.
Demy had a new collaborator, Michel Colombier, a talented musician on his own.
Michel Legrand, the composer of the two previous efforts, was not involved in this project, which could have used some of his wit and clear precision with the music of the production.
It is nevertheless, a worthy try to combine all the elements behind the drama into a musical that was a departure from his first ventures into this artistic form.At heart, the film has all the elements to; make a statement of the conditions of the metal workers on strike and a domestic drama.
Edith, a young married woman, trapped in a loveless marriage sees no way out of her situation.
She resorts to picking up men as she roams the streets of Nantes naked under her fur coat.
Francois Guilbaud, a striking metal worker, has found a room in the apartment of Margot Langlois an impoverished noblewoman with a drinking problem.
Francois has been seeing Violette, a sales lady for the local department store.
She is hopeful Francois will marry her as she finds their romance has left her pregnant.
It is at this time Edith meets Francois during her nocturnal walk.
It is clear to see why Edith falls for the handsome Francois, a sharp contrast with her jealous husband, Edmond Leroyer.
The drama is complicated as all the elements in the tragedy converge toward a climactic finale.Dominique Sanda, at the height of her beauty, is marvelous as Edith.
A young Richard Berry plays Francois with conviction.
Danielle Darrieux, an exquisite classic actress, surprises with her role of Mme. Langlois.
Michel Piccoli wearing a hideous reddish wig has some good moments as Edmond, the man who feels betrayed by the younger woman he married.
Fabienne Guyon appears as Violette..
Strike Up The Bland.
Despite a reasonably varied output Jacques Demy is destined to be remembered by film buffs as the onlie begetter of The Umbrellas of Cherbourg and by admirers of Cole Porter, Larry Hart, Frank Loesser, Johnny Mercer etc as the William MacGonigall of lyricists, indeed Demy established something of a record in the number of banal lyrics he has committed to celluloid.
Defenders will argue that in creating 'sung-through' musicals he was not looking for extractable hit songs (though in English translations two did emerge from Cherbourg).
That first musical was bittersweet albeit brightly lit whereas this last entry is much more dark as reflected in the sombre reds and blues.
Set against a strike it all ends in tears but along the way Danielle Darrieux, and Richard Berry weigh in with some fine work.
Jacques Demy's Une chambre en ville (1982) is the very first film of the Musical genre that I've EVER viewed, and that's really saying a lot because I've literally viewed hundreds of films over the years, of many different types.
It's not at all that I consciously tried to avoid musicals in any way.
I guess that, somehow, I just never encountered one before.That said, I really didn't care for this film at all.
My dislike, however, is not per se because Une chambre en ville is a musical, but more because of what type of musical it is.
This film can perhaps best be called a Cinematic Opera, because literally every line spoken by the characters is a sung lyric from a song.
Also, that every line of dialogue is sung gave the film a somewhat pretentious appearance, and truly blunted the drama of the storyline, at least in my opinion.
I would, accordingly, feel compelled to classify it's artistic style as Unrealism of some sort, because, in the real world, people just don't sing their way through life.
It's a shame too, because the storyline itself looked interesting, and could have amounted to a fairly decent dramatic production, of the storytelling type, had the musical element of the film been absent.I am certain that I would enjoy a film of the Musical genre much more where the dialogue was primarily just plainly spoken, but the storyline was strategically punctuated by musical interludes.I'm not saying at all that Une chambre en ville (1982) is a bad film in any way.
The acting is actually pretty good.
The storyline, as much of it that I saw, seemed fairly well developed.
The music itself, absent the cinematic and dramatic context was not bad at all.
It simply just boils down to the fact, I guess, that cinematic operas are just "not my cup of tea". |
tt0039700 | A Pest in the House | The cartoon starts with a brief narration describing a labor shortage that "became so bad" that compels employers to hire "anybody or anything". Daffy is a hotel bellboy and Elmer Fudd is the manager. Elmer tells Daffy to take a customer to room 666. The customer (voiced by Arthur Q. Bryan, in his natural voice) asks for peace and quiet, and suddenly threatens to punch Elmer right in the nose if he's disturbed at any time.
Daffy, in a Jerry Colonna-like sarcastic aside to the audience, remarks: "Likable chap, isn't he?" Daffy does many stunts that keep the man awake, complete with escorting him to room 666. Every time he is awakened again, the increasingly irritated man trudges to the lobby, to the tune of "Pop Goes the Weasel", and at the second where the song says "pop", he punches Elmer in the face.
After several shenanigans, Daffy finally concludes it is too cold in the man's room and decides to fix the radiator. Elmer, knowing he'll get beat up again, chases after Daffy. Daffy makes the heat vibrate to the room. Elmer hears whistling and covers it with several pillows. Daffy, thinking that Elmer is blowing whistles, proceeds to rant loudly to him: "So, a fine kettle of fish! Here I work myself down to the skin and bones trying to keep this guy to sleep, and what do you do? Blow whistles! Just when I got things so quiet you could hear a pin drop, you bust in here and bust out with a whistle, and you snafu the whole works! How in the name of all that's reasonable do you expect a guy to get his slumber when a goof like you goes around making noises like a one-man Fourth of July celebration? He needs peace and quiet! It's positively outrageous!". His screaming obviously wakes the now infuriated man, so Elmer hurries downstairs and he and Daffy switch places through a promotion in an effort to fool the man: "For vewy mewitowious soyvice, you are herewith pwomoted to the position of manager. Take ovew." However, Elmer gets punched one last time, and Daffy concludes the cartoon with another Jerry Colonna-like aside: "Noisy little character, isn't he?". | psychedelic, comic | train | wikipedia | null |
tt1204340 | Tyrannosaur | One night, unemployed widower Joseph (Peter Mullan) drunkenly kicks his dog Bluey to death. He buries the dog and goes to the post office, where he mocks some Asian workers then throws a brick through the window when they tell him to leave. At the pub, Joseph attacks two young men playing pool one of whom threatened and mocked him. He then hides in a second-hand shop, where a religious and compassionate employee, Hannah (Olivia Colman), offers to pray for him. That night, Joseph goes to his home and meets up with his 6-year-old neighbor Samuel (Samuel Bottomley), who is forced to wait outside, while his Mother is inside with her nasty boyfriend. The boyfriend teases and berates Samuel and threatens to let loose his vicious dog on the young boy. After Samuel is allowed back in the house, Joseph is attacked by the men from the post office. The next morning, Joseph wakes up and goes to the shop, where Hannah looks after him. He begins to berate and insult her, before leaving.
Hannah returns home and falls asleep drunk, where her abusive husband James (Eddie Marsan) urinates on her. The next morning at the second-hand shop, Joseph apologises and slowly befriends Hannah. One day, she comes to the shop with a black eye and claims to have fallen in the bath. He asks her to come with him and pray for his best friend Jack (Robin Butler), who is dying of cancer. A few days later, Jack dies. A few days later, Joseph returns to the shop. James finds Hannah tying Joseph's tie as he tries on a suit for the funeral. James silently threatens Hannah and Joseph. Joseph realises that James is beating Hannah and confronts her about the beatings. She constantly denies it.
One night, Hannah gets drunk and James comes to take her home. He hits her and she begins to mock him. She tries to compose herself in the bedroom, when James arrives, beats and rapes her. Hannah tells Joseph that she is leaving James and asks to stay with him. He hesitatingly agrees, and in the course of her settling in, Joseph reveals that his heavy set wife has been dead for 5 years, due to complications from her diabetes. He also tells Hannah that he regrets using the nickname "Tyrannosaur" for his wife. He used it because it reminded Joseph of the scene in the movie "Jurassic Park" where the tyrannosaur could be heard stomping after the children in the film, much like how his wife sounded when she was walking on the second story of their house. After a few days, Joseph tells her that she is not safe with him and suggests she leave. Joseph escorts Hannah back to her house to retrieve some items, but she ends up running away, not ready to confront her husband. Hannah then goes with Joseph to Jack's wake where they sing and dance and tell tales in remembrance of Joseph's old friend. While Hannah is sleeping in the next room, Joseph decides to confront James, takes her keys and goes to her house, where he finds she had stabbed James to death, presumably after the rape. He confronts Hannah and admits that he knows about the murder. She breaks down and reveals that James mutilated her reproductive system with a glass bottle and that she just wanted to be a mother.
A year later, it is revealed through a letter that Joseph wrote to Hannah, that Samuel was mauled by his Mother's boyfriend's dog. In retaliation, Joseph beheaded the dog with a machete for which he spent a few months in jail. He also discloses that he did not initially enter the second hand shop randomly, but on purpose because Joseph saw Hannah, wanted to meet her, and thought she was beautiful. He tells her after leaving jail, he quit drinking. The movie ends with Joseph walking down a path after visiting Hannah who is in prison herself for James' killing. | violence, murder | train | wikipedia | null |
tt3800010 | Fidelio, l'odyssée d'Alice | Two years prior to the opening scene, the Spanish nobleman Florestan has exposed or attempted to expose certain crimes of a rival nobleman, Pizarro. In revenge, Pizarro has secretly imprisoned Florestan in the prison over which he is governor. Simultaneously, Pizarro has spread false rumors about Florestan's death.
The warden of the prison, Rocco, has a daughter, Marzelline, and an assistant, Jaquino, who is in love with Marzelline. The faithful wife of Florestan, Leonore, suspects that her husband is still alive; she gains employment working for Rocco, disguised as a boy, under the alias "Fidelio". As the boy Fidelio, she has earned the favor of her employer, Rocco, and also the affections of his daughter Marzelline, much to Jaquino's chagrin.
On orders, Rocco has been giving the imprisoned Florestan diminishing rations until he is nearly starved to death.
Place: A Spanish state prison, a few miles from Seville
Time: Late 18th century
=== Act 1 ===
Jaquino and Marzelline are alone in Rocco's house. Jaquino asks Marzelline when she will agree to marry him, but she says that she will never marry him now that she has fallen in love with Fidelio, unaware that Fidelio is actually Leonore in disguise (Jetzt, Schätzchen, jetzt sind wir allein—"Now, darling, now we are alone"). Jaquino leaves, and Marzelline expresses her desire to become Fidelio's wife (O wär ich schon mit dir vereint—"If only I were already united with thee"). Rocco enters, looking for Fidelio, who then enters carrying a heavy load of newly-repaired chains. Rocco compliments Fidelio, and misinterprets her modest reply as hidden attraction to his daughter. Marzelline, Fidelio, Rocco, and Jaquino sing a quartet about the love Marzelline has for Fidelio (Mir ist so wunderbar—"A wondrous feeling fills me", also known as the Canon Quartet).
Rocco tells Fidelio that as soon as the governor has left for Seville, Marzelline and Fidelio can be married. He tells them, however, that unless they have money, they will not be happy. (Hat man nicht auch Gold beineben—"If you don't have money on you"). Fidelio demands to know why Rocco will not allow for help in the dungeons, especially as he always seems to return short of breath. Rocco says that there is a dungeon down there where he can never take Fidelio, which houses a man who has been wasting away for two years. Marzelline begs her father to keep Leonore away from such a terrible sight. Rocco and Leonore sing of courage (Gut, Söhnchen, gut—"All right, sonny, all right"), and Marzelline joins in their acclamations.
All but Rocco leave. A march is played as Pizarro enters with his guards. Rocco warns Pizarro that the minister plans a surprise visit tomorrow to investigate accusations of Pizarro's cruelty. Pizarro exclaims that he cannot let the minister discover the imprisoned Florestan, who has been thought dead. Instead, Pizarro will have Florestan murdered (Ha, welch ein Augenblick—"Hah! What a moment!"). As a signal, Pizarro orders that a trumpet be sounded at the minister's arrival. He offers Rocco money to kill Florestan, but Rocco refuses (Jetzt, Alter, jetzt hat es Eile!—"Now, old man, we must hurry!"). Pizarro says he will kill Florestan himself instead, with Rocco forced to dig the grave in a ruined well in the dungeons. Once the grave is ready, Rocco is to sound the alarm, upon which Pizarro will come into the dungeon and kill Florestan. Fidelio, hearing Pizarro's plot, is agitated, but is soothed by thoughts of Florestan (Abscheulicher! Wo eilst du hin? and Komm, Hoffnung, lass den letzten Stern—"Scum! Where are you off to so fast?" and "Come, hope, let the last star").
Jaquino once again begs Marzelline to marry him, but she continues to refuse. Fidelio, hoping to discover Florestan, asks Rocco to let the poor prisoners roam in the garden and enjoy the beautiful weather. Marzelline similarly begs him, and Rocco agrees to distract Pizarro while the prisoners are set free. The prisoners, ecstatic at their temporary freedom, sing joyfully (O welche Lust—"O what a joy"), but remembering that they might be caught by the prison's governor Pizarro, are soon quiet.
After meeting with Pizarro, Rocco reenters and tells Fidelio that Pizarro will allow the marriage, and Fidelio will also be permitted to join Rocco on his rounds in the dungeon (Nun sprecht, wie ging's?—"Speak, how did it go?"). Rocco and Fidelio prepare to go to Florestan's cell, with the knowledge that he must be killed and buried within the hour. Fidelio is shaken; Rocco tries to discourage Fidelio from coming, but Fidelio insists. As they prepare to leave, Jaquino and Marzelline rush in and tell Rocco to run, as Pizarro has learned that the prisoners were allowed to roam, and is furious (Ach, Vater, Vater, eilt!—"O, father, father, hurry!").
Before they can leaves, Pizarro enters and demands an explanation. Rocco pretends that the prisoners were given a little freedom in honor of the Spanish king's name day, quietly suggesting that Pizarro save his anger for the prisoner in the dungeon below. Pizarro tells him to hurry and dig the grave, and then announces that the prisoners will be locked up again. Rocco, Leonore, Jacquino, and Marzelline reluctantly usher the prisoners back to their cells. (Leb wohl, du warmes Sonnenlicht—"Farewell, you warm sunshine").
=== Act 2 ===
Florestan is alone in his cell, deep inside the dungeons. He sings first of his trust in God, and then has a vision of his wife Leonore coming to save him (Gott! Welch Dunkel hier!—"God! What darkness here" and In des Lebens Frühlingstagen—"In the spring days of life"). Florestan collapses and falls asleep, while Rocco and Fidelio come to dig his grave. As they dig, Rocco urges Fidelio to hurry (Wie kalt ist es in diesem unterirdischen Gewölbe!—"How cold it is in this underground chamber" and Nur hurtig fort, nur frisch gegraben—"Come get to work and dig", the "Gravedigging Duet").
Florestan awakes and Fidelio recognizes him. When Florestan learns that the prison he is in belongs to Pizarro, he asks that a message be sent to his wife, Leonore, but Rocco says that it is impossible. Florestan begs for a drop to drink, and Rocco tells Fidelio to give him one. Florestan does not recognize Fidelio, his wife Leonore in disguise, but tells Fidelio that there will be reward for the good deed in Heaven (Euch werde Lohn in bessern Welten—"You shall be rewarded in better worlds"). Fidelio further begs Rocco to be allowed to give Florestan a crust of bread, and Rocco consents.
Rocco obeys his orders and sounds the alarm for Pizarro, who appears and asks if all is ready. Rocco says that it is, and instructs Fidelio to leave the dungeon, but Fidelio hides instead. Pizarro reveals his identity to Florestan, who accuses him of murder (Er sterbe! Doch er soll erst wissen—"Let him die! But first he should know"). As Pizarro brandishes a dagger, Fidelio leaps between him and Florestan and reveals her identity as Leonore, the wife of Florestan. Pizarro raises his dagger to kill her, but she pulls a gun and threatens to shoot him.
Just then, the trumpet is heard, announcing the arrival of the minister. Jaquino enters, followed by soldiers, to announce that the minister is waiting at the gate. Rocco tells the soldiers to escort Governor Pizarro upstairs. Florestan and Leonore sing to their victory as Pizarro declares that he will have revenge, while Rocco expresses his fear of what is to come (Es schlägt der Rache Stunde—"Revenge's bell tolls"). Together, Florestan and Leonore sing a love duet (O namenlose Freude!—"O unnamed joy!").
Here, the overture "Leonore No. 3" is sometimes played.
The prisoners and townsfolk sing to the day and hour of justice which has come (Heil sei dem Tag!—"Hail to the day!"). The minister, Don Fernando, announces that tyranny has ended. Rocco enters, with Leonore and Florestan, and he asks Don Fernando to help them (Wohlan, so helfet! Helft den Armen!—"So help! Help the poor ones!"). Rocco explains how Leonore disguised herself as Fidelio to save her husband. Previously in love with Fidelio, Marzelline is shocked. Rocco describes Pizarro's murder plot, and Pizarro is led away to prison. Florestan is released from his chains by Leonore, and the crowd sings the praises of Leonore, the loyal savior of her husband (Wer ein holdes Weib errungen—"Who has got a good wife"). | romantic | train | wikipedia | Sentimental voyage.
Lucie Borleteau's first feature-length movie is a strange one.
It has an interesting premise (few are the movies that revolve around a woman...
working as an engineer on a freighter) but its development is - to say the least - surprising.
You might expect a documentary on the theme : 'the everyday life and working conditions of a female worker on a merchant ship' or a sociological study dealing with the point 'how does an insert element manage to fit into an a priori unfriendly universe?' And - to be fair - there are elements of the response to both questions.
On the documentary side, the cargo ship Fidélio on which most scenes take place is a real one and it shows.
As a consequence everything rings true, from the sorry state of the antiquated freighter to the engine room operations to the superstitious Filipino crew members, to the wild sprees ashore.
As for the study of what it is like to be a woman in a male-dominated environment, the result is only fairly convincing : this is probably due to the fact that Alice is seen in too many scenes in which she thinks of love, yearns for sex or actually makes love and in not enough where she carries out her engineer's job.
And when she IS doing so, she appears too beautiful, too well-groomed and her hands are just about greasy enough.
Of course it is Lucie Borleteau's choice to show that a woman, whether working in an engine room or not, will be a woman (which I perfectly understand), but it seems to me her film would have been better if she had found a more adapted balance between the intimate and the documentary sequences.
On the whole, though, "Fidelio, l'odyssée d'Alice" remains quite a watchable film.
First of all because it may be the first (or if is not, one of the first) fiction movies on its theme - and this is no small thing.
In addition, even if more could have been shown about Alice's trade, the relationships between the various member of the crew are well observed and well captured in this aptly-made drama.
Another asset of 'Fidélio' is its fine cast consisting either of professionals (in particular the classy Ariane Labed as Alice the free woman and the sensitive Anders Danielsen Lie as Felix, the young lover she has left behind) or of real-life seamen who play themselves in a very realistic way.
All in all, a voyage you can embark on provided you don't mind a significant part of its running time being devoted to its main character's sentimental pangs or graphic lovemaking..
"...open-minded...".
French actress, screenwriter and director Lucie Borleteau's feature film debut which she wrote with screenwriter Clara Bourreau, is inspired by her best friend who was a sailor.
It premiered in France, was screened in the Concorso internazionale section at the 67th Locarno international Film Festival in 2014, was shot on locations in France, Poland and Senegal and is a French production which was produced by producers Pascal Caucheteux and Marine Arrighi de Casanova.
It tells the story about a thirty-year-old daughter, sister and mechanic at a cargo ship called Fidelio.Distinctly and subtly directed by French filmmaker Lucie Borleteau, this quietly paced fictional tale which is narrated mostly from the protagonist's point of view, draws a reflectively multifaceted and literary portrayal of a Norwegian citizen named Felix whom has left his country of origin to become an author and his relationship with his girlfriend.
While notable for its atmospheric milieu depictions, distinct cinematography by cinematographer Simon Beauflis and real locations, this character-driven and narrative-driven story about parallel lives, a human being who moves like the character which carries the boat where she temporarily lives, the others whom she is accompanied by and a word starting with l and ending with e, depicts a cinematographically poetic study of character and contains a great and timely score by composer Thomas de Pourquery.This mindfully interrelated journey which is set in France in the 21st century and where a captain named Gaël is reunited with a former friend, is impelled and reinforced by its cogent narrative structure,substantial character development, rhythmic continuity, comment by Alice: "I'll never be an ordinary girl." and the reverent acting performances by Greek actress Ariane Labed and French actor, musician and director Melvil Poupaud.
A presently open-minded and mysterious narrative feature which gained, among other awards, the Best Actress Award at the 67th Locarno Film Festival in 2014..
Hermosísima!.
A whole new version of a french romance.
I loved the translation from romantic European balconies to salty freighter balconies.
I also appreciate a lot the 'woman empowerment' factor.
I find it really important that cinema worries about representing other types of femininity.
Romance has been idealized for so many years and I think this one explains very well a type of love that has always existed but not everybody likes to admit.
It kind of helped me understand it without freaking out about my own experiences.
Photography was gorgeous!
The casting was amazing, it's so inclusive and diverse.
The music caught me..
.. the mind of a male.
..a woman playing the mind of a male...
we're not totally sure till the very end..
then the look and the smiles.....
it's a film cannot be watched just once..
especially since you're reading subtitles and jumping back to watch.....
the flow being chopped up every few seconds, so more gets filled in once knowing the dialogue, then being able to more easily watch....the actors and performances keep it together..
..how many times you watch it, and the rating you give it, are probably both to change...
Sex Ahoy in this French Sea Faring Tale.
Alice (Ariane Labed 'The Lobster') is an engineer on a cargo ship.
She has a handsome and doting boyfriend who is Norwegian – Felix (Andres Danielsen Lie 'Oslo 31 August') and after returning from a voyage she hops into 'the sack' with him before going off to replace a dead engineer on the 'Fedelio'.
Only this is a ship which has been renamed and is actually the ship she apprenticed on, and worse still the sultry captain with matinée idol good looks who was her first love is now her boss and married.Well soon they are all at sea – in more ways than one and she reveals that as a woman 'she has needs' and knows how to fulfil them.
So begins her 'odyssey'.
She also indulges in the belongings of the dead engineer piecing together his wayfaring life through diary entries and pictures.
However what this really develops into is a voyage of self discovery.Now this has a lot of bedroom gymnastics in it and to put it mildly she 'arrives' faster than an Uber cab.
Now I am all fine with that sort of thing but the story – like the journey – meanders in places and at times it is hard to know why a scene was included.
That too is fine as the relevance of all reveals itself in the final denouement.
All in all a very accomplished film but not one that is an entry to French films but more for those who really like a bit of Gallic difference..
A character study at sea.
The opening shot of "Fidelio: Alice's Journey" has lead actress Ariane Labed skinny-dipping.
Get used to it; it's far from the last time you'll see her naked form in this French film.
Indeed, for a production with only one major female role as against several male roles, it is noticeable that there is much, much more female nudity than male.Alice (Labed) is an engineer who, upon getting a job aboard the freighter 'Fidelio', is dismayed to discover its captain Gaël (Melvil Poupaud) is an old flame.
This might make the view expect a bit of a relationship pot-boiler, but actually the "will-they-won't-they" business is dealt with pretty quickly.
The film also resists the temptation to descend into tiresome "woman in a man's world who has to prove herself to the boorish men" territory; Alice is accepted into the Fidelio's crew with little comment about her gender and - a half-hearted attempt at molestation aside - it's of little direct importance to the storyline.
Instead the film follows the day-to-day goings-on of Alice's life on board: there is a bit of business with a dead crewman's diary, but on the whole the film is an interesting character study of a flawed but likable central character.As for the acting, Greek-born Labed brings a traditional French gamine quality to the central role, well-served by a wardrobe that allows Alice to be understatedly feminine as well as one of the boys.
As Gaël, Poupaud is merely there: the role doesn't offer him much in which to sink his teeth, but I've never found him the most expressive of actors anyway.
Anders Danielsen Lie, as Alice's artist boyfriend, could perhaps have made more of his role: instead he comes across as dull, boring and slightly bewildered, leading the viewer to understand just why Alice wants to spend most of her time at sea... |
tt2308773 | Ishaqzaade | The Chauhans and the Qureshis are two political families whose rivalry and mutual hatred for one another goes back generations. Parma (Arjun Kapoor) is a good-for-nothing local thug, grandson of the patriarch chauvinist, Grandfather Chauhan. His grandfather often takes digs at Parma for being the useless son of his widowed daughter-in-law, and this makes Parma try to prove himself worthy. Zoya (Parineeti Chopra), a practising Muslim who offers Salat five times a day, is the trigger-happy, hot-tempered, only daughter in a traditional Muslim house full of brothers, along with her parents. She desires to go into politics like her father, but this dream is constantly laughed at by her family since she is a woman.
When the local elections take place, Parma and Zoya's canvassing efforts lead to a clash between them, which results in Parma being slapped across the face by Zoya. While Parma is enamored by Zoya's fearlessness, Zoya is intrigued by his charm (including his inability to properly pronounce her name, calling her "Joya" instead of the proper "Zoya"). They fall in love after an series of incidents bring them together, and elope; Parma converts to Islam and changes his name to Pervez. After marriage, Parma and Zoya consummate the marriage by having sex in an empty train. Afterwards, Parma reveals that he tricked Zoya into marrying him. He slept with her in order to take revenge against her clan, and repay the humiliation she caused him by slapping him earlier on. Zoya is left heartbroken and devastated, as Parma joins his family in a celebration of "becoming a man". Zoya attempts to invade the celebration in order to to shoot Parma, but is intercepted by his mother, Parvati, who urges her to calm down. Parvati tells Parma that he must honour his marriage vows and do right by Zoya. Parma's family come to know of Zoya's presence in their home and in the heat of the moment, Grandfather Chauhan shoots Parma's mother when she tries to defend her son and daughter-in-law from the bloodthirsty gang. Parma realizes his mistake and protects Zoya from being murdered by his family.
Parma and Zoya go on the run from their families and take refuge in a brothel. At first, Zoya is still furious with Parma for his deception and even believes that he was trying to sell her to the brothel. She attacks him with a piece of broken glass, cutting his arm badly. The brothel Madame allows them to stay while Parma recovers and Zoya begrudgingly nurses him. He asks her for forgiveness and though she refuses to grant it, she shows that she still loves him through little actions of affection. However, their mutual grief soon brings them together, giving their love a second chance. The two renew their marriage vows in a proper ceremony at the brothel. Zoya decides to try reconciling with her family, and takes Parma to her home to win over her father. They are instead met with hostility and gunshots when Zoya's father puts a gun to her head, threatening to kill his own daughter.
The couple flee as Zoya's father sends his men after them. Zoya and Parma prepare to run away to Jaipur, but when Parma leaves the safety of the bus to get water, their pursuers spot him and seize Zoya. She breaks free as Parma furiously fights to save her. They are reunited briefly, but quickly are found by Parma's former friends and run to the local college, which is closed for Eid. The two rival families decide that Parma and Zoya's marriage is a stab to their respective religious communities and political careers, and they try to kill the couple by joining forces.
Parma and Zoya take refuge on a terrace, engaging in a gunfire battle. With only a few bullets left, Zoya realises that they are outnumbered. She asks Parma to shoot her so that their love can win and they can die in the victory of their love, rather than be riddled with bullets by their own families, and allow hatred to win. The two shoot each other in the abdomen willingly and die in each other's arms, smiling. The goons check if they are dead and go inform the two families, who leave satisfied.
The movie ends with Parma and Zoya's bodies lying on the terrace, and an on-screen message that explains how thousands of lovers like them are killed every year only because of falling in love outside their caste and/or religion. | violence, romantic | train | wikipedia | A story that has been repeated many times is given a fresh look with new comers Parineeti Chopra and Arjun Kapoor.
Arjun Kapoor, while I think, doing the role he did, is slightly easier than how Parineeti did justice to so many shades of her character, but still did a stupendous job.The other technicalities of the movie is brilliant.
Art direction, the sets, colors, music (Oh Amit Trivedi, I cannot get enough of 'Pareshan')...I loved the movie.
Habib Faisal's Box-Office Super-Hit 'Ishaqzaade' is a terrific film, that works due to a strong script & excellent performances by its lead cast.
Music by Amit Trivedi is masterful.Performance-Wise: Debutant Arjun Kapoor & Parineeti Chopra are excellent in lead roles.
Parineeti chopra slips into character like a pro
a fantastic performance
She is a complete package.
D 1st half is fast paced & entertaining.On the whole, ISHAQZAADE, a volatile and intense story with ample doses of fanatical romance, should appeal to a pan-India audience.
This broadly engaging love story has a winsome pair who deliver dexterous performances, besides popular music and several poignant moments, which should appeal to fans of mainstream films.
It can easily be called a violent love story made on a fast moving script with sharp twists coming in its both halves to keep you engaged.
The first half of the film is thoroughly enjoyable as the various characters are introduced in the small town background entertainingly and one feels like watching a winner all the way.
But post intermission the narration dips at many places leading to some weak sequences and a 'could be better' climax from the talented director.Made around the subject of 'Honor Killings' (Hindu-Muslim Issue), ISHAQZAADEY is undoubtedly better than many other big films of 2012 featuring the saleable stars.
With such loosely written characters the film fails to sink in deep in the viewer's heart and one never feels moved emotionally while watching it.Still, the intelligent part of the script is that it moves at such a pace which doesn't allow you to think about these weak chracterisations.
So the writer director very smartly covers up everything and one feels like having watched a fine film while walking out of the theater.
The lead pair does show a great chemistry in their intimate scenes but I didn't feel like watching an intense and passionate love story as a whole with feeling or depth.
And second when Gauhar Khan is seeing them off with her moist eyes.Performances wise it's once again a Parineeti movie all the way after LADIES VS RICKY BEHL.
In her second film only, she goes pretty bold too in her on-screen kisses and is a real treat to watch particularly in the first half.
Apart from the Ishq couple, the supporting cast is fine but Gauhar Khan comes out as the sole winner here, giving a loving performance supported by a well choreographed dance number.
In Born to Hate
Destined to Love, you follow Parma and Zoya who seem like an unexpected pair.
Though it has simple and common concept but you guys will really love Arjun Kapoor & Parineeta Chopra's Hardcore Acting..
Coming to the movie, it was like a breath of fresh air....may be the storyline can draw some criticism owing to its "old wine in new bottle" theme(though the director tried his best to spice up the proceedings with some really well written twists and turns), but more than the story, it was the portrayal of the two principle characters that deserves the brownie points....May be we have come across various love stories, but the love story shown here is way different than the others....reason?
The innocence and the immaturity of the two young college going teens (one in the 3rd year, another in the 1st year for 5 years) initially pitted against each other and eventually falling in a love-hate-anger-care bond is what makes the characters so identifiable and relate-able....their interactions, their reactions and the repercussions makes u, as a audience cringe for them....and whilst the movie reaches its crescendo, how these characters while discussing their love for chemistry lab or discussing their future life, eventually emerges as the true ishaqzaades is where the movie is notches above the others in the same genre.....
Acting wise, Parineeti Chopra proved that she belongs to an altogether different league of performers with her feisty performance, with eyes that emote anger and vengeance to the same eyes emoting unconditional love in the next scene shows her versatility as an actress....if not better, then in the same bracket of Vidya's Kahaani Act....!!!!!
And regarding Arjun kapoor, may be he was not at par with Miss Chopra if acting skills are concerned, but he filled up this void with his adorable charm(smile) and terrific screen presence.....Together they were sizzling....!!!!
Far from being a breezy tale of romance set in idyllic locations, the film is instead set in small-town UP where there is little or no respite from the constant strife.Political rivalry rules the town of Almore and right from the word 'Go', writer-director Habib Faisal dives in and shows us the lawless land from differing perspectives.
Faisal touches a number of sensitive themes like the religious disparity, social stigma and political opportunism and the resulting mix thickens the plot and makes the film authentic and realistic.
Amit Trivedi's music is alternately zingy and poetic, while Hemant Chaturvedi's visuals capture the small-town sights and locations with grittiness.On a whole, Ishaqzaade is not just a film.
The hate spreads through their families too, with Qureishi's daughter Zoya (Parineeti) and Chouhan's grandson Parma (Arjun) hating each other since they were kids.
The lead actors, Parineeti Chopra and Arjun Kapoor do well as newcomers.
A bizarre film that it is, you will either love or hate Ishaqzaade and there is nothing in between.
Coming back to the film, personally I have no inclination to love stories specially the once made by Yashraj film but it is the authenticity of Faisal's work which struck me.
Hardly interiors of rustic crude India has been explored to churn out love stories and characterization of Parma-Zoya is just marvelous.
Without making it look like a fairy tale Faisal dared to show the raw reality and thanks to Aditya Chopra as producer for showing the "real" India which is rare in Yashraj films.
Faisal showed competency with screenplay in his earlier films (Brilliant Do Dooni Char & different Band Baja Baraat) and Ishaqzaade is no exception.
She played the confident Zoya who stood tall in a patriarchal society with high self esteem with precision and executed the vulnerable side of Zoya with equal conviction in the second half.Even though it is too early but still I feel if she gets the right opportunity she would leave a mark as one of the finest actress of Hindi cinema.
The lady playing Parma's mother was exceptional in her portrayal of the character and even after the end credit rolls you will feel for her and mothers like her in rural India who are subdued and crashed breaking their self esteem.
ISHAQZAADE is an action-romance film directed by Habib Faisal starring Arjun Kapoor and Parineeta Chopra in the lead.The film revolves around two family groups that make up the city, Almore: the Qureshis and the Chauhans.
The son of the Chauhan family, Parma (Arjun Kapoor) is willing to do anything to make his dad win the election while Zoya (Parineeta Chopra), the daughter of the Qureshi family is trying to make her dad the next MLA.
The rest of the movie forms a tale of family politics, love and hatred.So I recently saw this movie on download, because when I saw the trailer and poster of this film I wasn't sure it was going to be a good movie.
and after hearing this I'm pretty sure you understand by now that I had a great time watching Ishaqzaade.
Ricky Bahl as a gullable and spoiled girl and now we see her as a fierce person who won't stop to shoot you down if you get in her way.The songs in this movie is pretty good.
The movie is devoid of modern sophistication and I loved its rustic sensibility, where it scores big time.
Arjun Kapoor gives a confident debut performance, playing Parma with a nice touch of cynical ambiguity.
This girl's sure got what it takes to become a leading heroine whether it's screen presence or acting chops and, following her nice act in Ladies Vs. Ricky Bahl, this one proves she is a good new find.
Hopefully we get better things to see from these two actors and Faisal himself, who is a very good director who just has to work with better scripts..
There was a time when hero & heroine shown in the movies were most pious & nicest people or even if Hero was Gangster but good at heart like Sunny Deol in" Jeet" but now things have changed.
Newcomer Arjun Kapoor is brilliant no doubt he got the acting gene from his family and it's nice to see that he decided to debut with daring role.
In all things good, only thing lacks in Ishaqzaade is its second half which is fast but the story or situation changes in every 10mints and it makes you wonder how they want to live or run off without having any money in hands.
Sometimes it's good to watch masala movies with great performances & songs..
This was definitely the best movie ever made and I ever watched in my whole entire life Songs are really impressive good romance by the the couple Arjun kapoor was superb in his debut performance parneeti who is the cousin sister of priyanka does well other unknown actors did fine in their performances This movie was brilliant and entertaining as well good storyline good screenplay Overall my rating is 4/5.
Having said that about the movie I must say that I really liked Parineeti's performance.
The acting is bad, but I don't blame Arjun Kapoor or Parineeti Chopra – characters are badly fleshed out, story line is aimless, and motivations of everyone in the movie are unclear.
parma or joya (zoya) they won the game RIP both of them, i see these r new actors but did a really good job in acting and expressing feelings, too many gun shots but it was a little thrill all over the movie, violence , hell yeah it comes with politics, giving it 10 out of 10 it will stay in my mind forever i guess,,.
The only silver lining was stupendous performance by new comers Arjun Kapoor and Parineeta Chopra..
The only silver lining was stupendous performance by new comers Arjun Kapoor and Parineeta Chopra.In the midst of politics , gang-wars and hooligans two people from different cast and community fall for each other.
The story is same as old wine in a new bottle but its the script which could have salvaged the film from falling into pit.
Attempt was good showing the reality in the climax portraying the honor killings taking place in north India but drama fizzles out in the second half and doesn't give you an emotional feeling like the actual story and you walk out of the theater with mixed feelings.
Parineeta Chopra was loud in the initial reel but calms down and gives a good performance towards the end.So , Overall , an average flick which could have been made better but looses the steam afterwards !!
It's not a movie you need to run to the theater for, unless you wanna watch the gorgeous/pretty/beautiful Parineeti scorch the screen.Acting: 8.5/10 Story-Screenplay-Direction: 5/10 Technical Aspects: 8/10 Is it worth your time and money??: Hmm
That's a tough one.
But this movie proves yet again, if the screenplay has power,then A Old story can be equally enjoyable on screen as many times you watch it.
Arjun Kapoor din ever look like a new comer, this is one of the most powerful debut after Ranvir Singh's Band Baja Baraat.
Shame on Yashraj films, who have continued to thurst some mindless stuff on the viewers,since Fanaa.Police don't seem to exist in the town of Almor, only thing people are interested in is winning elections, by engaging into dirty tricks, and use of guns and fire,as if they were toy guns.The script writer is totally confused as to the chemistry between Parma and Zoya, are they interested only in the physicality of their attraction towards each other,or do they really love till death do us part ?It's all a matter of convenience for the script writer.
Bad Launch-Pad. For a debut movie, this was too week to sustain in Urban Cinema and too strong for the rural Theaters.Ishaqzaade is a film we can live without in our already complicated life.Had everything that is required to make a movie big, had nothing to make a movie work/hit, Arjun Kapoor as of now doesn't seem a "Lambi Race ka Ghoda", neither is Parineeti Chopra looking like the next big thing, the Yash Raj Banner can do so much to help to launch two newcomers.4.5/10 Tag P.
Like that "chand" in film We should understand that love has no cast , color.
So in a way, watching the movie made me feel as if something too big was missing in it.
If you are a fan of watching Ram Gopal kind of action movies you will like Ishaqzaade a lot.
Indian Cinema Back to old coming of age love stories.....
Ishaqzaade may mark the return of old passionate love stories.
Ishaqzaade may mark the return of old passionate love stories.
The lead actors have come up with good performances.
Arjun Kapoor Is Confident, cool and looks like another star has arrived in the town.
GO Watch how New Actors are Shining and Hats off to Director for giving a good movie after Do dooni Chaar.
As someone said Everything Depends on Execution, its the Execution of Romeo-Juliet Story which makes Ishaqzaade an Awesome Experience.If you think its 100% Frame to Frame copy of Romeo Juliet than you are 100% Wrong, they have changed the Entire thing here except for the Basic Theme,that is- Pure Love.
Both the Families have a Candidate Ready for Upcoming Elections.The Boy (Arjun Kapoor) is From the Chauhan Family and is Hindu and The Girl (Parineeti Chopra) is From Qureshi Family and She is Muslim.
As i Said, the Execution is Brilliant so Full Points to the Director Habib Faisal,He Exactly Knows How he wants the Film to Progress and Flow Smoothly and Attractively.Acting Department- Parineeti Chopra Yet again Steals the Show and Acts Convincingly as Aggressive,Bubbly and Vivacious Zoya and Looks Cute and Stunning.
Arjun (Parma) leads one and Parineeti (Zoya) the other.
On the other hand, both the families are after the death of the love birds, who keep running from one place to another.How the movie ends, is no surprise.Arjun as a newbie does well.
Ishqzaade is based in UP, where politics and gang war is famous amidst this a love story is based, though not new but the handling is good I excepted nothing out of the movie but the film is better then what I expected.
The second half focuses on solving mistakes, several twists, chases and a sad ending which surprisingly from Yashraj films who earlier changed sad endings to happy endings in CHANDNI though DEEWAAR did have a sad ending but mostly in love stories their films ended on a sweet note.Direction by Habib Faisal is good, the film does have a few flaws but the handling is good Music Amit Trivedi is good, Pareshan is the best song, title song is good too and others tooAmongst actors Arjun Kapoor does a good job for his unusual debut, he plays his character well, a few rough edges and dialogue delivery needs work but yet he leaves a mark The best part is Parineeti Chopra after impressing in a side role in LADIES VS RICKY BAHL she does a great job as a lead, In fact her performance is one of the best in recent times from youngsters Gauhar Khan is decent as the item queen rest are mostly unknown faces all leave a mark especially Arjun's dada.
Another spellbinding story comes from Habib Faisal....The first thing that should come into your mind after you watch Ishaqzaade is that, though a love story, it is more a story of Zoya, portrayed by Parineeti Chopra.
The love it portrays turns out to be a present day perception of Laila-Majnu, but without the tag-line of 'timeless love'....Instead it carries the tag-line of 'the strength of love...."Ishaqzaade ki tarah pyaar kiyethe....Ishaqzaade ki tarah nibhayenge" is what should have come into the mind of Zoya, instead of what she actually said....Parineeti Chopra was outstanding....Arjun Kapoor acted well...but, more than his acting, he surely will win the hearts of many spinsters.....The most outstanding element of the whole film is how it is presented....Music and Editing plays a huge role in this presentation.....even the Production Design was top notch....in all, Ishaqzaade is the type of films that Bollywood should look forward to....catchy story, no melodrama, and a rustic yet urban presentation.....
The man who plays Parma is a mediocre actor at best (at least based on his acting skills showcased in this film which I believe is his first foray into acting) Parineeti Chopra (who plays Zoya) is a decent enough actress two or three films in but she is starting to get type cast in these sort of fiery-angry-female roles.
Ishaqzaade is the latest romantic movie release of the Yash Raj Films banner,and this time instead of being rom-com, they delivered us with a rom-action.
Yes, Ishaqzaade reprises the classic formula of hindu boy falling in love with Muslim girl(although in the movie it's the opposite).
Arjun Kapoor makes an eye catching debut, Gauhar Khan fits in her role as a glove and the chemistry between the lead actors is fantastic.
Watch it for the songs and Parineeti, she might be the next big thing. |
tt0120390 | Turbulence | After Ryan Weaver is arrested in New York City for a murder that he says he did not commit, he must be transported to Los Angeles to face trial. He and another prisoner (Stubbs) are escorted by four US marshals on a Boeing 747-200 on a commercial flight. Even though it is Christmas Eve, the 747 is nearly empty, with only 11 people on board. The entire cabin is highly decorated with Christmas trees and other decorations.
During the 5 hour flight, Stubbs breaks free while using the bathroom and begins a shootout with the marshals, and at some point in the fight, a stray bullet fired from one of the Marshall's sidearms punches a hole in the fuselage, instantly triggering an explosive decompression. Amidst the chaos, the Captain is fatally shot, and the First Officer is also killed when his head slams into the yoke, disengaging the autopilot in the process and a stray bullet bores a hole in a lavatory window. Weaver frees himself and attempts to save the last remaining marshal, but fails when both Stubbs shoots the marshal dead, after being shot himself.
Weaver appears to be horrified by the ordeal, increasing the passengers' trust in him. Because of the death of the pilots, Teri Halloran, a stewardess, makes her way into the cockpit and learns she is the only one left capable of keeping the 747 from crashing. To make matters worse, the plane is heading for a Category 6 storm.
Weaver's behavior becomes increasingly erratic since he is paranoid of being sentenced to death upon landing and occasionally suffers nervous breakdowns. He then locks the passengers in the crew's cabin; and rapes and strangles Maggie, one of the other flight attendants, to death. He then calls LAX FBI control center that he threatens to crash the 747 into their facility since he is now on a suicide mission, and is wiling to do anything to avoid being arrested. His motives had become clear to Teri after she spoke, via the 747's radio, with the detective who arrested him.
Being the only hope for the 747's survival, Halloran must be instructed by radio how to land. After the plane barely survives extreme turbulence during the storm; Halloran's first attempt is unsuccessful, with the 747 skimming an office building's roof Japanese restaurant and a car park due to Weaver altering with the circuitry in the avionics bay. She then must turn the plane around and leave Los Angeles airspace. The LAX airport chief sends an U.S. Navy F-14 Tomcat Fighter jet to shoot down the 747.
Halloran begs LAX not to have her shot down as a result of her failed first attempt caused by Weaver, and insists that she can land the plane. At this point, Weaver, completely drunk and crazy, breaks into the cockpit with an axe and tries to murder her. Halloran spies one of the marshals' guns, which she uses to fatally shoot Weaver. She returns to the pilot's seat and safely lands the aircraft. Despite the boasts of Weaver that he killed them all, the other crew and passengers are found alive. | suspenseful, comedy, murder, violence | train | wikipedia | Many people are very critical of this movie-but it does have some fans,including me!Okay,the whole thing is full of absurdities-but so what!Butler takes the old "stewardess flies the plane" cliche,runs with it,and delivers an enormously entertaining slice of hokum.The formula is paired down to basics,as mad serial killer Weaver(Ray Liotta),creates havoc aboard the plane,determined it will crash into L.A.-so he can go out in a blaze of vengeful glory.All that stands in his way is plucky flight attendant Teri(Lauren Holly).The stage is set for a frantic live action "Tom and Jerry" wing ding between monstrous male psycho predator,and winsome female "prey".
Then there's Terri-cute,willowy and Bambi eyed-I found myself pretty upset seeing what poor Teri goes through in this movie!But despite insults,threats,punches,assaults,smoke attacks and all,she has the moxie to keep going.Battered,bruised and bloodied she still looks stunning!And at the beginning,we are told some guy just broke off his engagement to THIS girl!HE must've been crazier than Weaver!.
By then, the absurdity of the whole thing had fried what few brain cells I have left.Ray Liotta is excellent as the psycho serial killer who puts on a charming Ted Bundy-like appearance for a short while before publicly showing his insanity.
An implausible but intense thrill ride with a more than competent cast.As the film opens, it is Christmas Eve, and we get our introduction to our Bad Guy, Ryan Weaver (Ray Liotta, doing the kind of character he does best).
Who cares what they had to do to get him?) In a clever bit of opening misdirection, we see shots of Bad Guy on his way to his latest target's place intercut with shots of our Heroine (waifish but not anorexic, blonde-haired-big-blue-eyed Lauren Holly) in her own place in such a way as to make us think that she is his new "girlfriend", when in fact she is not.The two do meet, however, since our Heroine is a flight attendant assigned to the Christmas Eve flight on which Bad Guy is being transported to prison to await his execution.
As the plane tosses them to-and-fro (did I mention that they're headed into a six-on-a-scale-of-one-to-six thunderstorm?) our Heroine must defend herself after being coaxed out of the cockpit by our Bad Guy. While not trying to come across as the Xena of flight attendants, Ms. Holly is determined and tough mentally and also physically when forced to fight for her life.
(Why, under these circumstances, does our psycho-but-sharp Bad Guy believe for a MOMENT that the woman he's terrorizing would have sex with him, even to save herself and the few other people on board the plane he hasn't killed?
Because it's a movie, children!) Anyway, after kicking a little Bad Guy butt and ultimately getting ahold of a Marshall's gun and killing him, our Heroine manages to land the plane.
If you just want to shut down your higher brain functions and watch a good psycho-killer-chiller, and especially if you like it when said chiller supposedly takes place on Christmas, this is highly recommended for you.
Therein lies the appeal of "Turbulence", a not-to-be-taken-seriously white knuckle ride into the realm of the ridiculous with Holly as the "Stew" who's got to save a 747 jumbo jet with a handful of passengers against all odds including one very whacked out serial killer (Liotta).
I happen to love movies that take place on airplanes, maybe because they're usually, or always about the same thing: A terrorist (or more) hijacks the plane and threatens to kill the passengers, sometimes along with the pilot.
Anyway, I had a good time the whole way through, even though I think the film could have used more characters (and complications), and a flight attendant who is a lot more smarter.
Set aboard the ultra-sophisticated Boeing 747-200, a serial killer and flight attendant battle for control of the airplane as both his mental condition and the plane's altitude deteriorate.A group of U.S. marshals is escorting two convicts aboard a nearly empty 747 on Christmas Eve.
(The copilot is taken out just as efficiently by failing to observe the fasten seat belt sign!) After sitting back and letting them kill each other, serial killer Ryan Weaver (Liotta) fills the power vacuum and systematically secures control of the airplane.
Although it eventually makes the right decision, half the movie has already passed by that point and those who would have abandoned ship, have already hit rewind.Compared to Airport 1975, Turbulence is at once both a much bigger and a much smaller film.
The DVD should come with its' own air-sick bag, because you'll be nauseaous from the time it lifts off the runway.A thin story is anchored even more by horrible, and I mean horrible acting from both Ray Liotta and Lauren Holly.
If I was a director and wanted to make a film that set out to parody the action-thriller genre I think I would have produced something like Turbulence.It is so packed with ludicrous sequences, stereotyped characters and predictable plot lines that it becomes impossible to take it seriously.
Yes, the film was full of inconsistencies - the empty plane at Christmas, why they didn't use a smaller aircraft or bump the passengers to another airline, the bullet-hole patched with a suitcase, the failure of the oxygen masks to drop when cabin pressure was lost, the ability to hear the pilot's radio through a closed cockpit door, etc etc etc...
This isone of those movies where no-one does anything sensible, from thepilot, who, knowing that there are two violent criminals on board his'plane, hears gunshots and goes out to see what's happening, to thestewardess who's locked herself in the cabin because she KNOWS what'sgoing on, and then comes out because the bad guy tells her that herfriend is asking for her, despite the trifling fact that the cops, theFBI, and the ground crew have all told her that her friend is probablyalready dead, and they need her in the cabin to monitor what the'plane's doing or everyone will be dead anyway.
Be sure and watch how the psycho arranges the bodies of the passengers he has murdered to look like a typical airplane flight before he observes, "I'll never fly this airlines again." Also a hoot is when the runaway plane tries to land with a Ford truck attached to its wheels.
What starts off as an interesting plot for the movie turns into a rotten stuff.What i don't understand is Hollywood's obsession of letting loose psychos in every other lame situation.So there u have it all in this movie ,a bad weather ,a pilotless 747 plane, scream queen aspirant lauren holly,a few helpless passengers , FBI(woe is me ,what would Hollywood do if they never existed),a few expendable cops,not to forget its Christmas season and finally the reason for this hell ,Ray liotta as our friendly neighbourhood psycho.It pains me to see Ray liotta who acted in the phenomenal "goodfellas" to descend to such films.
I was expecting this film to be the usual Hollywood action film i.e. no character development; the ending you can see right from the beginning (that will have been used a thousand times before); and a liberal sprinkling of 'powerful moments' when the music stops and someone says something sincere.However I was pleasantly surprised, Ray Liotta was excellent, the plot was good, and the action scenes not bad.
For the rest of the flight, it's mano-a-mano between the criminal and a plucky but not-so-bright stewardess (Lauren Holly) who tries to land the plane with help from the control tower in L.A. and a pilot who attempts to talk her down.
But this movie is so blissfully unencumbered by originality, you have to wonder whether the transcripts for half a dozen other genre thrillers were ran through a computer and the script for this mess was spat out.A monkey with a typewriter hammering out nonsense for a couple of hours would still guarantee more originality than on offer here.Ray Liotta, giving one of the worst performances by any actor in any movie since the dawn of the motion picture industry, assumes he is in a pantomime as he cackles his way around the airliner, terrorising bird-like flight attendant Lauren Holly.Actually, that's doing a disservice to pantomimes.So the premise is nutter on a plane.
Liotta terrorises Holly and to make matters worse, the aircraft is flying through a severe storm and only the autopilot stops it from crashing.Aside from some good camerawork, Turbulence fails on just about every level.Ben Cross pops up as a stereotypical British airline captain who helps Holly out of her predicament while Total Recall's Rachel Ticotin is part of the assured ground crew who try to talk her down amid laughably over-the-top melodramatics.What Liotta thought he was doing is anyone's guess.
(There are Spoilers) You at first feel a bit of sympathy for convicted serial killer Ryan Weaver, Ray Liotta, who's claim of never killing anyone and being set up by a publicity hungry L.A Cop Let. Aldo Hines, Hector Elizondo.
With Weaver being by far the nicest, and most caring, person on the plane taking him back to L.A, from New York City, to face execution for the murder of five women.Weaver is kind considerate and even funny as he jokes with his US Marshall guards and the stewardesses as well as the few passenger's on the Christmas-Eve flight.
But keeps cute stewardess Teri Halloran, Lauren Holly,alive to chase her throughout the giant 747 for the remainder of the movie.You wonder just what Weaver is planing to do since he doesn't know how to fly a plane, much less a very sophisticated 747 Jumbo passenger liner.
Weaver finally loses his concentration and ends up getting a bullet right between his eyes from the very plucky Teri; after being exposed to this insane lunatic changed her mind about her life long opposition against the death penalty.The movie went from the far-fetched to the unbelievable with Teri taking the very complicated controls of the 747 and with the help of ground control, namely British Airline Captain Samuel Bowen (Ben Cross).
Teri is also tracked by a USAF fighter plane who's ordered, by ground control, to shoot up the runaway only to have the reluctant pilot blow out the stuck Ford van, making it easier for Teri to land the 747.It's hard to take the movie seriously but at the same time it's hard to turn it off since you just can't help wanting to see just how more absurd, if that's at all possible, it get's..
The plot's a mess the performance's over the top but all the better for it.Liotta a very brilliant actor really relishes this role probably because he realises how bad this movie is.
If you want to see a good movie along these lines, then watch Con Air. If you are looking for comedy on an aeroplane, then why not try "Airplane!".
It's a dumb, cliched movie, but Ray Liotta (one of my favorite actors) makes it worth watching and turns in an excellent, evil performance.
I guess this movie could pass as no-brainer entertainment, but Liotta's performance is the best thing this film has to offer..
Turbulence is very good film.Every acts very well and Lauren Holly is very good and Brenden Gleeson is really a cool bad guy!
The other film that I know of the he played nearly the same role was in Sonic Impact.You wouldn't think such a thing would happen to a handsome man.Any way Liotta is as funny as heck in this film and I've seen it many time and he just gets funnier and funnier!If you air plane disaster films this is the one to watch!.
I thought it funny that two very different films with Ray Liotta should be on at the same time (one his best, the other not I'll let you decide which is which).
Ignoring protests of being framed, Weaver just about becomes as much of a silly, OTT villain as I have ever seen it's almost as if Liotta was playing it for laughs and I couldn't understand why he had pitched the suave, rather creepy, unsure air he had had about him at the start maybe the audience just needed a big bad wolf to see as a threat as opposed to someone who would make them think.
However, this doesn't mean their performances are good or even close to being any different than their past roles in films.One of the criminals who is the main antagonist is played by Ray Liotta.
TurbulenceThe word "turbulence" is just fancy airline jargon for the captain is drunk.Unfortunately, the turbulence in this thriller is the result of the pilot being murdered.Accused killer Weaver (Ray Liotta) and another convict board a Boeing 747 bound for L.A. accompanied by air marshals.When the other con attacks the marshals, he inadvertently kills the pilot and copilot.Now it's up to a flight attendant, Teri (Lauren Holly), to take the controls of this hulking vessel.In addition to steering it through a deadly electrical storm, and her general lack of landing knowledge, Teri must also contend with Weaver's continuous attempts to sabotage the plane.With a laughable plot, asinine acting and numerous implausible situations, Turbulence is a trip best traveled with plenty of airsickness bags.Besides, a better escape plan for an air prisoner would be to act drunkenly belligerent until they kick you off the plane.Red Lightvidiotreviews.blogspot.ca.
Cool, handsome, smooth talking serial killer, Ryan Weaver (Ray Liotta) hamming it up here, boards a plane with another bad dude, and their two escorting officers.
1st watched 3/1/2009 4 out of 10(Dir-Robert Butler): Good guy turned psycho hijacking a plane movie just becomes a little too all things work out right in the end for me.
Sure, we're cheering for the plane to come down and the Lauren Holly character to save the day, but why wouldn't we??--- That's where the movie took us!!
The story starts being about a bad cop planting evidence supposedly on a good guy.(who later turns out to be a psycho) That "good guy", played by Ray Liotta, is taken on a plane from NY to LA to go to his execution.
No- it couldn't be but it is!!(The Goody-Two-Shoes girl!!) There are some funny bits at the end of the movie while Holly is trying to land the plane, but I'm not exactly sure they were what was needed.
Turbulence, What can I say, my hat goes off to Ray Liotta in this film, its not often you see him play this sort of nasty character, Oh maybe once before this one but im sure thats it.Like i've always said im a big fan of thriller movies, and this was a very good one, I would stronly suggest you watch it.8/10.
Once the movie becomes cat and mouse between Liotta and the air stewardess, some of the dialogue is very good and quite amusing if you view it from the point that Liotta's character is a crazed psycho with nothing to lose but wants to have a bit of fun along the way.Some of the scenes involving the landing of the plane are quite good as well especially when it almost collides with a hotel restaurant and you get a POV on it.
Plane movies are always spectacular when they involve some kind of crash idea or a novice attempting to land one.So Ray Liotta as a crazed psycho with a grudge against a cop and on a hijacked empty 747, a guy who is destined for the chair and with nothing to lose is pretty good idea for a movie....in my opinion.
Don`t ask me how but I`d got it into my head that this was going to be very similar to CON AIR with a serial killer taking over a jumbo jet with Ray Liotta`s character Ryan Weaver saving the day .
Sure, it's not the best movie in the world, but for action, suspense and a Lauren Holly/Ray Liotta combo, it's pretty darned good.
Turbulence is a great ride from start to finish because it IS so predictable; you don't have to pay that close of attention and think too hard to get the plot but it is suspenseful and a kick to watch Lauren Holly's character grow in her own self-confidence by the end of the film.
But there is so much fun to be had in the madness that it's always worth a mindless watch.Our silly plot has Ray Liotta and Brendan Gleeson as serial killer and bank robber breaking loose from their captors aboard a virtually empty cross-country flight, killing the pilots and FBI before the runaway plane flies into a hurricane.
Despite the many weaknesses of 'Turbulence' (including a plot that stretches credibility to the limits), from the standpoint of action and suspense this one gives you a nail-biting experience, mainly because of Ray Liotta's intense performance as a serial killer and the always reliable special effects depicting a non-stop storm.While not in the same league with other airplane disaster movies, it does work up a good deal of suspense over how the interaction between Liotta and stewardess Lauren Holly will eventually be resolved.
There are too many loopholes in the plot to make the film credible by the time Holly lands the plane herself--but nevertheless, along the way there are some moments of terror and suspense that live up to the film's advertising slogan: "It's a killer ride!"The saving grace of the film is Ray Liotta's intense performance.
Turbulence (1997): Dir: Robert Butler / Cast: Lauren Holly, Ray Liotta, Hector Elizondo, Catherine Hicks, Rachel Ticotin: Total waste of film that belongs in a trash bin.
but it goes like this: SPOILERS Two convicts, Ryan Weaver (Ray Liotta) and Stubbs (Brendan Gleeson), caught in New York City, are moved on a commercial plane by 4 marshalls (Michael Harney, Grand L. |
tt0092626 | Beauty and the Beast | A widower merchant lives in a mansion with his six children, three sons and three daughters. All his daughters are very beautiful, but the youngest, Beauty, is the most lovely, as well as kind, well-read, and pure of heart; while the two elder sisters, in contrast, are wicked, selfish, vain, and spoiled. They secretly taunt Beauty and treat her more like a servant than a sister. The merchant eventually loses all of his wealth in a tempest at sea which sinks most of his merchant fleet. He and his children are consequently forced to live in a small farmhouse and work for their living.
Some years later, the merchant hears that one of the trade ships he had sent off has arrived back in port, having escaped the destruction of its compatriots. Before leaving, he asks his children if they wish for him to bring any gifts back for them. The sons ask for weaponry and horses to hunt with, whereas his oldest daughters ask for clothing, jewels, and the finest dresses possible as they think his wealth has returned. Beauty is satisfied with the promise of a rose as none grow in their part of the country. The merchant, to his dismay, finds that his ship's cargo has been seized to pay his debts, leaving him penniless and unable to buy his children's presents.
During his return, the merchant becomes lost during a storm. Seeking shelter, he enters a dazzling palace. A hidden figure opens the giant doors and silently invites him in. The merchant finds tables inside laden with food and drink, which seem to have been left for him by the palace's invisible owner. The merchant accepts this gift and spends the night there. The next morning, as the merchant is about to leave, he sees a rose garden and recalls that Beauty had desired a rose. Upon picking the loveliest rose he can find, the merchant is confronted by a hideous "Beast" which tells him that for taking his most precious possession after accepting his hospitality, the merchant must die. The merchant begs to be set free, arguing that he had only picked the rose as a gift for his youngest daughter. The Beast agrees to let him give the rose to Beauty, but only if the merchant or one of his daughters will return.
The merchant is upset but accepts this condition. The Beast sends him on his way, with wealth, jewels and fine clothes for his sons and daughters, and stresses that Beauty must never know about his deal. The merchant, upon arriving home, tries to hide the secret from Beauty, but she pries it from him. Her brothers say they will go to the castle and fight the Beast, but the merchant dissuades them, saying they will stand no chance against the monster. Beauty then agrees to go to the Beast's castle. The Beast receives her graciously and informs her that she is now mistress of the castle, and he is her servant. He gives her lavish clothing and food and carries on lengthy conversations with her. Every night, the Beast asks Beauty to marry him, only to be refused each time. After each refusal, Beauty dreams of a handsome prince who pleads with her to answer why she keeps refusing him, to which she replies that she cannot marry the Beast because she loves him only as a friend. Beauty does not make the connection between the handsome prince and the Beast and becomes convinced that the Beast is holding the prince captive somewhere in the castle. She searches and discovers multiple enchanted rooms, but never the prince from her dreams.
For several months, Beauty lives a life of luxury at the Beast's palace, having every whim catered to by invisible servants, with no end of riches to amuse her and an endless supply of exquisite finery to wear. Eventually, she becomes homesick and begs the Beast to allow her to go see her family. He allows it on the condition that she returns exactly a week later. Beauty agrees to this and sets off for home with an enchanted mirror and ring. The mirror allows her to see what is going on back at the Beast's castle, and the ring allows her to return to the castle in an instant when turned three times around her finger. Her older sisters are surprised to find her well fed and dressed in finery. Beauty tries to share the magnificent gowns and jewels the Beast gave her with her sisters, but they turn into rags at her sisters' touch, and are restored to their splendour when returned to Beauty, as the Beast meant them only for her. Her sisters are envious when they hear of her happy life at the castle, and, hearing that she must return to the Beast on a certain day, beg her to stay another day, even putting onion in their eyes to make it appear as though they are weeping. They hope that the Beast will be angry with Beauty for breaking her promise and eat her alive. Beauty's heart is moved by her sisters' false show of love, and she agrees to stay.
Beauty begins to feel guilty about breaking her promise to the Beast and uses the mirror to see him back at the castle. She is horrified to discover that the Beast is lying half-dead from heartbreak near the rose bushes from which her father plucked the rose, and she immediately uses the ring to return to the Beast.
Beauty weeps over the Beast, saying that she loves him. When her tears strike him, the Beast is transformed into the handsome prince from Beauty's dreams. The Prince informs her that long ago a fairy turned him into a hideous beast after he refused to let her in from the rain and that only by finding true love, despite his ugliness, could the curse be broken. He and Beauty are married and they live happily ever after together. | romantic, fantasy | train | wikipedia | Charles Perrault's classic French fairy tale "Beauty And The Beast" has been filmed several times.
The well-known French version with Jean Marias and Josette Day, was filmed in 1946.
But Cannon Films beat them to the punch, producing their live-action musical rendition in 1987.
Starring Rebecca De Mornay as Beauty, and John Savage as The Beast/Prince, this is another good example in their "Movie Tales" series.
Unlike some of their other titles which do NOT cry out for cinematic translation ("The Emperor's New Clothes" jumps to mind), this fairy tale is perfect for visual dramatization.
Cannon's version stays relatively close to the original story, which is more than Disney's did (very little besides the title was retained) and it has great atmospheric photography, especially the scenes in the Beast's garden, which are all the more impressive considering the film's low budget.
Both De Mornay and Savage bring depth to their roles, and, considering neither is a singer, they handle the best songs in the movie ("If You See With Your Heart" and "Wish For The Moon") very well, indeed.
The film is rather slow paced, but, then, so is the original story.
But the climax is packed with traditional emotion, and this is a movie which seems to get better every time I see it.
A wonderful live action rendition of a classic Fairy Tale..
I adored this movie the first time I saw it when I was 16.
I love fairy tales and especially like movies that try to stick to the original story.
These stories have been around for hundreds of years before Disney and there are different versions of each in different countries.
The sets and costuming of this version are beautiful.
(All though some obviously date the film to the late eighties) Rebecca De Mornay is fantastic as the gracious loving creature that can love even a beast.
The way that this is filmed it almost feels as though you are the proverbial fly on the wall, or the statue with eyes.
I think it is a wonderful way to get kids interested in something besides cartoons..
I have always loved Farie Tales, and this is my all time favorite, and I have them all.
With Rebecca de Mornay singing, I never would have imagined she could btw, it's astounding.
John Savage is the most terrific beast I could imagine...
other than in the French movie "Beaute et Le Bete" or whatever it's called *lol*.
It's an even better version than the Disney Cartoon, which is also one of my favorites.
True, it was low budget and John Savage never has appealed to me as a male romantic lead, but scenes of it were always so beautiful, taking inspiration from the 1946 classic La Belle et la bête.
Not to sound like a sap, but there is a part in this movie that I always thought was wonderfully done.
During one of the songs, Beauty is pretending to dance with her dream prince, meanwhile, in another room, Beast (who is actually her dream prince unbeknownst to her)is pretending to dance with Beauty.
For a B-Children's movie, I thought that was cool..
Beautiful Movie.
This was mine and my sister's favorite movie growing up.
We used to watch it all the time and sing along and even act the scenes out sometimes.
The sets and costumes are beautiful.
I've always had a soft spot for Rebecca DeMorney since seeing this movie.
She was perfect as Beauty and has a gorgeous singing voice.
I'm twenty now and I still put the movie in now and then and am surprised that I still enjoy it as much as I did as a little girl.
Colorful European setting and beautiful Rebecca De Mornay.
Good live action adaptation of the classic story.
Rebecca De Mornay is perfect as the wholesome kind-hearted Beauty who lives with her wealthy father and grown brothers and sisters.
She is not unhappy and is able to tend to her family's needs with little effort, however she does wish to have some time of her own.
The family goes broke, moves to the country, and Beauty is just as happy poor as rich.
Her father stumbles across the Beast's castle and escapes imprisonment by having Beauty stay in his place.
The Beast and castle are not unlike the Disney stage version, however there are no dancing silverware or clocks here, but the statues come to life.
Ultimately the film is saved by a wonderful performance by Rebecca De Mornay who simply melts hearts, sings like an angel, and warms the cold corners of any castle..
This movie had a huge impact on me as a kid.
I was about 10 when I first saw it..and since then I've watched it countless times.
I would watch it everyday as a kid, memorised the entire script and lyrics and recite them, sing before while I lie in bed at night before sleeping.
Rebecca has really surpassed being a great actress...being able to sing beautifully.
She was the MAGIC in the entire movie.
The songs are sweet and suited for this musical..it's no Mary Poppins, but it sure showed Rebecca's singing talent.
Forget Disney's Beauty and the Beast.
Watch Cannon's Beauty and the Beast for a real treat..
If you have watched Beauty and the Beast animation and think you will going to see the same story, think again.
Maybe this is a fair adaptation of the classical story but the problem is that it is pretty boring.
You see Beauty walking around in the castle and having dreams about a prince.
In the evening she has dinner with Beast who really doesn't look that scary or does not come across as mean (which he is supposed to be in the beginning).
I can understand that Beauty does say no as he never spends time with her during daytime.
Unlike other Cannon movie Tales I didn't like this one at all.
Okay, DeMornay is quite nice to look at, but the prince looks like a cheap body builder from a cheap advertisement.Yeah, the costumes were nice.
In the end you just don't understand why she stayed with the prince and fell in love with him cause the dude is boring as hell and delivers one stupid line after another.Never before have I felt less while watching a movie.I guess the two best adaptions of this tale are still the Disney one and the one by Jean Cocteau, with Jean Marais playing the prince / the beast.
Go watch those instead and save your time on this empty flick..
Beauty (Rebecca De Mornay) is a dutiful considerate girl who takes care of her four frivolous siblings.
News arrive that their ship survived and father goes off to retrieve the ship promising to bring back gifts for everyone and a rose for Beauty.
On the way back, he seeks shelter in the castle of the Beast (John Savage).
The Beast allows him to go home and retrieve one of his daughters to take his place willingly.
Beauty goes back with his father and takes his place at the castle.
In return, the Beast gives father 2 chests filled with treasures to take back.The Golan-Globus production is pretty cheesy.
It's a poor production that rests solely on the talents and beauty of Rebecca De Mornay.
The look of the beast is reasonable if a little stiff.
Beauty (Rebecca De Mornay, young and very, very lovely) lives with her father, sisters and brothers in ye olden times.
Beauty is the unspoken "caretaker" of the family, the one who makes their lives easier with her devoted attention to their needs.
The father, a merchant, has been struggling but he hears that a ship of his has come in.
Terribly distraught, he runs into a storm on the journey home and finds shelter in a large mansion with beautiful grounds.
After a night of comfort, and without meeting the home owner, father is exiting the gardens when a rose catches his eye and he picks it for Beauty.
Immediately, a man-beast (John Savage) rushes into view and snarls the bad news.
But, once back home, the whole story tumbles out and Beauty agrees to take his place and spend the rest of her days at the distant mansion.
Since she won't take "no" for an answer, Beauty soon is installed in her new surroundings.
She receives beautiful new clothing and lovely rooms.
But, reality soon comes calling with the entrance of the beast.
This is a lovely, long-ago musical adaption of the classic story but not, of course, in the same category as the brilliant animated version.
De Mornay makes a beautiful beauty while Savage does a fine, sympathetic turn as the spellbound beast.
The music, while pleasant, is not very memorable but the costumes and sets are more than adequate.
Best of all, the film is a very "family-friendly" flick.
Therefore, if you want to show a nice romantic film to a crowd of young females, this is a wonderful choice, for it has no objectionable material or themes.
If you want to watch a true work of cinematic art, then watch this movie.
This movie is good because of the acting of the two leads, Rebecca De Mornay and John Savage.
Their excellent acting ensures that this movie does not become just another corny Hollywood contrivance or another twisted and distorted interpretation of a classic story.
Mr. Savage's interpretation of the Beast is endearing for both children and adults and along with Ms. De Mornay's portrayal of Beauty makes this movie something that all can enjoy..
I caught this on a Saturday morning movie slot on my television, and was amazed and appalled by the blatant lifting of almost all the design elements from Cocteau's Beauty and the Beast.
Christian Berard did the sets and costumes for the 1947 French classic version of the fairy tale, and no one could touch it for richness of nuance and detail.
And it makes me a bit mad that the producers of the G/G version tried to simply make a colorized version of it, down to the make-up on the Beast, some of Beauty's hairstyles, the arms in the hallway holding the lamps and even quite a number of the camera angles.
Nice fable with light, but too little music.
This musical film of "Beauty and the Beast" is a good rendition of the 1740 French fairy tale by novelist Gabrielle-Suzanne Barbot de Villeneuve.
It's a more contemporary version of the fable, but with very good sets, camera work and performances overall.
The costuming is especially good for Beast.
The movie was filmed entirely in Israel.
It's a decent family film that most children should enjoy..
and this is the necessary virtue of an adaptation of a fairy tale.
Rebecca de Mornay and Yossi Graber and John Savage are perfect choices for theirs roles and the atmosphere and dialogues impress for the define the precise target of film - the children.
but this version of Beauty and the Beast is impeccable.
and almost a model for the right manner to translate in image the heart of a story about love, sacrifice and happiness.
the delicacy , the air of the late "80's, the slow and careful exposure of events are inspired options for recreate a form of magic who open the doors to a real lovely fairy tale..
Once upon a time and what seems like eons ago...
I had quite the collection of children's movies at the time.
Some of those movies were viewed so very many times then and over the years by many children, including my own.
This is one of those movies that all the children begged to see over and over again.
Now all but one of my children have grown and will soon leave the nest (I pray :-) Not all of the movies I acquired over the years have stood the test of time.
Alas we come to those that are worn, torn and tattered and exceedingly loved.
She is a fan of fairy tales and has always liked the story of Beauty and the Beast, so we pick it up.
Now, the costumes ware great, and the sets were nice.
Unfortunately, the rest of the movie lacked somewhat.
I don't think the father could have looked any less interested in his part if he'd have tried.
The brothers and sisters tried looking pompous, but came off as looking like they needed a few more acting lessons.
The only actor to come even close to deMornay was Beast/Prince, and he still looked like he studied at the Shatner School.
The acting quality and the way scenes were framed had me constantly thinking that we had accidentally picked up a porn movie.
I can see that they tried to put on a good show, and for what it's worth, this makes for a good couple hours of quality time with the kids.
I happened to catch this movie on the Disney channel one night when I was about 12.
I absolutely adored it as I am I huge John Savage fan.
While the 1946 Jean Cocteau and 1991 Disney versions are superior films of the timeless fairy tales, Cannon Movie Tales' 1987 adaptation is very worthy and one of the better Cannon Movie Tale films.Beauty and the Beast (1987) is one of their best-looking films, Cannon's films were always made on a low budget but Beauty and the Beast is one of the few where it is not so painfully obvious.
The film's very beautifully photographed, the sets are surprisingly lavish and atmospheric, especially the gardens and the castle is like a magisterial character in itself and from personal opinion Beauty and the Beast is the Cannon Movie Tale film with the best costume design, here being one of the highlights rather than a flaw.
The music is quite good, not as memorable as the score and songs in Disney's version but they stand just fine on their own and fit well into the film.
The incidental music is charmingly whimsical, and while only If You See With Your Heart stands out as truly great out of the songs (Wish for the Moon is also lovely, but not quite as emotion-filled) they're all listenable and do nothing to hinder the story.The story of Beauty and the Beast is a timeless one, and while there are changes the basic details are intact structured faithfully and the enchanting spirit is too.
Pacing is steady and controlled, very like the pacing of the fairy tale's story itself, the film doesn't suffer at all from trying to make a short story seem longer (a problem that The Frog Prince and especially The Emperor's New Clothes had) and the ending is very emotional.
Beauty and the Beast's chemistry has a subtle intensity and a real poignancy too.
Rebecca De Mornay radiates innocence and beauty, and plays Beauty charmingly and touchingly, showing herself to be a quite decent singer too.
John Savage shows very good chemistry with her, and is similarly very good as the Beast, giving off a scary but also tragically tormented figure and aided by good make-up.While there is not a lot here actually that is wrong in Cannon Movie Tales' version of Beauty and the Beast, there are a couple of not-so-good areas.
The two leads come off very well but the supporting roles are stockly written and overplayed, the siblings resort to quite embarrassing mugging and Beauty's father has rarely if ever been more unsympathetically portrayed.
While Savage really impresses as the Beast, he is rather wooden as the Prince, which is not entirely his fault actually because Beast has always been a juicier and more interesting character which gives more scope to do much with the role.
The writing does avoid being too cheesy and cloying and it is decent writing for a Cannon Movie Tale film, but can get a bit stiff in places especially in the early parts before Beast appears and when Beauty and the Beast are not on screen together.All in all, there are some really beautiful things here, and of the Cannon Movie Tale films their version of Beauty and the Beast is one of their best.
was a good price and having loved a few of the diff beauty and the beast movies was interested to see what It was like I liked it a lot ...
was a lil diff from the other versions as in they didn't interact as much with outsiders (when they got together) but Loved how he came to her every night and had their talks ...
would have been nice to see a version like the story/ cartoon where she has to race against the rose in the jar to save him ..
but the twist instead of the rose here was lovely :) a nice old fashioned romance / movie and would recommend to anyone ....
I grew up with the Disney version of Beauty and the Beast.
I was hesitant to watch this film, but ended up enjoying it.
The music is a bit annoying at times, but its sweet as well.
The costumes were exquisite and beautiful.
The only real problem I had with this movie was some of the minor inconsistencies, but other than that I had fun watching it.
This obviously isn't Oscar worthy, but when I show my kids movies, I think I'll show this one every once in a while.
The acting was good, and I enjoyed it overall.
a delightful musical tale.
This movie is a delightful live action musical rendition of the beauty & the beast tale.
My family throughly enjoyed it, despite the obvious low budget production.
Rebecca De Mornay does a great job as beauty (although I personally don't care for her singing voice) and John Savage is wonderful as Beast.Possible spoiler**** I was especially impressed with the scene when Beauty dances with the statues. |
tt0914372 | Hallowed Ground | After becoming stranded in a small town called Hope, Elizabeth "Liz" Chambers, (Jaimie Alexander) discovers her arrival was foretold a century earlier by the town's founding preacher Jonas Hathaway (Nick Chinlund) and that she is an integral part of his impending—and terrifying—rebirth. Forced to stay overnight in the town, Liz meets Sarah Austin (Hudson Leick), a reporter for a tabloid newspaper, who is in town to investigate legends of living scarecrows. The townspeople of Hope once sacrificed people by nailing them to crosses in the cornfields until a young girl alerted residents of the nearby town of Liberty. Horrified to learn of the murders going on in Hope, the townspeople of Liberty nailed the local preacher who spearheaded the sacrifices to a cross. Legend contends that one day he will be reborn.
Sarah persuades Liz to accompany her to the cornfield. At the cornfield, Sarah takes photos of a scarecrow that she and Liz construct and hang on a cross, intending to use the photograph for the newspaper's front page. Sarah is later attacked and killed by the scarecrow, which comes to life. The scarecrow tries to kill Liz as well but she manages to escape in the squad car of a deputy, who is killed upon arriving at the scene.
She drives to the sheriff's office, where she tells her tale. When the deputy is unable to reach anyone by radio or phone, he leaves Liz alone while he goes to find out the problem. Liz is able to fend off the scarecrow when it arrives, stalking her. She tries to flee in her car but sees that the engine has been removed. She takes refuge with the town's preacher (Ethan Phillips), but discovers that the preacher is the leader of the townspeople, who worship the spirit of the founding preacher. The preacher intends to bring the spirit back to life by fathering a child with Liz, whom the spirit can possess. The sheriff arrives in time to stop the townspeople, but loses consciousness in a car crash. When the clergyman tries to rape Liz, she fends him off and escapes.
As she flees, she finds Sabrina (Chloë Grace Moretz), a child hiding in an underground shelter. Her parents were killed by the scarecrow, but she had escaped. Meanwhile, the townspeople set out in search of Liz. Liz hides Sabrina in a hole in the cornfield while she goes for help. She makes it to the next town only to find everyone dead. She is picked up by the sheriff, who escaped, and Liz tells him about Sabrina and jokes that the townspeople think she is a virgin. When they return to the cornfield, Liz discovers that the sheriff has been possessed by the spirit of the evil preacher.
The preacher now goes in search of Sabrina as Liz is not pure. Sabrina sneaks into the farmhouse and sets it on fire. The townspeople let Liz and Sabrina escape while they burn the body of the preacher, as the prophecy tells them to. Liz flees with the child, but the spirit of the preacher possesses the body of Sabrina's father, who they encounter hanging on one of the crosses in the cornfield. Vines ensnare Liz as the animated corpse appeals to Sabrina.
A murder of crows appear and the townspeople believe it is a good omen, until the crows attack and kill them, as well as attacking Sabrina's father, allowing Liz to extract herself from the vines. Liz and Sabrina escape, hitching a ride from a truck driver who is passing through the area. He turns on the radio, and a song comes on that reminds Liz and Sabrina of their ordeal. Liz turns the radio off, and they continue down the road, leaving Hope behind. | insanity, murder | train | wikipedia | A Really Earnest Try. HALLOWED GROUND is a peculiar little movie.
The object is to make people's pulses race, not to put the audience to sleep.Elizabeth's car breaks down in a strange (and underpopulated) little town.
Stranded.She goes to a diner and gets into a conversation with a tabloid reporter conveniently in town to do a story on strange events in the area many years ago.
So we have a little CHILDREN OF THE CORN, a touch of THE Texas CHAINSAW MASSACRE, and a dash of those movies Hammer Studios made where Christopher Lee's cult got outsmarted by Peter Cushing.
Not the most original horror movie ever, but it has a fast flow and it passes the time..
However, there are a good couple of kills, and the flow of the movie is very fast.
The story, gal gets stranded in a town with a bizarre past of a preacher using living scarecrows to scare off actual crows.
Some how they become best buds in what is essentially maybe an hour worth of time, I somewhat enjoyed this flick, but then it is not without some flaws.
The opening features a horrible computer animated scene of a guy in a cornfield with crows and it looks awful, I was expecting a much worse picture from that scene as I hate computer generation that is completely unnecessary.
The scarecrow angle was rather good then abandoned and forgotten near the end where we have a crappy looking crow attack.
I wasn't expecting very much, especially with plot keywords like "Killer scarecrow", and it's not my particular favorite horror sub-genre.In the end, it wasn't that bad.
Overall the acting was OK...some of the townspeople seemed a little cardboard, but the leads do a good job.It could have done with a few less scenes of people running through cornfields, but at 83 minutes with credits, I think it needed all the time it could get.
This is my first IMDb review, and I'll keep it short.I watched this movie on the sci-fi channel during the never ending writers strike when nothing good was on TV.
I expected it to be a poorly acted generic horror flick, which it was.
It basically borrows from classic horror flicks (e.g. Children of the Corn) and doesn't contain much in the way of originality.
All in all it isn't a bad movie, but could have been much better, particularly the highly unbelievable CGI crow.
A Gem. Every week I stop into Blockbuster and rent the new direct to video horror movie and every week I'm pretty much disappointed.
Yes, the CGI isn't top notch but great CGI doesn't make a great movie.This is a horror movie with complex characters that does not conform to a specific genre's rules.
It could easily have been a scarecrow slasher movie with lots of dead teenagers but it tries for more.I applaud it for that.For those direct to video junkies like myself, Hallowed Ground has great production value, great acting (for the genre), and best of all...An original concept..
Decent B-Movie Horror Flick.
The people giving this movie 1 out of 10 and whining about "bad CGI" obviously didn't bother to look at the budget of the film ($1.5 million - considerably lower than the classic horror blockbusters).
If you were expecting to sit down and watch a timeless classic, you should have rented "Casablanca" or "The Wizard of Oz." Ranting about bad acting (which, while not the best acting in the world, is certainly not the worst) and bad directing (if you can do better, let's see it), and claiming that anyone who gave it a good review "obviously" worked on the movie (oh, you're omniscient now?) makes for a really amateur review.
If you didn't like the movie, that's your opinion, but at least give actual examples of why you thought the acting and directing were bad, and don't shoot off at the mouth insulting reviewers who disagreed with you.
Maybe they actually have a life and don't have time to review five billion movies like some people apparently can.Now, as I say, this isn't some high-caliber horror flick that is going to win an Oscar.
It is a fun suspense flick that makes for nice Halloween fare for a horror movie marathon.
The plot isn't completely unique, but it is a decent concept of good vs evil.
I'm not sure why people are complaining about "bad CGI," since there is very little CGI used in the film, and it is certainly not needed.
Hallowed Ground was neither a good or great movie.
I did like the stylish camera work, there are some haunting moments in the score, the acting is decent considering what they had to work with and there are a few good ideas in the mix.
There are lots of bird's eye shots, inset shots and POV--a lot of great camera work, actually, as well as well choreographed action and a very good score.
After she becomes stranded in a small town, a young woman (played by Jaimie Alexander of "Rest Stop") discovers her arrival there was foretold a century earlier by the town's founding preacher and that she is an integral part of his impending -- and terrifying -- rebirth.
Oh, and there's a scarecrow that likes to kill people, too.So I waited too long to write this review and the film is no longer fresh in my mind.
But maybe the film isn't worth a thorough dissemination, as it really wasn't particularly good.
I don't know.Having seen both "Superstition" and "Horror Rises From the Tomb" this year, the idea of a prophecy that has an old religious fanatic coming back from the grave really wasn't a shocking new development in cinema for me.
it was still a man who believes in the supernatural who had turned to killing in order to get his way with things, so there's not really a huge stretch.What really struck me as the mistake with this film is the focus on the city of believers (not unlike "The Reaping" or any other film with a religious, isolated city) and not so much on the scarecrow that came back to kill people.
Some of us like to look at this sort of thing once a week or more (I'm not one of those people).
I'm not one to watch films if I become bored or if I dislike it.The highlight for me was a stupid bird flu joke, which, now, I cannot recall.
Now the first problem i had with the movie was the beginning scene, when they are putting the man on the cross, now would'NT that make you think that the man on the cross is the scar crow trying to get the women?
Some of it was confusing, the little girl's dad, is the dead Reverend, it's been like 3 months since the premier, and i forgot how the dad became the Reverend, that part really mad me confused.
JAIMIE Alexander is a young woman who inadvertently stumbles upon a town full of loonies who believe a legend about a demented preacher involved in human sacrifices.
The ghost of a town is the wrong place for a gal like Alexander to be, for she's in immediate peril from them and a scarecrow that comes to life.It's all very reminiscent of every horror film ever made about cornfields and "children of the corn" and skies full of menacing black crows.
The scarecrow angle could have been played for better thrills.BRIAN McNAMARA, as the town sheriff who knows more than he's willing to say about everything, is fine, but JAIMIE Alexander gives the impression that she's not capable or willing to give the role of the distraught woman more than a basic reading.I just happened to come across it while surfing cable TV and stayed tuned to see whether it developed into a logical fright film.
The cornfield scenes were extremely well photographed but there was a tacky "direct to TV" look about the rest of the film..
mullet sporting, human sacrificing, scarecrow worshipping, Talaxians that grow mutant corn which grows on killer vines.
It is Ethan Phillips that stars along Jamie Alexander and Brian McNamara in David Benullo's Hallowed Ground, an insufferable exercise in rolled out horror clichés.
Hallowed Ground, director David Benullo's second foray into directing since his nearly impossible to track down and deeply creepy (not in a good way creepy) incest fantasy, Cupid, left me with a few questions.
Does the pitch—or pitchfork— for an abortion like this go something like, "Yes, it's Children of the Corn meets Dark Night of the Scarecrow, you know a dense, indecipherable, mish-mash of every horror or slasher film made in the last thirty years." Who thought this was a good idea?
I don't know the man, however, my guess is he's a run-of-the-mill USC or NYU film school type, a typical, unthinking, and blinkered, North Easterner that has never spent time in the Midwest nor interacted with the people of rural America he so crudely portrays.
Red state America is populated by mullet sporting, human sacrificing, scarecrow worshipping, Talaxians that grow mutant corn which grows on killer vines.
Hallowed Ground starts out in isolated Midwest of the US where Liz Chambers (Jaimie Alexander) has car trouble & breaks down, Liz manages to make it to the small town of Hope where local mechanic Earl (Jim Cody Williams) says he will have to order a part for Liz's car & she's stuck there for the night.
Liz heads over to the local diner & meets newspaper reporter Sarah Austin (Hudson Leick) who is writing a story about Hope's sinister past & it's evil founding Preacher Jonas Hathaway (Nick Chinlund) who used to crucify sinners & leave them in the corn fields so their anguished screams would scare away the Crow's who ate the corn before Jonas himself was crucified & burnt by neighbouring townspeople.
Liz decides to join Sarah & they drive out to Jonas's house where legend has it his evil spirit still lurks, as Jonas himself prophesied he comes back from the dead to reclaim a new body for himself & he needs Liz to provide a baby for him to possess...Written & directed by David Benullo this originally premiered on the Sci-Fi Channel before going direct to video & isn't that bad a film I suppose but at the same time it's far from great, a mix of Children of the Corn (1984) & Rosemary's Baby (1968) if you can even begin to imagine such a thing Hallowed Ground passed 80 odd minutes harmlessly enough & it had one or two good ideas if nothing else.
I did like the idea of crucifying someone & stringing them up in the middle of a cornfield like a human Scarecrow to let their screams of pain scare all the Crow's away but apart from the opening flashback it's an underused idea & the climax where the soul's of the murder posses the Crow's to dish out some justice is a nice idea too but again underused & a bit random & how did Liz know the Crow's were possessed anyway?
At only one hour & twenty minutes long it has a good pace & never lets up but things start a bit quickly without much build-up, there's never any given reason why Liz is the chosen one or how Hathaway can possess a baby without it dying but not an adult or how the town of Hope was planning to get away with it especially after murdering the entire neighbouring town including the police force or even why the townspeople of Hope believed Hathaway's ancient prophecies.
Character's are alright, the plot is alright & it moves along at a fair pace so I guess you could do worse but you could do better too.For those who like to spot film mistakes there's a biggie at the end, when Liz & Sabrina are in that old dude's jeep listening to the radio look at the window next to them & you can clearly see the reflection of the camera filming them from the opposite side.
The first half of Hallowed Ground feels like a Halloween (1978) style slasher in which a Scarecrow novelty killer is running around bumping people off but thankfully the film abandons the killer Scarecrow idea & becomes a demonic possession flick.
The Scarecrow looks alright if a little silly, although competent Hallowed Ground isn't that scary or atmospheric but it is well shot.With a supposed budget of about $1,500,000 the production values are fine & it's quite a nice looking film although some of the CGI computer effects are poor as they are in most low budget films so Hallowed Ground isn't unique on that point.
The acting is OK, Hudson Leick is quite good & brings some life to her character but she is killed off early on.Hallowed Ground is a middle of the road direct to video low budget horror film that isn't terrible but at the same time just isn't that good either.
If you actually think about it the script falls apart but at least it's short & provides a few decent scenes & a one or two nice ideas..
It had descent production values, acceptable acting, and a generally involving pace.But as many other reviewers have pointed out, it's so ridiculously derivative that it's sometimes difficult to watch.
"Hallowed Ground" is decent for what it is, but is hampered by it's incessant clichés.**SPOILERS**Experiencing car problems, Liz Chambers, (Jaime Alexander) finds herself stranded in a small-town along with reporter Sarah Austin, (Hudson Leick) who is doing a story about the area.
Coming across Sheriff O'Connor, (Brian McNamara) who is also an outsider to the town, she is let in on the secret of the town, when a maniacal preacher a hundred years earlier had placed a curse on the town for their torturing and killing him to cover up his plan to sacrifice the locals to God for better crop production, and she's chosen to bear his seed to bring him back to life.
Even with a soft spot for the dark-brutal-history-of-a-weird-town plot used in many horror films, the buried town secret set-up and the religious zealotry, along with the intriguing prophesying and general freakiness of the town's population makes the plot amusing.
The film hits the ground running with its approach, as right away, the mythology is tossed into the creepy mythology as we see a nutty preacher condemning some poor sap, and then, with no warning, with it's crucifixion time.
This one even has some nice action scenes, with enough shooting, house fires and a tater sacked mask scarecrow killer that eventually becomes unnecessary to the story.
Overall, this one here is better than expected but still decent.The Bad News: This one isn't bad, but did have a couple of problems.
Way too much of the time, the actions coming from the film have a sense which isn't original, thought provoking, or meaningful enough for anyone to care.
This one contains a lot of parts, from the stranger just happening to break down in a town that just happens to have a prophecy concerning someone like them to come to the town right when they need them to is a little out-there as far as credibility goes, and it does make for some really groan-inducing moments.
The Scarecrow, as a main character in the movie, comes to life and begins to seemingly terrorize the town.
These few flaws drop the film down somewhat.The Final Verdict: Not all that bad, and having some good points to it, but too bogged down with it's clichés to come up as anything beyond the ordinary.
I mean, I'm willing to suspend my belief to enjoy a good sci-fi or horror flick, but not to a ridiculous degree.I am writing this as I watch the movie.
I'm not a video connoisseur, but how come all these movies involve city-boy cops, nutty religious folk, fields, and a gas station?
For the bedroom scene, I was hoping for a good horror-rape by a scarecrow.
This is supposed to be a horror movie, isn't it?
This is far too predictable.Okay, so it's more than an hour and a half into this mess (on TV, so that's including commercials), and I honestly have no idea what this movie is really supposed to be about.
In fact, it looks like the same footage of the burning house over and over again...PSEUDO-FLAW (this is derived from common sense, or really the lack thereof): You'd think, perhaps, one would consider getting the heck OUT of the corn fields, especially since the majority of the murders happened there.FLAW: Being a vegetable gardener and rather familiar with things like corn, I must pose the following: corn does not grow on a vine, nor does it have a deep or extensive root system.
Death by crows in a horror flick is good (though unoriginal now), but I distinctly heard the screeching of a hawk amidst these rather poor CGI crows.
Liz Chambers (a solid and sympathetic performance by fetching brunette Jaimie Alexander) finds herself stuck in a small town after her car breaks down.
Moreover, the sound acting from the capable cast holds this picture together: Chloe Grace Moretz does well as frightened little girl Sabrina, Brian McNamara likewise registers nicely as the earnest Sheriff O'Connor, Nick Chinlund has a field day as evil preacher Jonas Hatheway, and Hudson Leick provides plenty of winning spark as eager and unscrupulous tabloid newspaper reporter Sarah Austin.
A good try, but sounds like several others..
This film is photographed well and the acting is actually decent; but the story line seems so familiar.
This supernatural horror rendering has an attractive young woman(Alexander)being stranded in a seemingly quiet small town while her car all but dies.
Kudos to director David Benullo, who did successfully present a good project, albeit predictable. |
tt0085743 | Jaane Bhi Do Yaaro | Professional photographers Vinod Chopra (Naseeruddin Shah) and Sudhir Mishra (Ravi Baswani) open a photo studio in the prestigious Haji Ali area in Mumbai, and hope to make enough money to keep it running. After a disastrous start, they are given some work by the editor of "Khabardar", a publication that exposes the scandalous lives of the rich and the famous. They accept it and start working with the editor, Shobha Sen (Bhakti Barve), on a story exposing the dealings between an unscrupulous builder, Tarneja (Pankaj Kapoor), and corrupt Municipal Commissioner D'Mello (Satish Shah). During their investigation, they find out that another builder Ahuja (Om Puri) too is involved in this dealing.
While working on their story, Sudhir and Vinod decide to enter a photography contest that carries a prize money of Rs. 5000/-, and take a number of photographs all over the city. On developing their pictures, in one of the photographs they see a man shooting someone. Upon enlarging it, they realize that the killer is none other than Tarneja. They immediately return to the park where they had shot that picture and realize that the body is lying behind the bushes. Before the duo get to the body, it disappears, but they manage to retrieve one of a pair of gold cuff links. Sometime later, they attend the inauguration of a bridge dedicated to the memory of late Municipal Commissioner D'Mello who is supposed to have died of a terminal disease. It is there that they discover the other cuff link. They return at night and dig up that area and unearth a coffin containing the dead body of D'Mello.
The duo take a number of photographs of the corpse, and wheel it with them with the hopes of exposing Tarneja. Suddenly the body disappears. Later they find out that the body is with Tarneja's rival, Ahuja who had, in an inebriated condition, carried the coffin tied to his car to his farm house. They provide this information to Shobha, who in turn starts blackmailing Tarneja. He invites her and her associates to crack a deal, and plants a bomb to kill them. Unfortunately, the bomb explodes right in the face of Tarneja and his henchmen, and the trio escape from the scene. Later, the duo realize that Shobha and Ahuja are up to no good, and so they take the corpse, and wheel it with them, but not before Tarneja, Ahuja, the new Municipal Commissioner Srivastav (Deepak Qazir), Shobha and others also get involved, resulting in a series of comic mix-ups including one with some burkha-clad women.
The climax is set upon a stage dramatization of the Mahabharata, particularly the enactment of the Draupadi Cheer-Haran episode, which is turned on its head with the duo and the group following them inserting themselves into the scene. The corpse plays Draupadi and the vile Duryodhana, who orders the disrobing in the original version, ends up pledging to save Draupadi's honour at any cost. To make things even more hilarious, a new act - that of the ill-fated romance of Salim and Anarkali - is introduced, with the corpse playing Anarkali.
In the end, the police arrives and Vinod and Sudhir present their evidence to the police officer, and it seems as though Tarneja will be arrested. Srivastava, being the Assistant Municipal Commissioner tells the officer to wait a few minutes before arresting Tarneja. Tarneja tells Ahuja and Shobha that if he goes to jail, he would make sure that their malpractices are also exposed. In a twist ending, they all come to an agreement and Srivastava manages to pin the murder of Commissioner D'Mello and the collapse of the bridge on Vinod and Sudhir. In the final scene, Vinod and Sudhir are shown several months/years later released from prison, still in their prison clothes. They turn to the camera and make a cut-throat gesture, signifying the death of justice and truth in an age of corruption. | cult, comedy, satire, murder | train | wikipedia | A lot of comments about this movie have centered on the apparently slapstick comedy, ignoring its usage to lend a sense of the grotesque in what is a essentially a masterful farce, and beneath the surface, more of a tragedy.This movie centers around the two young protagonists, full of ideals and the will to win against the powers of endemic and ubiquitous corruption, a corruption that is so manifestly present that the others do not seem to question its existence, but implicitly assume it and use it to serve their own ends.
Om Puri, Naseeruddin Shah, Pankaj Kapoor and many others deliver stellar performances in this tragi-comedy which is one of finest pearls produced by the New Wave movement in Indian cinema.Regretabbly, comprehension of the movie requires intimate knowledge of the background, something which you would only have if you have lived in India, where corruption is as natural as breathing, and if you are familiar with the turbulent times when New Wave Cinema was taking off, a time of discontent and idealism among youth, a time of unemployment and the times of the angry young man (as typified by Amitabh Bachchan in many commercial films from this era).However one can still enjoy it for it is a comedy worth watching.
This was a wonderful comedy, no cheap humor, no poor jokes, just a simple inexpensive movie made with a great script, good jokes and wonderful actors.
Quite apart from its social satire, unimaginably ahead of its time for the dour early '80's Delhi, JBDY managed to bring together a slew of talent, Shah(s), Baswani, Kapoor, and of course the inimitable Puri 'Ahuja'.
More than its concluding 'Draupadi vastraharan' scene, symbolic of the wretched disrobing of the Indian polity however, the film managed to make me cry out loud with laughter even as an impressionable twelve year old, merely for its slapstick content.
Once involved they try to expose everyone involved but the question is 'will they survive?' Performance wise, everyone from Naseer to Ravi Baswani to Pankaj Kapoor to Satish Shah to Satish Kaushik to Om Puri have given brilliant performances, probably amongst their best.
Two simple photographers, trying to eke out an honest living, caught in a web of scandal and deceit.Fantastic direction, outstanding plot, brilliant script, phenomenal casting and amazing acting.
This is one of India's best comedy movies.
It's bizarre but it works because of the stellar performances of the lead cast and some bitingly clever writing by Kundan Shah.The film takes its central idea from Antonioni's Blow Up and explores the investigation of two struggling photographers Vinod (Naseeruddin Shah) and Sudhir (Vinod Baswani) who in their desperation accept the offer of a local self-serving tabloid editor Shobha Sen (Bhakti Barve) to photograph a clandestine meeting between the corrupt Municipal Commissioner D'Mello (Satish Shah) and the real estate developers who intend on bribing him to get the best deal in town.
Case in point: the scene in which the entire entourage of Tarneja and Ahuja, including the city commissioner, unabashedly usurp the play of Mahabharata because Vinod and Sudhir have hidden the dead body that could serve as the proof of the builder's wrongdoing and our heroes' innocence somewhere in that production.
And this is where the blackness in this comedy works so wonderfully.Despite a more somber theme, Kundan Shah and team have done a great job in keeping the tone of the movie light.
Movie which every Indian will watch any time is been shown....
Nasiruddin Shah, Om Puri, Pankaj Kapur, Bhakti Barve, Satish Kaushik, Neena Gupta and above all, Satish Shah playing his unarguably best roll of his life..
Who can forget dialog like "Thoda khaao Thoda pheko" And scenes like Drunkard Om puri talking to Satish Shah who is in Coffin and Om puri thinks that He is in some sports car.
Naseeruddin Shah and Ravi Vaswani play photographers caught in a messy affair involving corrupt politicians, wicked businessmen, canny journalists (and some hammy actors).
Giving director Kundan Shah (who has, surprising, gone on to the make some of the most awful films of the last decade) the chance to unleash his brilliant satire.
Satish Shah is hilarious as a dead body on roller skates, and the 'Disrobing of Draupadi' scene in the theatre is one of the funniest ever shot.
Unfortunately, innovative scenes, unforgettable dialogues, tickling backdrops and excellent acting were not enough to save this movie from bombing at the box-office.Although I've seen this movie more than seven times, it has never failed to amuse me.
I feel a real spoilsport, when so many have thoroughly enjoyed this Indian farce, that I couldn't go beyond the first hour.The film looked promising (I'm a photographer, for starts) but the broad, base humour jarred after a while and whilst I could see that it might be neatly meshing social comment, satire and slapstick, I could take no more!Maybe it's because I'm non-Indian, in an older age group or just wasn't in the mood.
I had hard a lot about 'Jaane Bhi Do Yaaro' and Kundan Shah happens to be one of my favourite Indian directors.
Now the film does look quite dated at times and some of the jokes feel a little old but things get funnier as the story moves along.
Many seem to have been impressed by the in-your-face slapstick humour which is abundant in 'Jaane Bhi Do Yaaro' but what made this a better comedy for me was the underlying satire regarding the cynicism of corruption in India.
Naseeruddin Shah, Om Puri, Ravi Baswani, Pankaj Kapur, Bhakti Barve and Satish Shah deliver hilarious performances.
I don't know if this movie is best Indian movie but I also don't know if there is any Indian movie better than this.(1)This movie has the best casting in Indian movie history including Naseeruddin, Om puri, pankaj kapoor, Ravi Baswani(a surprise and great performance from him), Satish shah, Satish Kaushik, Deepak Qazir(another surprising performer), Bhakti Barve, Rajesh Puri - All at their best.
(3)Arguably the best comedy movie I have ever seen(may be Andaz apna apna is a close contender in Hindi cinema).
This is by far the best black comedy movie I have ever seen.Truly an Indian Masterpiece!.
worth watching again n again n again .i never got tired n guaranteed neither will any1 who watches.this is a legendary one.this one puts todays comic era to shame no doubt about it.the cinematography the live wired performances.the background score ditto to story the darkness behind the comic lines,friendship,betrayal,business debacle,corrupt law and order,stupidity to its tenth category,dead talking stageplay turns into firing dialogue shadowing the mythological and todays generation,workshop menace,forging documents,spying on the bad,revealing you are the spy and getting chased with a dead man on skates!!!man this is truly awesome to ears what a treat to your senses imagine.go now and grab a copy if you totally want to brainwash your ribs ha ha ha...!.
I had watched the movie years ago and thought it was funniest film I had ever seen.
Somehow the grand Moghul also makes an entrance - these 15 minutes are worth the price of the DVD and will have you in stitches.But in the end this is a real commentary on corruption that is rampant in the country, and is actually a rather sad tale.Naseeruddin Shah is great as the serious photographer, has reasonably comedic moments, but it is Ravi Baswani as the petrified sidekick that steals the show.
Om Puri is great at the drunk contractor type and Satish Shah is brilliant as the "corpse".Early parts of the film are a bit slapstick but this is rewarding fare indeed, so go watch it..
This may be one of Kundan Shah's earliest movies but is without doubt amongst his very best.
And what an effort it turned out to be.The story revolves around two photographers(Naseeruddin Shah and Ravi Baswani)who are starting their career by opening a photo studio.
Add to that some amazing and memorable performances by Naseer, Ravi, Om Puri, Satish Kaushik, Satish Shah and Pankaj Kapur.
Its a total laugh riot from the start till the end.A special mention must be made of the penultimate 'Ram Lila' scene which is so well shot and executed that it is difficult to find a better comic sequence in the entire Hindi movie database.That one could make such a brilliant movie in the first attempt speaks volumes for Kundan's ability.
What started of as a first time attempt involving fresh graduates (the movie included in various roles some of Kundan's peers at the Film and Television Institute of India, Pune; Vidhu Vinod Chopra, Sudhir Misra who later became top directors in the Mumbai film Industry), actually turned out to be cult movie, an attempt that was never before experimented in the Indian film circuit.
I have seen the movie more than a dozen times and it still makes me laugh like a kid.Definitely 10 on 10..
It is made by a phenomenal team: Kundan Shah, Sudhir Mishra, Nasrudeen Shah, Pankaj Kapoor, Satish Shah ...The story packs in a good deal of 'social message' laced through this otherwise funny movie.
It is a cult classic and the one of the funniest movies Indian cinema has produced.
Naseer,Ravi Baswani ,Pankaj Kapoor Satish Shah ,Satish Kaushik and Om Puri have given brilliant performances.
Although the plot is simple where two aspiring photographers got caught up in the dirty world of politics ,builders etc,somehow everything clicked and worked for this movies storyline.I wish they had produced some more movies like this during the hay days.
I really enjoy some scenes like Mahabharat Scene(The shooting of this scene is done in Sahitya Sangha Mandir at Charni Road Station, Mumbai), Dual Conversation on telephone, Chase of Nasaruddin and Ravi with Satish shah's dead body, all scenes of Om Puri.
So far best comedy movie ever made in India !!!!!!!.
However I am amazed how many people have not seen the film despite the fact that we live in an age where, on any given day we have at least 100 films that are aired on various channels.Another thing that does not fail to amaze is the fact that this movie actually flopped.
One of the Best comedy films I've ever seen.
This film is a must see for all those who like good comedy.
The movie has some of the best actors in India (and also one of the very best in the world, Om Puri): Naseeruddin Shah, Om Puri, Pankaj Kapoor, Bhakti Barve, Satish Shah, Nina Gupta, Ravi Vaswani, Deepak Qazir, Rajesh Puri and, in one of his best performances till date, Satish Kaushik.Anyone who saw this movie probably remembers the great comic aspects of it.
For the non-Indian viewers the lack of context may make the "Mahabharat" episode slightly less funny but, like other cinematic greats, the rest of the movie should not be lesser for the dubbing or subtitling.Some of my favourite not-strictly-comic moments from the movie were: the Tarneja press conference on top of a sky-scraper, the brush with the police constable on top of the bridge and the following scene on the railway station, and the other, earlier, scene at the (same?) railway station.
Satire, farce, dark comedy, suspense and slapstick are all bundled up into one big beautiful mess in Jaane Bhi Do Yaaron.A highly ambitious, wildly irreverent and slyly subversive slice of Indian Independent Cinema, the film embodies the anarchic spirit of the 60s.
This film always makes u laugh the times u see it...People call Andaz Apna Apna as a cult comedy but this film deserves this attention and the former one doesn't.
Must watch it if u haven't seen it...A classic gem forever and had some of the best comical scenes I have ever witnessed in a flick like this....
I did got into the one of the groups, but decided at last to be in between both of them, while writing this review.Released back in 1983 and again in 2012, the film has its own share of success and fame and becoming cult classics but most importantly, it is remembered for its particular The Mahabharata scene, which according to me, is also one of the biggest highlights when culminating the film and its comedy and seriousness; the dark and bleak representation of India at its 80's where the story of the film, is based on real bridge mishap and also takes cues and tributes to Michelangelo Antonioni's 1966 Blow-Up, which also tells similar story.Plus, gone are the today when you could have clean and pure subtle comedy without being to open about what you are joking of and this in reference goes to this film like many of Indian films before 2000 especially of Gulzar saab and Hrishikesh Mukherjee saab.
And this excels at it while also tributing to Charlie Chaplin works and Cartoons of 80's and 90's.And, about the performances, i believe there can be no word said to judge or criticize them, since they have acted purely on their own caliber and experience since as in of the written interviews with the director Shah said that there was no particular script and actors mostly have to come up with and improvise on it, to make it look it that way.
What he created with this movie, has parallels spanning decades in the future.However, as a film in itself, Jaane Bhi Do Yaaro succeeds at providing entertainment, as well as telling a clever plot that plays out seamlessly as a grounded and well thought-out story, using effective symbolism and (huge plus point) NO SONGS!!!This dark satire is one of the greatest ever put to film.
All the Stalwarts of Indian Cinema like Nasseruddun Shah, Om Puri, Pankaj Kapur are in this movie and it was a pleasure watching them.
My favorite scene from the movie is the pre- climax; the Mahabharat play sequence which was Hilarious.
Jaane Bhi Do Yaaron Is A Comedy Drama Directed By Kundan Shah ...Written By Kundan Shah & Sudhir Mishra...The Script Is Very Interesting....Screenplay is Again Funny ....The Story Revolves Around Two Friends, Attempting To Start-up Their Own Photo Studio, But It Doesn't Work...Finally They Get An Assignment From The Editor Of The "Khabardar" News Publication...They Come Across Shady Dealings, Corruption & Murder,They Decide To Fight To Bring The Guilty To Light...Naseerudin Shah & Ravi Baswani As Photographers Are Very Funny...Especially Naseerudin Shah He Does Better...The Editor Bhakti Bharve The Multi Layer Character Is Amazing...She Does Well...Satish Shah The Corrupt Commissioner...Is Marvelous ...Then We Have Likes Of Pankaj Kapoor & Om Puri The Corrupt Builders ...Pankaj Kapoor is Excellent ...Others Have Done Fine....In Terms Of Music ...There Are No Songs...The Back Ground Music Is Fine.....There Is Only One Song They Sing When They Feel Low...
To Motivate Them Self...That is "Hum Honge Kaamyaab Ek Din".Overall A Classic Movie...Movie Might Be Very Funny ...But The Story More Deals With Corruption In The Country...Seems Like Nothing Can Be Done...Lets Hope For Better Tomorrow ...Must Watch :).
Definitely the funniest Hindi movie I've seen, this is the story of two friends, (Vinod - Naseeruddin Shah and Sudhir - Ravi Baswani) attempting to start-up their own photo studio.
Shobha, feeding the simple-minded duo a spiel about righteousness and honesty, assigns them the job of spying/photographing the shady dealings between Police commissioner D'Mello (Satish Shah) and property builder Tarneja (Pankaj Kapoor).
What follows, and is pretty much the rest of the movie, is a long, extended chase (and what a chase - meanders into the oddest of places) with the bad guys (Tarneja, and Co.) and the good guys (Vinod and Sudhir) chasing the corpse.This is a short, slickly directed film, and has a cast of excellent actors.
Pankaj Kapoor, Satish shah and Om Puri adequately represent the bad guys, with Kapoor and Puri responsible for some great comic scenes.
Best (Indian) Comedy Movie I Ever Seen ...
I think, it is a movie of highest standard and can be compared even with any Hollywood classic comedy film.
To me, only two comedy movie so far can be considered as a masterpiece in Indian/ Hindi cinema for their "First to Last" pure entertainment ...
Best of All time Hindi Comedies.
All in all,the old times of the movie is good and makes u laugh all the more since all seems realistic though it is not.
When I say its overrated, I mean to say that its still a very good movie, much much ahead of its times, but its not as great as its made out to be.I will just outline some of the negatives that may or may not have been pointed out by prior reviewers.
May be the film was made in a hurry.Another thing is, when you watch the movie now, the humor doesn't work much.
This movie is satire on corruption in India.
This movie is satire on corruption in India.
Kundan Shah has directed the movie really well.
This is indeed one of the best comedy movies in Hindi language .
A must watch Bollywood movie...Great story line with awesome star cast...
After 20 years I watch this film again and again and I get something new every time.
The best thing I like about this film is its unique narration i.e. to find out the dead body Sudhir and Vinod enact the whole scene.
I have no idea if one can write this kind of a script on a paper.This movie is unparalleled as far as great actors in one film is concerned.
Kundan Shah debutted with this film which was ahead of it's times, It was a satire on the corruption and how common man are used by business magnates, The film starred no big stars, had no songs, it was made on a shoestring budget of 7 lakhs.
Bhakti Bharve is superb in her chameleon type character, her voice was dubbed by Anita Kanwar Satish Shah is perfect in his part, Om Puri one of the best actors proves his versatility too, surprisingly in the same year he starred in another cult status film Ardh Satya. |
tt1288499 | La La Land | While stuck in traffic on a Los Angeles highway ("Another Day of Sun"), Mia Dolan, an aspiring actress, has a moment of road rage with Sebastian Wilder, a struggling jazz pianist. Her subsequent audition goes poorly, where the casting director takes a call in the middle of an emotional scene. That night, Mia's roommates take her to a lavish party in the Hollywood Hills ("Someone in the Crowd"). She walks home after her car is towed.
During a gig at a restaurant, Sebastian slips into a passionate jazz improvisation despite warnings from the owner to stick to the setlist of traditional Christmas songs. Mia overhears the music as she passes by ("Mia and Sebastian's Theme"). Moved, she enters the restaurant, but Sebastian is fired. As he storms out, Mia attempts to compliment him, but he brushes her off.
Months later, Mia runs into Sebastian at a party where he plays in a 1980s pop cover band; she teases him by requesting "I Ran (So Far Away)", a song he considers an insult for "a serious musician". After the gig, the two walk to their cars, lamenting each other's company despite the chemistry between them ("A Lovely Night").
The next day, Sebastian arrives at Mia's work, and she shows Sebastian around the movie lot, where she works as a barista, while explaining her passion for acting. Sebastian takes Mia to a jazz club, describing his passion for jazz and desire to open his own club. They warm to each other ("City of Stars"). Sebastian invites Mia to a screening of Rebel Without a Cause; Mia accepts, forgetting a commitment with her current boyfriend. Bored with the double date with her boyfriend, she runs to the theater, finding Sebastian as the film begins. The two conclude their evening with a romantic dance at the Griffith Observatory ("Planetarium").
After more failed auditions, Mia decides, at Sebastian's suggestion, to write a one-woman play. Sebastian begins to perform regularly at a jazz club ("Summer Montage"), and the two move in together. Sebastian's former classmate Keith invites him to be the keyboardist in his fusion jazz band, where he will be offered a steady income. Although dismayed by the band's pop style, Sebastian signs after overhearing Mia trying to convince her mother that Sebastian is working on his career. Mia attends one of their concerts ("Start a Fire") but is disturbed, knowing Sebastian does not enjoy his band's music.
During the band's first tour, Mia and Sebastian get into an argument; she accuses him of abandoning his dreams, while he claims she liked him more when he was unsuccessful. Mia leaves, insulted and frustrated. Sebastian misses Mia's play due to a photo shoot with the band that he had forgotten. The play is a disaster; few people attend, and Mia overhears dismissive comments. Despondent and unable to pay the theater back, she moves back home to Boulder City, Nevada.
Sebastian receives a call from a casting director who attended Mia's play, inviting her to a film audition. Sebastian drives to Boulder City and persuades Mia to attend. The casting directors ask Mia to tell a story; she sings about her aunt who inspired her to pursue acting ("Audition (The Fools Who Dream)"). Sebastian encourages her to devote herself to the opportunity. They profess they will always love each other but are uncertain of their future.
Five years later, Mia is a famous actress and happily married to another man, with whom she has a daughter. One night, the couple stumble upon a jazz bar. Noticing the "Seb's" logo she had once designed, Mia realizes Sebastian has opened his club. As Sebastian notices Mia in the crowd, he plays their love theme and the two imagine what might have been had their relationship worked perfectly ("Epilogue"). Before Mia leaves with her husband, she shares a smile with Sebastian. | satire | train | wikipedia | New Star of Comedy = Marc Wootton. Upon Watching this show for the first time I had not heard of Marc Wootton nor seen any prior advertising about it. However this show proved to be a masterclass in clever, witty, improvised comedy.La La Land has a simple premise with Wootton letting loose his three comedy creations (all of which are seeking fame and fortune) on the unsuspecting residents of L.A. Of course Sacha Baron Cohen has already covered similar ground with both 'Borat' and 'Bruno', so it could be suggested that this show lacks in originality and that is partially true. However, do not let that put you off as Wootton really does bring something new to the table with three very funny characters and a brilliant mocking of the L.A culture.As for the characters, this is where this show really delivers. Gary Garner, Shirley Ghostman and Brendan Allen have some similarities with each being Brits, completely inept, utterly deluded and importantly very funny.Gary Garner is a former East London Cabbie turned wannabe actor, who claims to be 'the next big thing you haven't heard of yet' and models himself on Hardman 'Jason Stratham'. He is living with Hollywood legend Ruta Lee while in L.A and the exchanges between the two are particularly funny with Lee becoming ever more exasperated. Garner without doubt proves to be the most amusing creation with Wootton playing the Brash, ignorant but still earnest cabbie to perfection.Shirley Ghostman is a rogue Physcic trying to become 'America's new Physcic superstar'. He has been banned from the U.K due to making false claims about a missing girl and being caught out in a Newspaper sting. Ghostman appears to be in denial about his sexuality despite being particularly camp and often being caught in compromising situations such as viewing gay pornography or suggesting a meeting to take place at a Public Toilets. Wootton plays Ghostman almost worryingly well and the characters real nasty/bitchy streak works great.Brendan Allen is a 'documentary film maker' who is clearly passionate but idea's often seemed flawed. His bizarre idea's provide the main source of comedy, such as, his insistence on filming a documentary in a single take or his view that cages have never been used to help film sharks underwater and his attempt to become the 'right wing Michael Moore'. Allen is the epitome of ineptitude and provides the audience with many laughs.Many have commented that Wootton is the 'new Sacha Baron Cohen', others have suggested he's a pale imitation, but it is entirely unfair to compare the two with Wootton a relative newcomer and both undoubtedly doing a brilliant job of improvisational comedy. If you enjoyed either 'Borat' or 'Bruno' or just like clever, innovative comedy then this show is for you.. Once it gets going, pretty funny. First off, it's true that this show is more or less a knock off of Sasha Baron Cohen's routine, playing characters in real situations with real people. It shouldn't be held against the show that 'it's been done before', because in fairness, it's a schtick that can only be pulled off by any one person for so long before the non-anonymity of the characters makes it impossible; so seeing La La Land as a continuation of a genre, rather than a rip-off, is the show worth watching? I'd say yes. It's got a much darker humor than SBC's routine, and this show actually presents something quite different than Ali G. or Borat or Bruno did--- rather than 'shocking people', Wooten instead shows more nuanced reaction slowly rising up to full unease. And unlike some of SBC's routines, where the ignorance or stupidity of the American public is exposed, we see the good side of a lot of people, and it's actually quite nice to see Wooten's characters confronted (rather than simply bamboozled) by his 'victims'.The show seems quite short; it's best to watch a bunch of episodes at once (it takes an episode or two for me to ease into the humor of it). This isn't the greatest comedy in the world, but it's pretty funny if you like your humor dark and quite varied, from subtle uneasy to brashly overstated.. Brilliant stuff yet again!. To the reviewer above who says its a knock off of Sasha Baron Cohen...You don't know what you are talking about. If you bothered doing any research you will know that Marc Wootton was doing this AGES ago with the even better Cyderdelic, My Best Friend and Shirley Ghostman. Don't get me wrong....Cohen is very good but Marc Wootton is better. Check out his other stuff and tell me I'm wrong - you wont regret it.La La Land isn't quite as good as his previous stuff but its still absolutely hilarious. Just far too many bits to mention here!. Tommy Wiseau fans! Watch this!. Writing another quick review here because...one of the episodes features (by accident) a certain Tommy Wiseau of The Room fame and more lately The Disaster Artist.Just buy this and see! "I am an American!" |
tt0118785 | Budbringeren | Jerry's childhood friend Frankie Merman (Dana Gould) promises to get Jerry a new car as a thank you for a show he did for Frankie's car dealership. George prepares for his weekly call to his parents. Kramer plans his revenge on Pottery Barn because of the overabundance of catalogs they've sent him in the past month. Elaine is back with David Puddy, but after having a "love at first sight" encounter with diner patron Jack (Toby Huss), she plans to keep Puddy in reserve until she finds out if the new guy can "handle the workload".
Kramer gets deluged with more catalogs and plans to stop the mail. George's parents cut him short on his weekly phone call. The "car" Jerry gets is a van and not the Saab he'd hoped for. Frankie reminds him of the childhood dream they had where they got a van and toured the country. Jerry doesn't want the van, but doesn't want to hurt Frankie's feelings by refusing to take it. (Frankie's childhood nickname was "Fragile Frankie" due to his penchant for emotional extremes, a trait that does not appear to have changed in adulthood.) George pops in on his parents and reminds his parents that they didn't call him back, but they have to leave right away. Kramer bricks up his mailbox, but that doesn't stop his mail from being delivered to Jerry's mailbox.
Jerry plans to sell the van; Kramer helps him out by composing a classified ad that cites "interesting trades considered." Kramer goes to the post office to cancel his mail permanently. Newman confesses to him that no one really needs mail but that there is a greater conspiracy at work.
George demands to know what's going on with his parents; they tell him they are cutting him loose. George isn't ready for abandonment; he plans to date his cousin Rhisa as a means of getting his parents involved in his life. While going through an old VHS tape, Jerry discovers an old commercial that features Jack as "The Wiz," a mascot for the electronics store of the same name. Meanwhile, Kramer wants Jerry's van and offers Anthony Quinn's old T-shirt as an "interesting trade".
Elaine, after seeing Jack as "The Wiz", wants Puddy back but is rejected by him. Kramer uses the van to launch his anti-postal campaign. George's cousin is into their relationship; however, George schemes to have his parents catch him making out with her. Jerry searches Central Park for Frankie, who has gone to dig a hole and sit in it. Meanwhile, George parks the van there and Frankie finds it and yells "Seinfeld's Van! Seinfeld's Van!", which George thinks is "Son of Sam". Because of the yelling, The Costanzas find the van and begin having sex in it. Jerry goes to apologize to Frankie and helps him out of the hole. They and George and Rhisa see the van "rocking"; they open it up and see the Costanzas "in flagrante delicto". Frankie advises Jerry that he must sell the van after seeing what they saw, to which Jerry agrees.
Kramer is captured and enlightened by the Postmaster General Henry Atkins (played by Wilford Brimley, with the scene a parody of his role in the climactic scene of Absence of Malice). As he leaves he sees Newman being led into the room who says to Kramer, "Tell the world my story." Jack, Elaine's new boyfriend, gets his second piece of good news in one day: he's "The Wiz" again and she is taking him back. George is with his parents who describe him about the lovemaking and they prepare to do it again, much to George's disgust. | romantic | train | wikipedia | Once we rented this movie just to see what it was about.
It focuses on Oslo mailman Roy Amundsen, who is sort of down on his luck.
When she leaves her key in a mailbox, he has it copied, gets locked in her apartment, and gets a little (or a lot) more than he bargained for!
Some of the world's most interesting movies have come from Scandinavia (e.g., anything by Ingmar Bergman).
"Budbringeren" (called "Junk Mail" in English) is no exception.
This look at some of Norway's grittier aspects is truly eye-opening.
Odd Norwegian black comedy.
Like a Nordic Coen Brothers film, this is more concerned with portraying quirky characters and odd scenarios, but despite some nifty camerawork, it is a rather ugly film, revelling in its depressingly squalid milieu without making any real point at the end of the day.
The anti-hero remains a complete enigma throughout, but funnily enough, despite my reservations at the beginning, it was rather hard not to be won over at the end of the day.
There were some marvellously taut action and suspense sequences, and some hilariously humourous scenes.
Rather similar to most Scandinavian films I've seen actually.
Junk Mail is a Norweigan movie, and it is as black a comedy as I've seen.
But the makers of the movie have stumbled onto a comedic truth that never fails: take an aberrant character trait, and take it to the absolute limit.
In the process of sneaking around a deaf girl's apartment whom he fancies, he saves her life after she tries to commit suicide.
This weird movie will NOT work for you if you don't think it's funny.
And this movie will only be funny for you to the degree that you're cynical and capricious in your affections.
People of good heart, stay away..
A Kinder and Gentler Peeping Tom Movie.
JUNK MAIL (3+ outta 5 stars) Offbeat but sincere comedy-thriller about a lonely postman who comes across a set of keys accidentally left in the mailbox by a cute young girl on his route.
He makes a copy of her keys and secretly checks out her apartment while she is at work.
He also has a habit of disposing of junk mail in an out of the way train tunnel (whether this is out of sheer laziness or to spare the people on his route the bother is never really explained).
One day he accidentally falls asleep and is trapped inside the girl's bedroom when she comes home from work and then...
Suffice to say that things get a little more complicated.
This quirky little Norwegian film didn't get a whole lot of attention on its US release.
it's well-written and well-acted and definitely worth checking out.
This is in fact a tightly controlled film about a man who does good despite himself..
Although little appears to happen in this film, it is in fact a very well controlled piece about a postman who has opted out of engaging with the world.
He accidentally saves the life of a suicidal woman, and through committing this unintentional good act becomes a better person - entirely against his will.The performances are flawless, and the direction unobtrusive, giving the illusion of effortlessness that is in fact very hard to achieve.
Despite being a film of great moral complexity, Junk Mail wears its serious purpose very lightly, and is in fact very funny indeed.Certainly one of the best films to come out of Scandinavia in recent years, and one which shows a side of Oslo few outsiders ever witness..
Short and sweet with a lot of original material!.
This film depicts Oslo as a rather run-down city which, as far as I can remember, it is not; and as for the Norwegian Postal Service ...well that seems to be struggling along if we can judge by the unreliable antics of Roy (Robert Skjaerstad), one of the young postmen.
He not only opens and reads private mail, but also lets himself into an apartment when he finds a key left in a mail-box.
His exploration of the rooms leaves little time for delivering letters so he dumps the contents of his bag in a railway tunnel.
The originality of the story is completely charming as it blends romance, suspense and comedy in which Roy seems to get involved at every turn.
One scene I particularly like is the one in which a locomotive almost runs him down in the tunnel and scatters his letters high and wide like a flurry of snowflakes.
In another scene he is on the point of being gunned down in his own grungey apartment when nearby jackhammers reverberate throughout the whole building giving him the opportunity to make his get-away.
Unfortunately for Roy (always a loser it seems) his inscribed wrist watch falls off in his struggle and so the gunman is eventually able to trace his whereabouts.
The film is short and sweet, well worth watching.
It has a lot of originality in the script and the acting is first class.
The film suggests we should look under our beds before retiring .
One never knows who may be hiding there...particularly in Oslo..
A brilliant movie by Pal Sletaune!
It's probably the "greyest" film I've ever seen.
In my opinion the best Norwegian film ever, and it is absolutely worth watching.
But like most movies, it is best in its original language, so people who doesn't speak Norwegian won't have the same experience, I guess...
But it's still worth watching because of the depressing mood in it(!)..
A postman is like a taxi-driver, a medium of connecting people and places.
Like the taxi driver, the postman lives a vicarious life: he sees others living theirs, but has no part in it himself.
Unlike other people, who generally stay in their allotted social position - in work, home and play - the postman and taxi driver are mobile and fluid: they are urban creatures who can unite people, classes, places that normally would remain apart.If there is one genre that depends on connection, cross-class and -space mobility, it is the detective genre.
A detective needs to be able to connect disparate clues and suspects into the single narrative of a crime.
'Junk mail' begins with a crime, filmed with some urgency, as a couple mug a security guard and steal a large amount of money.
This is, to the audience, a random, inexplicable act - we don't know who any of these characters are, and why they are in this situation.The next sequence introduces the film's protagonist, the postman.
He opens their mail.
By mixing his job and his personal perversions, he is able to explain that opening sequence, find the clues and piece them together.Normally, the detective is a moral force - he restores social order after the violation of a crime.
Roy is the least appealing 'hero' of modern cinema, filthy in personal habits, anti-social, the kind of cynical, cowardly brute who violates those who, through their own sins, have no legal redress.But he is also a non-entity: a comic scene of humiliation at work reveals him to have no talent whatsoever.
When he breaks into Line's apartment, he tries to imagine what it is like to be her, to the point where he unwittingly falls asleep on her bed.
He is Chesterton's invisible man (also a postman) - unnoticed because he's always there.Like many recent alienated urban heroes ('Chopper', 'Bleeder', etc.), Roy is a child of Travis Bickle, and the look of the film has the lurid, sickly colour of 'Taxi Driver', the city as vomit, with Roy hurtling towards his own warped redemptive rescue.
But there is a vision of Oslo as a dank, run-down bureaucracy similar to the Czech comedies of the 1960s, or, more obviously, Orwell (or 'Brazil'), that bespeaks a more social purpose - this is not the film the Norwegian tourist board will be distributing.
The glum scene where Roy is awarded a watch for bravery having been attacked by thugs (his strap got caught in his panicked hurry to oblige) is comically reminiscent of Kaurismaki..
the high art of making a light but melancholic movie.
it is about a postman who read the letters he's supposed to deliver and eventually even throws them away.
suddenly he finds himself in the middle of a absurd and even a little dangerous story.
but in my opinion just needs this story to talk about the relations between people.
and what makes this movie so special is the fact that it actually not just shows pictures and sequences you've seen a hundred-times before.it really has, i can't put it differently, respect for its personal.this means that the persons keep their own personality for the whole absurd-tragic story of the movie..
This has got to be one of the most miserable films that I have ever had the fortune to see.
I watched the film a couple of years back after it had been standing on my shelf for a year or so before that, it had me depressed and laughing and then depressed again throughout its hour and a half running time.Anyone who enjoys low budget, gritty realism type films should make the effort to see this.
It's about an Oslo postman who is a little bit too nosey for his own good.
His prying about other people lives leads him to trouble of the kind not generally associated with the postal service.
I'm not going to tell you everything about the movie because, to be honest, there isn't much to tell.
If you are lucky enough (and patient enough to watch a Norwegian language film) then you will have stumbled upon one of the greatest dark comedies you're ever likely to see.
Norway's greatest gift to an audience which is becoming more and more receptive of non-English language film..
This is definitely one of the best contemporary Scandinavian films with all the hallmark of a top artistic production.
All the characters are not without flaws and they are presented as anti-heroes.
The movie has a grunge atmosphere and it is laced with humour and mockery.
I can't really throw more light into this without creating too great an expectation for you except to say I really enjoyed it for pure entertainment.
I like the quaint odd-ball filmmaking style created by Pål Sletaune.
In the film, the main character, a man in his late thirties, not faring too well in life who's just waiting for something to happen, runs into the same woman several times and starts to take an interest in her.
When he sees her leave a key in her mailbox while on the job he can't resist; this was the first in many instances that left me saying "what the hell is this guy doing?".
Not only does he check out her apartment but he gets the key copied, and even gets trapped there on a return visit, resorting to hiding under the bed when the woman unexpectedly arrives.
Like the other reviewers were saying, this film does make Oslo look a bit shabby (not that I've been there).
It's is worth watching, just to see what this guy gets up to and it's a memorable viewing experience..
It starts out as a "look-what-a-s****y-life" type film, but it has more than that!
For instance it contains the best ever karaoke-scene on film, and the story is very intelligent and well composed (everything that happens in it is actually somehow connected).
It is really a story of love and how messing in other people's business can get you into trouble.
I didn't know delivering the mail could be so funny.
In my opinion this movie HAS a great plot and IS funny.
The tragic, dark, miserable lives of Oslo's lowlifes are brilliantly shown in this movie.
It's a well done low-budget movie .
In short : A great movie definitely worth spending time to watch..
I think it´s great.
The guy that wrote about it surely was looking for a Chevy Chase style movie or something like that.
"Junk mail" is a movie that shows the common feelings using a singular sense of humor similar to Woody Allen´s.
It´s a movie for people who think..
An almost perfect film..
The Dutch TV guide gave this the "Film of the Day" title and appropriately so.
Dark, tense, funny, fresh..
Dark, tense, funny, fresh..
The atmosphere of this film, with it's dirty, miserable version of Oslo, and the lowlife, ugly losers and criminals...
I think people who like "Down by Law" and the Finnish part of "Night on Earth" might like this one too..
This has to be the best norweagian movie for many years.
This has to be the best norweagian movie for many years.
The carachters are great, the athmosphere is really dark, like in the center of town.
It really catches Oslo at it's darkest, things that we really know, but don't really think about.
Like how much does your mailman really know about you?
It's a fun movie as well, see it!!.
This was pretty good for a Norwegian film.
"Budbringeren" has got to be one of the best movies to come out of Norway in the recent years.
It isn`t a classic by any means, but it is a step in the right direction for Norwegian films(which mostly are REALLY BAD).This movie is dark and about a dodgy postman, who puts his nose where it doesn`t belong, and he soon has to pay for it.
This movie is about 80 minutes long so you won`t get tired or bored, which other Norwegian films should take a note of.
Odd black comedy from Scandinavia.
Junk Mail doesn't have much of a story and it's major message seems to be 'mind your own business'.
Robert Skjaestad plays a lazy postman who can't be bothered delivering all the catalogues and other junk, so he deposits it all in a railway siding hidden by a tunnel.
He's also a bit of a Peeping Tom, and without giving too much away he gets himself into an awkward situation involving some stolen money.
A bit of a nineties Billy Liar, Junk Mail ends on an unsatisying note that tries to tie up some loose ends but doesn't.
Perhaps this is the beginning of a Brave New Norwegian Cinema.
"Junk Mail", a comedy out of Oslo, tells of the activities of a grungy slug of postman whose curiosity and lack of good sense gets him in to a variety of undesirable situations.
The camera follows the slovenly little protag as he goes about his business among a meager cast with almost no script delivering mail and almost nothing which can be regarded as entertainment.
"Junk Mail" is the kind of unusual film which critics love and the public can't figure out why.
Factor in subtitles and this flick just isn't worth the time...unless you're a critic, of course.
One of the best movies in history....
The Norwegian movie, Budbringeren/Junk Mail, nearly got an Oscar.
The movie has changed the Norwegian film culture totally.
It's sarcasms and black humor are actually working well on most people.
The thing with Junk Mail is that people either like it, or not.
Many people from other contries, would think of Oslo as a horrible city...
Oslo is actually beautiful, well, most of it.
The only problem with this movie is that they are showing the worst parts of Oslo (The film was made in a small part of Oslo east).
It can make people from other contries think of Norway as a 'dirty' country...
Please don't think that about Norway just because of a 'black' film.
I do think that for an international movie, like this one, that they should have shot a few scenes in better parts of the city.
If you already have been to Norway, Junk Mail probably would be funnier to watch....
This guy probably thinks Chris Rock is God's gift to mankind.
The movie is funny, but it doesn't show off..
would like to tell you that the movie is categorized as IIB and shown at Cine-Art House only.
film title "Junk Mail" is used instead of 'Budbringeren';selling points of this feature on local paper included Cannes Festival, Sundance, Oscar best foreign film nomination..
This was another boring Norwegian movie.
movie.
The movie is not funny, but it was billed as a comedy.
This movie is not exciting, but it was billed as an adventure.
This film was not good, although some critics gave it a thumb up.
I guess that if you are Scandinavian you might enjoy it, because it is a Swedish film.
Though it was labeled as a "romantic thriller" on the videocassette that I rented, nothing can be further from either the romantic or the thriller than "Junk Mail." By some reason certain filmmakers think that simply putting a group of people in ugly surroundings they will make their film funny.
There must be also such old-fashioned things as scripting, acting and directing and these aspects are almost non-existent in this film.And its portrayal of Norway and Norwegians will unlikely make the country appealing to the outside world..
A dark little Goldilocks parable.
I can't agree with the wholly negative comments posted by some - I thought this was a nicely dark little film, with enough strange characters to keep you interested.
An Inauspicious Introduction to the Films of Norway.
Doesn't anyone in Norway take a bath regularly is all I could think of during most of the viewing of this misguided effort.
The film wanders so much that the viewer begins to think that they are making it up as they go along.
It will now be difficult for me to avoid films from Norway in the future..
This is one of the worst films I've ever seen.
Dull, drab lives of completely uninteresting people.
Going to see this movie is a complete waste of time and money. |
tt0464106 | Manmadhan | Madhankumar (Silambarasan) is a chartered accountant by profession. He also learns music as part-time in a college. Mythili (Jyothika) also learns music from the same college. Mythili gets scared seeing Madhan because once she had a dream of getting raped by Madhan. Later on she realizes Madhan’s kind nature and the both become good friends.
But Madhan also has another side where he finds and kills morally incorrect girls in the city. He takes the dead bodies of those girls to drainage and burns them to ashes and stores it in a bottle with the name of the girl pasted over the bottle. Media attention turn towards the case of missing girls and Assistant Commissioner Deva (Atul Kulkarni) is in charge of finding the person behind the mystery.
One day, Mythili finds Madhan riding a bike with a girl at the pillion. On the next day, Mythili gets shocked to see the news that the girl whom she spotted with Madhan the previous day goes missing. Mythili thinks that Madhan is behind all the crime and informs police about Madhan and his whereabouts. Madhan gets arrested.
During investigation, Madhan reveals that it is his younger brother Madhan Raj (also Silambarasan) who is responsible for the all problems. The story moves to a flashback where Madhan Raj, an innocent guy comes from a village to join engineering. He falls in love with his classmate Vaishnavi (Sindhu Tolani). Vaishnavi also reciprocates her love for Madhan Raj seeing his good nature. But Madhan Raj’s friends inform him that Vaishnavi has an affair with her relative Seenu who also studies in the same class. When Madhan Raj asks about this to Vaishnavi, she gets angry thinking that Madhan Raj does not trust her.
Madhan Raj realizes his mistake and goes to Vaishnavi’s house to apologize but gets shocked to see her on bed with Seenu. He also hears Vaishnavi’s conversation with Seenu that she pretends to love Madhan Raj but would like to marry him, so that she can take advantage of his innocence and sincere love which will help her lead a life the way she wants and Madhan Raj will be like a slave for her throughout her life. Madhan Raj gets furious on seeing this and kills both Vaishnavi and Seenu. He returns to meet his brother Madhankumar and narrates the happenings. Madhan Raj sets out in search of girls cheating in the name of love to kill them. Flashback ends here.
Police investigates about Madhan Raj and gets all evidence about his existence. Madhankumar is released from the case. Now Mythili apologizes to Madhankumar and also proposes her love towards him which he rejects saying that he does not love her. Mythili leaves the place saying that she will wait for Madhankumar believing he will accept her love someday.
The story again moves to a flashback where it is shown only to audience that it is Madhankumar who is behind all the murders. Madhan Raj meets his brother, informs about the happenings and commits suicide. Madhankumar decide to take revenge for his brother’s death by killing girls who cheat in the name of love. He hides his brother’s death thereby making him to be absconding so that he can escape in case of being caught. The movie ends showing that Madhankumar has hidden his love towards Mythili as he will still proceed killing such girls. | violence, murder, flashback | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0043643 | His Kind of Woman | Down on his luck, professional gambler Dan Milner (Robert Mitchum) accepts a mysterious job that will take him out of the country for a year but pays $50,000. He accepts a $5,000 down payment and tickets that will take him to an isolated Mexican resort, Morro's Lodge, where he will receive further instructions. Milner is attracted to the only other passenger on his chartered flight to the resort, Lenore Brent (Jane Russell).
When he arrives, Milner finds that several guests at the luxurious Baja California resort have hidden agendas. He is disappointed to find that Lenore is the girlfriend of famous movie actor Mark Cardigan (Vincent Price). Milner overhears two guests, self-proclaimed author Martin Krafft (John Mylong) and a man named Thompson (Charles McGraw), planning something which he suspects involves him. When Milner confronts them, he is given $10,000 and told that someone is on his way to Baja to see him.
Seemingly drunk Bill Lusk (Tim Holt) flies in, despite warnings of very dangerous storm conditions. Milner thinks he must be the contact, but when the two are alone, Lusk claims to be an undercover agent for the Immigration and Naturalization Service. He tells Milner that the U.S. government suspects that underworld boss Nick Ferraro (Raymond Burr), deported to Italy four years earlier, is scheming to get back into the country posing as Milner. The two men are a close physical match and Milner is a loner, so no one is likely to miss him. Krafft turns out to be a plastic surgeon.
Meanwhile, Cardigan's wife Helen (Marjorie Reynolds) and his personal manager Gerald Hobson (Carleton G. Young) show up. She had gone to Reno to get a divorce, not really intending to go through with it, as she is still fond of her husband. Hobson also thinks it is a poor idea because Cardigan's film contract is expiring and the bad publicity would make it hard to get a new one. With her own plans ruined, Lenore confesses to Milner that she is really just a singer looking to hook a wealthy spouse. Milner shows his softer side when he helps unhappy newlywed Jennie Stone (Leslie Banning) by cheating at poker to win back her husband's gambling losses from investment broker Myron Winton (Jim Backus).
Lusk sneaks into Thompson's room, but is caught and killed. Milner and Lenore stumble upon his body dumped on the beach. Milner is convinced that the dead man must have been telling the truth. That night, Thompson and his men take Milner to a newly arrived yacht. Milner is able to pass along a veiled plea for help to Lenore. She persuades Cardigan, who is tired of just pretending to be a hero, to help out. While the actor keeps the pursuing mobsters pinned down with his hunting rifle, Milner sneaks back onto the boat, knowing that the only way out of his mess is to deal with Ferraro once and for all. He is caught and brought to the crime lord. After killing two of the thugs and wounding and capturing Thompson, Cardigan mounts a rescue with the reluctant assistance of the Mexican police and a couple of the more adventurous guests. A gunfight breaks out aboard the boat, followed by a melee. Milner manages to break free and shoot Ferraro dead.
Cardigan and his wife are reconciled. Milner and Lenore end the film in a clinch. | murder | train | wikipedia | HIS KIND OF WOMAN, the first of two pairings of RKO's resident 'tough guy', Robert Mitchum, and it's major sex symbol, Jane Russell (the near-classic MACAO would follow, a year later), is such a wonderful, convoluted 'film noir' spoof that it is amazing that it has never appeared on video.
Broadly funny, and a more than a bit surreal, the tale of down-and-out gambler Mitchum 'hired' to travel to a remote Mexican resort to provide a 'body' so that a notorious gangster (Raymond Burr, sleekly villainous) can feign his death and return to the U.S., is action-packed, and has been described as "Bogie and Bacall on Steroids'!A great deal of the success of the John Farrow-directed film is due to the inspired casting of Vincent Price as a ham actor who gets to 'live out' his celluloid life, aiding Mitchum.
Price quotes Shakespeare, critiques his performance, and is amazed by his own heroics, and he has never been funnier, on screen.An excellent supporting cast, including Tim Holt, Charles McGraw, Marjorie Reynolds, Paul Frees (the famous Hollywood 'voice' actor, actually seen, for a change), and Jim Backus contribute to the on screen mayhem, and Russell sings "Five Little Miles From San Berdoo", one of her more memorable 50s numbers.From the opening scene, as Burr, exiled in Italy, listens to a short-wave radio broadcast of his successful career as an American crime kingpin ("Where is my money?" he demands, as an estimate of his revenue is quoted), to the brawling climax with Mitchum, aboard his yacht, as Price attempts a rescue, HIS KIND OF WOMAN is pure escapism, at it's best.Here's hoping that a DVD edition may soon be released!.
He and Jane Russell, beautifully teamed as an adventurous tough-guy and a brave saloon singer are very smooth together, in a movie where Vincent Price supplies many of the laughs, and everything works as effortlessly as a wave crashing onto a Mexican beach's sands.
Mitchum does his usual thing and swaggers around the set exuding machismo and testosterone, gets beaten up a few times, and enters into a romantic relationship with the ravishing Jane Russell -- who spices up the plot with a tight, slinky dress that looks like it was sprayed onto her voluptuous figure.
Raymond Burr delivers a convincing performance as a sinister crime boss whose sadistic thugs keep beating up Mitchum, who is splendidly bare-chested for the rest of the movie.Mitchum is finally rescued by Price -- who takes advantage of the mayhem to live out his lunatic fantasies -- and a heroic posse of intrepid hotel guests and cowardly Mexican cops.
In Lee Server's biography about Robert Mitchum the recounting of the making of His Kind of Woman could actually be the basis of an interesting film itself.Jane Russell of course was the personal creation of Howard Hughes and when Hughes bought RKO Studio, Robert Mitchum was his number one male star.
Besides that the original film had few laughs in it and Hughes did get a good streak of inspiration when he hired Vincent Price as the film was being re-shot for the second time and integrated scenes with him into the plot.
Of course who's ultimately hired him is our gangster villain Burr and let us say that His Kind of Woman may have been the inspiration for Faces Off with John Travolta and Nicholas Cage a few years ago.Tim Holt makes a brief appearance here as a Federal cop who warns Mitchum of what is in store for him and gets killed for his trouble.
But irony of ironies, Mitchum moved on to bigger and better things and Holt kept grinding out B films that were good, but way beneath his talent.Other assorted familiar movie faces like Charles McGraw, Marjorie Reynolds, Jim Backus, and Alberto Morin are in His Kind of Woman and give it a comfortable feel.His Kind of Woman is one of the great noir films ever done, even if it had to be shot over and over to get it right by Mr. Hughes's lights..
Then lunacy truly takes hold, as the plot eventually arrives, and Vincent Price, playing a barmy ham actor, takes over from Mitchum (magnificent as ever, baffled and goaded by a plot even less alert than he!) as the presiding spirit, and turns a moody thriller into the giddiest farce, where all the unpleasant aspects of film noir (fatalism, misogyny) are happily overturned.
The supporting cast is superb with Charles McGraw, Jane Russell, Raymond Burr, and especially Vincent Price, who steals the movie with a wonderfully comedic and hammy performance.
It had been chopped about by Howard Hughes and it shows in its length, absurdities, romantic corn and melodrama at times, but all mixed together with an atmospheric well acted noir frisson than can keep you glued to the end.Terse and seedy start has Mitchum forcibly payrolled by baddies to do some as yet unknown job in Mexico he spends the first hour trying to find out what it is.
Set in a relentlessly studio-bound Mexico, with stock footage to set the scenes, John Farrow's thriller centers on a professional gambler Dan Miner (Robert Mitchum), who becomes involved in a film noir-esque plot involving money, sex and illegality.
A down-on-his-luck Mitchum is bribed to go to Mexico where he meets an assortment of characters, including a menacing Raymond Burr.According to TMC, studio honcho Howard Hughes was greatly impressed by Vincent Price and insisted that his part be expanded.
Robert Mitchum as Dan Milner does well here, as he most always does, despite a confused script that starts out as a gangster drama and, about 80% into the movie, with Cardigan's (Vincent Price) rescue effort, tries to become a comedy, with little success.
And this movie will be remembered for being the supporting actor, great Vincent Price, was brilliant and his inspired acting surpassed the main actors, the solid Robert Mitchum and Jane Russell that by the way here shows your own singing talent.
Robert Mitchum and Jane Russell teamed up for producer Howard Hughes for the first time in "His Kind of Woman," which also stars Raymond Burr, Vincent Price, and Marjorie Reynolds.
Price is the real star of "His Kind Of Woman." He is the only thing that brings much interest to the rambling feature, his acting excellent and sparkling (at least, until near the end).As opposed to "Macao," where Mitchum and Russell grab you and won't let go, and are the central focus.
The plot involves Robert Mitchum as Dan Milner a gambler lured by mobsters to travel to a luxury Mexican holiday resort which is full of various émigrés from the USA, rather a few with something to hide.Milner immediately meets and falls for Lenore (Jane Russell) who is the mistress of ageing ham matinée idol Mark Cardigan (Vincent Price in a rare heroic role.)It soon becomes evident that Milner's life is in danger as many characters in the resort are just too jealously guarded.
The film was produced by Howard Hughes and he makes sure she looks like a knockout and you wonder how the censor approved some of those costumes which displayed some of her physical assets.Vincent Price provides the laughs as the actor awaiting a divorce, a hunter who likes to shoot animals, who wants to be adored for his films and takes a chance to be a hero in real life as he sets out to rescue Milner with a gang of misfits whilst quoting bad Hollywood lines.
John Farrow and Richard Fleisher co-directed this odd film noir semi-spoof that stars Robert Mitchum as hard-luck gambler Dan Milner, who is used by deported gangster Nick Ferraro(played by Raymond Burr) in an elaborate scheme to re-enter the country.
The film is also part romance, part comedy giving His Kind of Woman a fresh and riveting taste, Robert Mitchum is Slick, JAne Russell is Dazzling and Vincent Price is quite funny actually in a role that to a degree parodies his earlier work.
It is Funny, Individually, but when Paired with the Violent and Sadistic Raymond Burr Scenes, the Addition May Bring Notice but its Not a Good Fit.There are Nazi-Drugs and Close-Ups of Veins Waiting for Needles, Beatings with Belt Buckles Intercut with Price in Flowing Cape, Hamming it Up and Spouting Quotes and Barbs and the Film Collapses into a Surreal Slapstick Composite with Film-Noir.Overall, Worth a Watch for the First Two Acts, the Good Snappy Patter (at least in the first half), the Good Supporting Cast along with Mitchum, and to See Just How Much Damage from a Meddling Howard Hughes Could Cause..
On the way he meets the gold digging Lenore Brent (Jane Russell) who as it turns out is also heading for the lodge to try and snare rich hammy movie star Mark Cardigan (Vincent Price).Milner doesn't find out what he is supposed to do until the film is half over.
His frequent quoting of lines from Shakespeare and over the top performance is quite amusing.Also in the cast is Charles McGraw (what would a "film noire" be without McGraw), Marjorie Reynolds as Price's estranged wife, Jim Backus as a gambler, Philip Van Zandt as Morro the owner of the lodge and John Mylong as Ferarro's creepy doctor Krafft.It's interesting to note that Mitchum was signed in 1944 to take over Tim Holt's RKO "B" western series while the latter was in the service.
HIS KIND OF WOMAN is an off-beat noir flick featuring the unmissable teaming up of two Hollywood legends, Robert Mitchum and Jane Russell.
Raymond Burr is a typically imposing character, but the real scene stealer is Vincent Price as the actor; he ends up taking over the movie and providing a ton of comic relief as he quotes various lines constantly.
Considering he doesn't have a lot of choice, Mitchum goes--where he meets all sort of oddballs--such as a woman pretending to be rich (Jane Russell), an obvious bit of muscle (Charles McGraw) and a hammy actor (Vincent Price).
Mitchum is Mitchum in this Howard Hughes flix...The little lady from the San Fernando Valley (Jane Russell) is the skirt that is part of this cinematic affair...The major baddie is a stern Raymond Burr...Jim Backus is along to add to the narrative early on...The real character that makes this a fun view is Vincent Price...He is so over the top he does his acting work on Mt. Everest...This was a film that cemented his film career for years to come...Looking for a tight structured plot, then pass on this film...But if you want an entertaining ride settle back and suck up all two hours of this RKO '51 release....
If you're in the mood for a foreign intrigue pseudo-noir romance, why not rent His Kind of Woman instead?Robert Mitchum and Jane Russell are dynamite together, matching verbal spars and giving as good as they get.
And the movie turns into a mashup between film noir and crime farce, with Robert Mitchum holding up his noir end while Vincent Price hams it up while reciting Shakespeare.
John Farrow directed this pretty good tongue in cheek thriller, which features two of Howard Hughes' favorite players, Jane Russell and Robert Mitchum, and one of Hollywood's premiere hams, Vincent Price, caught in a career rut somewhere between Laura and House Of Wax. This movie has often been compared to Beat the Devil, though I don't think it's nearly as good, since the dialogue isn't up to the movie's basic surrealism, especially in the second half, where genuine wit would might have elevated this goofy picture to the level of high camp, but is, alas, lacking, and broad comedy is substituted.
The magnificent pairing of Jane Russell and Robert Mitchum in a strong script, adds Vincent Price doing a brilliant job as a fatuous, self-satisfied (Eroll Flynn send up) actor, and Raymond Burr, young, beefy and sexy, lending his magnificent gravitas as the mob boss.This film has music - Jane Russell singing (her own voice) catchy songs, lovingly photographed to bring out her sweetness in closeups, Vincent Price's goofiness, snappy noir dialogue between Mitchum and Russell, boats, gun play and some creepy torture.Say what you might about Hughes...
He was capable of expressing great darkness of character in this kind of role, and appears as a powerful and commanding actor - something I feel is lost in his later TV work.Whereas Key Largo is about the eventual triumph of good over evil by the courageous acts of a lone individual, this film is more concerned with entertainment and being a vehicle for its stars to be exhibited.
Whereas it is made distinctly clear in Key Largo that an individual if courageous enough and prepared to sacrifice his or her life, good will triumph over evil, the 'message', in this film is opaque.Despite its not making the powerful ethical and moral statement of Key Largo, it is certainly infinitely better fare for the television viewer than the super-soft soaps and reality shows.Some actors have attractive personalities and one enjoys watching them in what they do irrespective of what it is - as long as it is done with truth and conviction - and Robert Mitchum is one such who appeals to me, as is Vincent Price, as I mentioned above.I also like seeing Jane Russell as in real life she is a very nice person - she mostly plays positive personalities and that is uplifting.All in all, watching this film was time well spent..
Both play similar characters, Mitchum is a drifter and a loner in both, Jane is a nightclub singer in "Macao" in "HKOW" she is pretending to be a wealthy heiress(who also happens to sing)but actually is a gold digger, having her sights set on the famous actor Mark Cardigan, played hilariously by Vincent Price.
It is worthwhile seeing Raymond Burr before he became Perry Mason, and Vincent Price made the Fly and all the horror movies that followed.Mitchum was dominates the others in the cast and makes a good film without a realistic script.
***** His Kind of Woman (8/29/51) John Farrow ~ Robert Mitchum, Jane Russell, Vincent Price, Tim Holt.
After reading about this movie years before,I finally caught it on AMC one night and thoroughly enjoyed it.Mitchum is a loser gambler who gets lured South-of-the border by Burr,a deported mobster,who intends to kill off Mitchum and take his place through plastic surgery so he can reenter the U.S.But things turn out quite differently when Mitchum meets up with Russell and Price.Wonderful comedy/drama with great dialogue and performances,even down to the smaller parts(Holt as FBI agent whose luck runs out,Mylong as spooky ex-Nazi doctor).And lest I forget,the always reliable and formidable Ray Burr.Watch it if you get the chance!!!.
(There are Spoilers) Not at all to be taken seriously film-noir crime drama with Vincent Price as Hollywood movie swashbuckler Mark Cardigan ham acting his way through the film as a real-life action hero.
Shortly after, Milner and Lenore discover Lusk's dead body and three men forcibly take Milner by boat to Ferraro's yacht nearby.Lenore Brent exhorts Mark Cardigan to help Milner who's obviously in great danger and this provides the movie star with the opportunity he's longed for to indulge in some real-life adventure of the type that he normally acts out on the silver screen."His Kind Of Woman" mixes murder, beatings and violence with comedy, romance and songs and unsurprisingly, there are moments when some of these elements don't combine successfully.
Its shady characters and interesting story are particularly enjoyable and Vincent Price is extremely funny as the self-absorbed, Shakespeare-quoting film star who thinks that his experience of acting in adventure movies makes him qualified to be a real-life hero.
Robert Mitchum and Vincent Price on the corn-ball noir express, with Jane Russell and a nasty Nazi serum.
Robert Mitchum's loner cool, Jane Russell's breasts and Howard Hughes' obsessiveness might be all there are to this odd, dull noir, but then there's Vincent Price.
Hughes winds up with Mitchum and Russell in a Mexican resort, not a bad thing at all, but also with Raymond's Burr's bulging eyeballs and psycho brutality, a hypodermic filled with nasty Nazi fluid, a sinking rowboat filled with "comically" inept Mexican police officers, a facial transplant in the works, Tim Holt as a Fed agent, gravel-voiced Charles McGraw as a gunzel, Price hamming it up and Russell singing something titled "Five Little Miles from San Berdoo." The movie starts promisingly, loses its way for well over an hour and then ends with viciousness and belly laughs.
I think they should have rewritten the final act to include Russell, as it makes no sense for her character not to play a pivotal role in the final scenes.In the end I was left disappointed, as I thought that with a better and less baggy ending this could have been one of the all-time Film Noir classics.Fine but too long, by about half an hour..
On the way, Dan meets his kind of woman, nightclub singer Lenore Brent (Jane Russell) who is travelling there to meet supposedly divorcing actor Mark Cardigan (Vincent Price).
His Kind of Woman - although part of a Warner Brothers film noir boxset- this movie is a mix of comedy and crime thriller-it has noir elements to it- but this one is played mostly for laughs.Although Robert Mitchum and Jane Russell are billed as the stars- the movie is a great showcase of Vincent Price - who steals the picture as an adulterous hunting actor Mark Cardigan on vacation.Charles McGraw and Raymond Burr do a great as heavies in this movie.Jim Backus is also on his game as a gambler.This is a fun film with a mix of sharp dialogue and slapstick humor.It does have some decent action scenes near the end.A fun curio that mixes genres and has plenty of good actors in it- not perfect and it does have some plot-holes-worth a rental.The DVD has a commentary by film historian Vivian Sobchak. |
tt0050993 | Something of Value | Kikuyu tribal members work on Henry McKenzie's farm in 1940s Kenya. Two young men, Kenyan native Kimani and Henry's son Peter, have grown up together, almost like brothers.
Prejudices surface when Peter's brother-in-law Jeff Newton slaps the face of Kimani after his request to use a rifle. Kimani leaves the farm, but is carried back by Peter after having caught his foot in a trap.
Mau Mau tribesmen plot an insurrection as Kenya's tensions rise. Kimani sides with them and is asked to steal a supply of rifles as a test. He parts ways for many years with Peter, who becomes a safari leader to help raise money for the farm. His fiancee Holly Keith arrives and they intend to marry.
Kimani impregnates the daughter of a Mau Mau tribal elder. A raid on the farm results in the murders of Newton and his children. British forces retaliate by bombing a Mau Mau encampment, taking tribesmen prisoner and torturing them.
Peter wants to continue his life in Africa, but troubles worsen when Holly must fight off Mau Mau warriors. Henry hastily gets her and Newton's wife to safety in Nairobi. Peter goes looking for Kimani, who has been identified as the leader of the Mau Mau raiding party that killed his brother-in-law and Newton's children. They fight to the death, Kimani ultimately falling into a pit of bamboo spikes. | revenge, avant garde, murder, violence | train | wikipedia | And, although at the time this film was made Kenyan independence was only six years away, it is clear that, to almost all the whites, independence and black majority rule are still unthinkable.
Although it's clear that all the whites in the film are British, Hudson just moves right along with his American accent, quite un-self conscious about it all.
The year that the film version of Robert Ruark's novel Something Of Value came out, the first colony of British Africa, the Gold Coast became the independent Republic of Ghana under Kwame Nkrumah.
When we see film like Leonardo DiCpario's Blood Diamond come out fifty years later, you have to wonder whether Africa's many problems will ever be solved in the lifetime of most of us.Rock Hudson and Sidney Poitier play childhood friends who grew up side by side in Kenya colony.
But race and racial politics have driven them apart as Poitier has joined the nascent Mau Mau movement whose mission it was to kill all the white settlers and drive them from their part of the continent.
Hudson who believes the races can peaceful exist together in the Kenya colony and soon to be independent country wants to reconcile with Poitier.
The film concerns his attempts to do so.Some very good supporting performances by Dana Wynter, Wendy Hiller, Ivan Dixon, and William Marshall are in Something Of Value.
Best scene in the film other than the final confrontation with Hudson and Poitier is Hudson's father played by Robert Beatty successfully breaking down Mau Mau leader Juano Hernandez into giving up his cohorts.
Beatty's knowledge of the Kikuyu tribe culture comes into play here.The white racist attitudes are exemplified by Michael Pate whose Australian accent makes him sound the most authentically African or the closest to it among the white cast members.Sad to say this most authentic of African stories is still very relevant today as seen by the critical and popular acclaim that Blood Diamond received in 2006.
Hudson, Poitier, and the rest of the cast do some of their best work in Something Of Value..
Sidney Poitier is excellent in this study of Kenya's fight for independence and backlash against their former oppressors.
It was a treat to see young Rock Hudson, beautiful Dana Wynter and the talents of Sidney Poitier and Wendy Hiller.
Having spent a good part of my childhood in East-Africa, I read Robert Ruarks novel Something of Value" (and the semi-follow-up Uhuru") numerous times while living in Tanzania and for a while it was among my favorite novels.
The movie I saw only a few years later and was not too impressed.The story is relatively straight-forward and simple: two African boys, Peter (son of a white settler) and Kimani, a native Kikuyu have grown up together almost like brothers.
Peter becomes a safari-guide and Kimani, disillusioned by the white rule of Kenya and still bearing a grudge against Peters brother-in-law Jeff joins the Mau-Mau movement, who seek to take control over the country and eject / butcher the Whites.
Soon the former best friends become each others mortal enemies and will have to face off in a fight to the death.Some people claimed, that the book is oversimplified and much of the cruelty (generally committed by the Mau-Mau, which are portrayed as a form of terrorist guerrillas, who soon didn't distinguish any longer between butchering their enemies, the Whites, or Kikuyu who opposed to disagreed with their methods.
Compare to contemporary films, for example, "Blood Diamond", "Something of Value" still feels like it has been produced in a Hollywood studio, despite having been filmed in Africa.
Furthermore I was not at all comfortable with the actors, despite me appreciating both Rock Hudson and Sidney Poitier.
Sure, Poitier does a far more convincing job (especially the accent) but again, looks nothing like an African from this part of the continent.It would also be unfair to say that the rest of a crew did a bad job, but one would really wish for a remake (this coming from somebody who has a general dislike for the concept of remakes, reboots, etc), something grittier, more realistic and it's not that there is a shortage of capable African actors of all colors these days.
Rock Hudson and Sidney Poitier are excellent in Something of Value.
Just watched this Rock Hudson-Sidney Poitier movie on YouTube.
After casting him in The Blackboard Jungle which was a success, writer/director Richard Brooks then put Poitier in this drama about the uprising of a Kenyan revolutionary group called Mau-Mau of which Kimani Wa Karanja-Sidney's character-is forced to join after seeing his father (Ken Renard) uphold a custom that involves a murder resulting in his arrest by English colonialists.
Hudson plays Peter McKenzie whose family had long settled in Africa and he himself had befriended Kimani when they were kids but that could be no more because of the unfair social rulings.
Also featuring compelling supporting performances by Wendy Hiller as Peter's sister Elizabeth and Dana Wynter as Holly, Peter's wife.
This movie is really something of value.Rock HUdson's character says "we steal their earth and their religion,we 've got to give them something of value instead".Actually,Richard Brookes applied to Africa what he 'd done two years back with "the last hunt" where the white men killed the buffalos and starved the Indians.They even despised their belief by killing even the White animal.Preceded by "Simba" an English movie starring Dirk Bogarde the screenplay of whichshows a lot of similarities with "something of value' Brooks 's work seems nevertheless superior ,because it has very strong scenes:Poitier,smashing the mirror with disgust after the killing,the informer killed on the barbed wire by the other prisoners;the old man ,afraid of thunder.This last scene may seem naive ,nay insulting for the natives ,but it was fifty years ago.People who criticize the movie should think about it:in 1957,it was a courageous movie,as "the last hunt" was..
Rock Hudson stars as the son of a white farmer living in East Africa near Nairobi circa 1950; he's as close as a brother to Sidney Poitier--portraying sort of a slave-cum-porter--until the laws of the domineering British interfere with the black people's superstition-laden ways of living.
Ruark's book of racial upheavals and issues (loyalties, betrayals, and injustices) has been adapted well for the screen by writer-director Richard Brooks, although Hudson's character doesn't have many dimensions (and he looks too old to be boyhood pals with Poitier, anyway).
A romance sub-plot between Hudson and pretty-but-piqued Dana Wynter doesn't provide enough substantial release from the horror and strife surrounding them, and Poitier's final scenes are geared towards narrative action and not character motivation.
Rock Hudson and Sidney Poitier star in this Richard Brooks drama on race.
Throughout most of Sidney Poitier's career as an actor that primarily appeared in race relations dramas, he played African- Americans whereas, in this one, he actually plays an African, a Kenyan in fact, named Kimani Wa Karanja.As children, Peter (Rock Hudson) and Kimani grow up doing everything together.
When Kimani's father (Ken Renard) is imprisoned indefinitely for following a custom deemed barbaric by the ruling class of British colonists, he runs away to join a criminal gang (led by Juano Hernandez's character) that later becomes an insurgency group dubbed Mau Mau; read your history if you're unfamiliar with the real back-story.Predictably, Peter and Kimani will inevitably meet again on opposite sides of the law.
The movie also features the comely Dana Wynter as Peter's love interest come wife; their relationship parallels that of his aunt Elizabeth (Wendy Hiller) and Uncle Jeff (Robert Beatty).Jeff and two of their children are murdered during the Mau Mau Uprising.
Walter Fitzgerald plays Peter's father, who had been a friend of Kimani's dad and whose knowledge and skills help to end the revolt.Michael Pate plays a White settler that reflects the colonists' racism; William Marshall plays the Black leader that organizes the revolution starting with a meeting in Nairobi.Richard Brooks directed and adapted the screenplay from Robert C.
This Rock Hudson, Dana Wynter film deals with the Mau-Mau uprising in Kenya in 1952.
She has few lines to convey.Yes, a racist bigot slapped Sidney Poitier several years before the uprising.
Poitier turns smoker and militant.Even more ridiculous than the sub-plot is the fact that Wendy Hiller, who really looked her age in 1957, becomes pregnant in this film and gives birth!
It is, however, perhaps relevant to suggest that the novel and film of 'Some thing of Value' be considered in the light of Ruark's 1962 novel 'Uhuru' which revisits basically the same characters (the names change)after Kenyan independence.
Seeing it 60 years later, I'm amazed that it was considered a suitable movie for children at a matinee in that era of rigorous censorship.There is strong stuff in this film about the Mau-Mau insurrection in Kenya in the 1950's.
It was a film I remembered vividly, especially the scenes of Mau-Mau rituals, but also for the haunting background music and for Dana Wynter who just seemed so perfect.At the time, colonisation was ending.
Britain, which had coloured so much of the globe pink, would sometimes just haul down the flag and sail away, but in some African countries with generations of white farmers and landowners, things were trickier.That was the background to Richard Brook's film of Robert Ruark's novel.Peter McKenzie (Rock Hudson) and Kimani (Sidney Poitier) have grown up together in Kenya, but find that their different skin colours and cultures are forcing them apart.There is interesting information on the making of the film in "Tough as Nails: The Life and Films of Richard Brooks" by Douglas K.
In an act not without danger, Brooks and Hudson went to a secret location to meet members of the Mau-Mau.Brooks could be a bully and alienated cast and crew except for favourites such as Sidney Poitier whom he protected from discrimination in segregated Kenya.
He was rude to Dana and harsh with Rock, but he created tension to get the reactions he wanted from the actors.Miklos Rozsa, the epic film score maestro, came up with different music for this film.
Also shot in Kenya, it too featured Mau-Mau attacks on white farmers, but the whole thing seemed condescending towards the Kenyans while Brook's film is more even-handed with treachery and massacres on both sides.Both films end with a scene of a Kenyan baby, symbolising the key to the nation's future..
"Something of Value" is a film about the so-called 'Mau Mau Rebellion' which took place through much of the 1950s in Kenya.
The fact that it was made there and the uprising was still going on do make this an unusual movie.The story begins by showing the contempt that many of the white British colonists have towards the native Kenyans.
Because of this, it's very easy to see how these black men and women would become disaffected by British rule...and Peter (Rock Hudson) can see the wicked way these folks are treated.
He is especially appalled to see his friend Kimani (Sidney Poitier) slapped around and treated like dirt.
At the same time, the film tries to look at both sides and shows the brutal way in which the Mau Maus tore apart the white colonists.
How will all this resolve itself and what will happen to these two friends who are now on opposite sides in the conflict?This is generally a very good film, though I wonder why Rock Hudson was chosen for the movie.
As for Poitier and Juano Hernandez and many of the other black actors, they were more convincing in their roles and at least approximated the right accents.
"Something of Value" (1957) directed by Richard Brooks like that in itself it's a segregated specimen as genre in extinction of ancient black humor now as well told as positive discrimination, which means that memory and perception view from liberal democratic from the past itself is always old and not in mood.
The scene of the mentor chief in sermon of life, with some of the first group of insurgents, is still of master in black and white screening and screaming.There are some characters of hunters with bwana's spirits and in itself this movie has scenes that by its crudity shocking a while inside the home of a given farmer, constructed as a resort near a kind of precarious compound for natives a half there in unrest, which took the viewers for the tragedy and switched targets during the fighting, but its melodramatic realism surpasses the confusion by the clarification of the strengths in presence and that holds the concerned characters of the colonization in its diversified reaction, before the lack of local institutions to compromise with the unlocked way of the people, by whom had taking as peasants and servants the way of uncontrolled answer to the oppression.
This movie is a failed compromise between father and son at the pace for substituting oppression by religion and civilized youth by owners against employees of the soil without changing costumes nor structure of the soil, with a local chief and a young Mau Mau in enraged and prolonged injustice, deep both in violence that caught this specific colonial situation at the brink of irrationality and army genocide by lack of comprehension for the standing that the African continent meant against European presence before independence.
As if things were like that in Kenya at the same time, that others out of this territoriality were also thinking less in such a dramatic structure, without enough presence to understand that phase of the fighting, without rules than terror and unrest out of democratic values of the colonists at the time.
No way out at this stage of the movie, only waiting for the grow up of the black baby belonging to the killed young revolutionary - in 1954, Dedan Kimathi from Aberdare forest guerrilla whose evocation is made here in this movie three years after - at the time of awakening, as premonitory it was the book from where Brooks took his screenplay..
Rock Hudson and Sidney Poitier grew up together as children, and now in their young adulthood, they're still incredibly close.
Rock tries to explain that it's just the way things are, but Robert Beatty, the mean brother-in-law, intervenes.
Rock is heartbroken and Sidney bursts into tears—I actually turned the movie off during that scene, I was so upset.After having a glass of water, taking a walk outside, and giving myself a talking-to, I decided to turn the movie back on and continue watching it.
So, I dried my tears and pressed play.The rest of the film follows Sidney as he runs away from home and joins a rebellious group who fight back against their British captors.
Interesting story of the final years of colonialism in Africa..
This film examines the post-war struggle for Kenyan independence resulting in the State of Emergency set up during the Mau Mau uprising against white settlers and African 'collaborators' in the 1950s, at a time when British Colonialism was in retreat.
Rock Hudson and Sidney Poitier are childhood friends who become enemies when Poitier joins the violent Kenyan revolt, and Wendy Hiller and Walter Fitzgerald play white settlers trying to come to terms with change, unlike the Robert Beatty and Michael Pate characters who support the status quo and regard the Africans as inferiors.
The Mau Mau build-up is handled well, as is Poiter's gradual disillusionment with white rule, while finding it difficult to accept the violence of the Mau Mau. The Juano Hernandez character who administers the Mau Mau oaths is strongly influenced by his tribal religion and this provides the rather unconvincing reason for his change of heart and ultimate betrayal of his fellows.
The vulnerability of the British settlers in the bush is evident and the degree of of violence, whether implied or shown, is unusual for the time (the picture was given an X certificate in the UK by the British Board of Film Censors which meant you had to be at least 16 to see it), and the story moves at a steady pace as directed by Richard Brooks.
Sidney Poitier and Rock Hudson portray two Kenyans, raised as near brothers, who find their paths in life diverging wildly as they enter young manhood.
After suffering indignity at the hands of white men and seeing his father imprisoned by the colonial authorities, Poitier's Kimani becomes a freedom fighter/terrorist within the "Mau Mau" insurgency.
Poitier blows him off the screen, of course, and we wish that the film gave them equal time (where was the romance between Kimani and his wife?), but Hudson isn't the total loss that some of the reviewers here have made him out to be.
Indeed, he could have attempted an accent, but that would have been dangerous; surely Poitier mastered his Kenyan accent because he had much more to lose, and to gain, from a film concerning political turmoil in Africa.The film struggles to maintain some kind of balance; it depicts the Mau Mau as thoroughly "savage", yet also reveals the torture and lies of the British colonialists.
Some parallels between the "equal rights" demanded by Kimani and the situation in America at the time must have made some distributors and audiences nervous, but the film does not try to push these parallels in any obvious way.Before closing, mention should be made of Miklos Rozsa's extraordinary score; indeed, extraordinary even for Rozsa, as it combines the whine of the electronic theramin with "tribal" rhythms and chanting..
But it still, I think, gives you a sense of the time and the tensions, and shows us once again how futile -- and just plain wrong -- the earlier white domination of Africa was.
Rock Hudson is very good here...except for one scene which stuck out because he was smiling in a situation where that was not appropriate.
Dana Wynter is excellent as Hudson's young wife; not sure why she wasn't a more popular actress.
Sidney Poitier has any number of films with a stronger performance, but he's good here. |
tt0412253 | Veronica Mars | Nine years after the events of the show's third season, former teenage sleuth Veronica Mars has left the fictional town of Neptune, California and moved to New York City, where she is in a stable relationship with Stosh "Piz" Piznarski and has a job offer from the prestigious law firm Truman-Mann and Associates. She is contacted by her ex-boyfriend Logan Echolls, now a Lieutenant in the United States Navy, who has been accused of murdering his girlfriend Carrie Bishop, a fellow Neptune High student who became a successful but self-destructive pop star under the stage name "Bonnie DeVille". He is being bombarded for offers of representation from lawyers, and Veronica agrees to return to Neptune and help Logan find one who will best represent him. She is reunited with her father Keith Mars, Neptune's former sheriff-turned-private investigator, who shows her how corruption and classism is rife under Sheriff Dan Lamb.
Despite her claims that her stay will be brief and she will not get involved, Veronica begins to investigate the circumstances of Carrie's death. During her investigation, Veronica is dragged to her ten-year high school reunion by friends Wallace Fennell and Cindy "Mac" MacKenzie. There, she learns that former outlaw biker Eli "Weevil" Navarro is now a reformed family man. During the reunion, Veronica realizes Carrie's murder is connected to the death of Carrie's best friend, Susan Knight, who disappeared off a boat at sea nine years earlier. After Veronica's nemesis Madison Sinclair plays a copy of Veronica's college sex tape with Piz, a fight breaks out. The reunion comes to an abrupt end as Veronica sets the sprinklers off, with Veronica punching out Madison after Madison verbally harasses Veronica further. Veronica attends an after party and speaks with Dick Casablancas, Luke Haldeman and his fiancée Gia Goodman, and Stu "Cobb" Cobbler, all of whom were with Susan and Carrie on the boat the night Susan disappeared. Meanwhile, while driving home from the reunion, Weevil stops to help a driver being harassed by bikers, only to be shot by the driver, a nervous Celeste Kane. The sheriff's department plants a gun so that Celeste can claim self-defense, and Keith agrees to prove Weevil's innocence.
Veronica concludes that those on Susan's boat nine years ago covered up the circumstances of her death, and that someone killed Carrie because she threatened to confess. Compromising videos of Carrie are posted online and Veronica traces them back to Vinnie Van Lowe, who has been planting spyware on celebrities and selling the footage. Veronica uses Vinnie's footage to prove Gia lured Logan out to Carrie's home the night of her murder, suggesting she and Luke killed Carrie and framed Logan. Lamb blatantly ignores her evidence and refuses to follow up, but unbeknownst to him Veronica records the conversation. Having stayed in Neptune longer than planned, Veronica calls Piz in New York to explain that she cannot return yet, and Piz breaks off their relationship. Truman-Mann rescinds their job offer, which results in an argument between Keith and Veronica about what she's doing with her life.
Keith has a clandestine meeting with Deputy Sacks about Weevil's case, but they are attacked by an unknown driver in a truck who slams into Sacks' car, killing him and leaving Keith in critical condition. Veronica and Logan sleep together, reaffirming their relationship. Veronica sends bugged flowers to Gia's apartment and calls her, playing recordings of Carrie's voice, hoping to scare Gia into confessing to being the mastermind behind Carrie's death. Gia panics and calls Cobb, revealing his involvement. Veronica goes to Gia's apartment to confront her, where Gia reveals that Cobb is the mastermind of Carrie's death and framing Logan: Susan overdosed, and he took photos of a panicked Carrie, Gia, and Luke dumping Susan's body and has been blackmailing them ever since, though Carrie had recently threatened to come clean. Veronica's bug broadcasts everything via a radio frequency which she believed to be unused, but which is actually that of a local radio station. Cobb hears their conversation over the radio from his apartment in the building opposite, then shoots and kills Gia through the window before coming after Veronica. She calls the police and lures Cobb down to the basement before beating him unconscious with a golf club.
Logan returns to active duty in the Navy, but promises to come back to Veronica. Cobb's photo and the secret recording of Lamb refusing to investigate Veronica's claims leak online, forcing Lamb to arrest Cobb, with calls to oust Lamb from office. Both Keith and Weevil recover from their injuries, but Weevil returns to the criminal lifestyle he left behind. Veronica takes over her father's private investigator business with Mac as her assistant, resolved to help fight Neptune's corruption. | neo noir, murder, melodrama | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0421206 | Gridiron Gang | Sean Porter (Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson) works at Kilpatrick Detention Center in Los Angeles. He becomes frustrated at not being able to help the kids get away from their problems in life when they are released from the center, such as street gangs and drug dealings. He decides to create a football team so the kids can feel like they're part of something. Porter believes that football will teach the teenage inmates what it takes to be responsible, mature, and disciplined winners. He picks out a few kids in the room that he feels will benefit from this program and requires that they practice with him the following day. He states to his new team, the Kilpatrick Mustangs, "You do it my way, not your way. Your way got you here and you're here because you lost. Right now you are all losers, but if you accept this challenge and stick with the program, you are all going to be winners at the end." Two of the teens do not get along because they are from rival gangs. Willie Weathers (Jade Yorker) is from the 88’s and Kelvin Owens (David Thomas) is from the 95’s. The first game is against the best team in the league, Barrington. The game starts out somewhat positive for the Mustangs, as they recover a fumble on the first drive, but things quickly turn. They are demolished by Barrington, losing by 38 points. After starting 0–2, the Mustangs start winning games as they learn to work together. Kelvin and Willie finally shake hands when they win a game by one touchdown after Kelvin makes a big block for Willie. Near the end of the season, the Mustangs are headed for the playoffs. They are getting more publicity and more fans along the way.
One of Willie’s 88 gang mates, Free, stops by the field. He realizes that Kelvin is a 95. Free and Kelvin get into a fight, and Free shoots Kelvin in the shoulder. As Free prepares to put another bullet in Kelvin's head, Willie runs toward Free and tackles him to the ground to save Kelvin. Free is shocked that Willie helped Kelvin and not him. The police show up, and Free runs off. He fires at the responding officers who fire in return, killing him. Although Kelvin survives the attack, he will not be able to play in the finals. Kilpatrick is almost forced to forfeit the playoff game due to concerns about further gang violence, but Porter's boss steps in to prevent it by arranging for volunteers from neighboring police departments to patrol the game. The County Sheriff's spokesperson states that "We will do whatever it takes to ensure that gangs do not take over the lives of our youth". In the playoff game, a rematch against Barrington, the Mustangs go into the half down 14–0. Willie gives a motivational speech, and they go out and beat Barrington on the last play of the game. It is revealed in the narration that they lost the championship game 17–14, but no one called them losers. A few months later, Sean's football method is officially made part of the program.
Nearly all the former members of the Mustangs are doing well in their new lives outside the detention center. Willie Weathers is playing football at a top boarding school, Kelvin Owens is playing football for Washington High, Kenny Bates is going to school in Redondo Beach and living with his mother, Junior Palaita got a job working for a furniture company, Leon Hayes is playing football for Dorsey High, Miguel Perez and Donald Madlock went back to their old gangs and are now in California youth authority prisons. Bug Wendal was killed in a drive-by shooting in Compton, California. Only five of the players are back in jail. The movie ends with a new group of Mustangs training for the next season. Some footage of the 1993 Gridiron Gang documentary is shown during the end credits. | murder | train | wikipedia | (Synopsis) The movie is based on a true story of a juvenile detention camp probation officer Sean Porter (Dwayne 'The Rock' Johnson), who is frustrated by the 75% recidivism rate of the teenage felons that he is responsible for at Camp Kilpatrick.
The juveniles must give up their gang rivalries on the gridiron to unite as a team.(My Comment) You may think that this is just another football movie, but you would be wrong.
It's a really nice inspirational story about a man with idea to slow down the rate of recidivism among juvenile offenders.Based on the true story of Sean Porter, Dwayne 'The Rock' Johnson plays Porter a former college football star who thinks that if he can get some of the kids to organize as a football team in his ward of the Los Angeles Juvenile Detention Center it might keep them from going back to the gangs and returning to jail or winding up dead.The Rock, trading in on the name and image that professional wrestling gave him, maybe for the first time is playing a normal human being albeit a former sports star.
It is based on a true story about a man named Sean Porter a real live coach for juveniles played by the "THE ROCK." He wants to coach some 16 and 17 year old juvenile delinquents in a detention facility in hopes of making them change their violent and criminal ways.
The film takes place at a juvenile detention center run by Sean Porter(Dwayne Johnson) who feels he is not making a difference with the young hoodlums who come in and out.
But this is a film based more on football, it is about the hard life that kids have on the street, and also the struggle that youth workers have to try and keep kids off the streets.What makes it more intense is that it is real, anyone would like this film, just because The Rock is in it doesn't mean anything so guys, believe me when I say, even your girlfriends will enjoy it.
Gridiron Gang is based on a true story about a juvi detention center that starts a football program to help troubled kids.
We've been through soccer, baseball, tennis, dance, track and football: GRIDIRON GANG uses football as the pivotal point, but due to the presence of a fine script by Jeff Maguire who adapted Jac Flanders documentary film, and cohesive poignant direction by Phil Joanou who knows how to move a large cast around and keep it personal, and most of all due to the overpoweringly fine performance by Dwayne 'The Rock' Johnson this film is so honest and uplifting that it doesn't leave a dry eye in the audience.The story is well known: Probation Officer Sean Porter (Johnson) is frustrated that the boys in his camp for young criminals when released to the streets show 75% returning and a large number dying in gang related violence.
I enjoyed watching him learn how to catch that football.I never watch the trailers at the end of the movie but seeing the real Sean Porter was great..
First of all i'd like to point out that so far this is my favorite movie, as i, and many others can relate to this movie.As an immigrant i really can relate to this movie since no one believed in me and thought i had trouble written all over my face, this isn't the question, this movie brings you chills and tears that you can't even help yourself.Even getting stopped by police here and then just because they think you've done something bad, this movie describes everything you need to know about everyday life in the streets.Watch this movie with passion and you will understand what most of us are living through everyday.this movie has to be seen by many in order to believe your eyes, most people don't realise that this is happening every minute in the world.i finish this review by saying that this movie should be seen and deserves to stay on top in box office..
There are lessons about life to be learned from this movie and my praises go out to the people who are making a difference working with gang members in our violent world.
This movie was based on a true story and I felt it was very authentic, especially when they show clips at the end from the real Gridiron Gang.I expected a PG-rated Disney-type cheesy flick, but this was anything but that.
I saw it in a screening, and fell in love with it.Not only does it really hit home with the locations and the people, the story is something we hear about, everyday; Gangs, violence, crimes...etc.It wouldn't surprise me at all to see this film nominated several times.I had the pleasure of also meeting two of the actual guys who this film was based on (from the Kilpatrick team).
Movies like Dangerous Minds, Coach Carter, Hard Ball, and even recent dance movies like Take the Lead, and Step Up, all seem to have come from the same mould.Based on a true story, and on the Emmy award winning documentary of the same name, Gridiron Gang follows the tried and tested formula for movies with juvenile delinquents.
Having starred in mostly action movies in his Hollywood career thus far, Gridiron Gang allowed The Rock some space in dramatic moments to prove his acting chops, so take this opportunity to see if you'll laugh and cry together with him.
Life's a journey of constant learning, and that's very true for the boys in the Mustang team, player and coach alike.Stay tuned when the end credits roll to glimpse the documentary on which the movie is based upon, as well as to meet the real Sean Porter and the faces of the real people behind some of the characters in the movie..
In the Kilpatrick juvenile detention center, the supervisor and former football player Sean Porter (Dwayne 'The Rock' Johnson) sees the lack of discipline, self-esteem, union and perspective in the teenage interns and proposes to prepare a football team to play in one league.
It had more heart than most movies I've seen all year.The story: a youth detention camp decides to form a football team in order to help teach these kids how to bond, how to respond to authority and how to act as one unit.
Awesome movie.One of the best feel good ,football ,real life story movies ever made.It shows character and good base of actualfacts.Must see for rock fans,a different rock.Rock has matured as a actor.The rock can actually act.I went for the movie with no expectations.Awesome emotions.Shows how everyone needs a second chance.Don't miss this movie.You will be surprised.
Director Phil Joanou is admirable in making this movie based on a true story because I wasn't sure if I was going to like this one and I ended up enjoying it.
Dwayne Johnson turns in a solid performance as Sean Porter a juvenile detention center counselor who changes the lives of many troubled teenagers for the better by getting them to join a football team.
Overall despite some flaws Gridiron Gang is a well made coming of age drama with complex characters, some realistic sports action, and equally impressive performances by the cast especially Johnson who make this movie based on a true story worth the time to watch because it deserves to be told..
It's directed by Phil Joanou and is loosely based on the true story of the Kilpatrick Mustangs during their first season playing Gridiron out of their home, Camp Kilpatrick, a juvenile detention centre for delinquents.Few things in cinema cause as much division as the inspirational sports movie.
Remember the titans was about overcoming racism, Rudy was about persistence and hard work (as was Invincible, another good movie) Gridiron gang focuses on the story of a caring social worker who organizes a football team of delinquents in the hope of filling the void that they have heretofore filled with crime.
My wife and I loved this movie.It has been a long time now since Hollywood has made anything worth seeing.I hate to see critics reviews,I wish could find a site with just common folks.Sorry but critics look at the color,clothes they wear,how they edited the movie?common.We watch a movie that makes us feel good and this movie does that.Not like henry the 8th I'm so bored type movies.For any regular people out there rent this one it's great.
I wasn't expecting a lot, and maybe that helped, but I thoroughly enjoyed this movie.When the movie ended I wasn't surprised that the movie was based on a real story, to be frank I wouldn't have been surprised if they'd used the real people in the roles because the acting throughout was superb, with none of the characters being given forced lines or plots, and seemingly genuinely involved in this films little world.
Chammilionaire and his friend Dwayne were not thrown out of their depth either, with one giving a believable performance as a coach who really cares, and the other as an indifferent friend whose really just their to help.Now don't get me wrong, this film will not be the epiphany for all the moviegoers who can't stand watching wrestlers and musicians attempts at acting, their is nothing in this movie that really stands out and will make you go 'wow'.
I have to admit I'm a sucker for movies based on a true story, but Gridiron Gang succeeded in surpassing my expectations and creating a bar of excellence for the sports drama genre.
So trying to say something new about the recent Gridiron Gang is as tough as playing that hardscrabble high school football for convicts.The Rock plays Sean Porter, a forgiving but tough counselor/coach for a team of teenage delinquents, one of whom, Willy, has murdered his step-father.
In this way, Gridiron is something like Invincible, starring Mark Wahlberg as Vince Papale, in which Papale has no easy time making the Eagles, enduring their vigorous training, or winning games.It's good to emphasize in film the importance of cooperation and heart; recent sports films have done better than most in showing that spirit..
His plan was to give focus and dignity to a completely forgotten demographic.Gridiron Gang is based on the true story of Porter's first football team.
We all love an underdog story and what's buried deeper than a group of antisocial teenagers playing football for the first time in their lives.Of course films like this have their share of corny scenesthe Rock attempted tears (unsuccessfully) in two of them.
This is one of the most inspirational movies that have played in a long time.It really shows you what is happening in the world with gangs and how some people try their best to help stop it!
What makes it even more interesting is the fact that it is based on a true story of real young men who had attended a juvenile facility where the correctional officers formed a football team and some of the juveniles were able to play.
Supervisors Sean Porter (Dwayne Johnson) and Malcolm Moore (Xzibit) decide to put together a football team to get the teens to work together.I love The Rock in this.
He states to his new team, the Kilpatrick Mustangs, "You are all losers, But if you stick with the program you could all be winners at the end." Two of the teens do not get along because they are from rival gangs.Based on a true story, "Gridiron Gang" sends out a message that one man can make a difference and the most hopeless kids in our society can change the course of their lives through hard work, commitment and bold leadership The Emmy Award winning documentary Gridiron Gang was aired on television in 1993.
This film, as the title gives away is about the American football team created by "the rock" and xzibit in an attempt to help turn a bunch of wayward juveniles back onto the right track in life.Inspired by his characters (and his real-life) NFL background, Dwayne (Rock) gives a truly convincing performance as one of the two coaches trying to help the youth's get their lives back on the right track.As the story goes on, you feel more and more for the team as they begin to learn the true values in life, the hardships, the downs, but also the rewards they begin to get out of it by sticking with the plan and putting faith in their coach.A great film, that you will happily watch more than the once.
To give them a sense of achievement, something to want to live for and he does this the best way he knows how, American Football and by tough love.I could never really say that this film is a realistic portrayal because I have never lived in this type of environment but I can say that Gridiron Gang is well worth watching, I would recommend it to anyone..
I can think of lots of Oscar-winning films that fulfill the first without even touching on the other two but this movie certainly fulfills all three and, for that, Phil Joanou is to be congratulated.As to my summary, I have to admit that I'm glad I watched Gridiron Gang on my own at home because there were several times when I had to wipe my eyes!
Juvenile detention camp probation officer Sean Porter (Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson), along with another officer, Malcolm Moore (Xzibit), turn a group of hardcore teenage felons into a high school football team in four weeks.
Based upon the true story of Sean Porter and his football team, which was composed entirely of juvenile delinquents, many of whom were once members of rivaling gangs that are now being forced to work together and put their pasts behind them.
Jade Yorker was perhaps the most memorable as Willie Weathers, probably because of his character's major involvement throughout the story and that he suffers and changes the most over the course of the film.There is one thing I do not personally care for in "Gridiron Gang".
Gridiron Gang is about a bunch of felons at a juvenile detention center and how their camp officer Sean Porter (Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson), and his friend Malcolm Moore (Xzibit) turn the teenage criminals into football players in a matter of weeks.
It's an uphill struggle for Porter at first, but through hard work and commitment he makes these kids learn that valuing oneself and being a team player can go an awful long way...From its brutal opening sequences to its rather touching (albeit predictable ending) Gridiron gang is a message film - admittedly one that is metaphorically emblazoned on its chest a little too much.
However, Johnson is also good outside of the obvious and manages to give some heart and weight to the picture - the scenes with this mother are very touching.Not only is the film successful as a basic 'feel-good' story, but the film also benefits from strong characterisation; you find yourself indifferent to a lot of these juvenile detainees at the start of the film, but due to strong character development I found myself caring about them - the likes of Junior and Weathers have a lot to fight for, but it just takes them both a while to realise it and as a result of this their characters are particularly compelling.Gridiron gang remains a great film and one that opens our minds to the turf wars that are still wholly real in this day and age.
This movie, which is based on a true story, is for the family over 12 years old.Gridiron Gang is taken place at a juvenile detention facility.
Lastly is Roger, Roger doesn't have a huge role in the movie but he is a main character because Shawn wanted to start the team because he didn't want teen boys to get out of the facility and end up like Roger, or just coming back to the detention center right after getting out.There were many actors in this film that I had never seen before.
He was Sean Porter (Dwayne Johnson), he wanted to start a football program for the juvenile kids.
This football team has to go through hell to figure out who they are and why they are going nowhere in life.The main characters that did a good job acting and had a big part in this movie is Sean Porter (Dwayne Johnson), Willie Weathers (Jade Yorker), Kelvin Owens (David V.
Thomas and Jade Yorker played a big role in showing that it doesn't matter what gang you come from, on the Gridiron there together as one, as a team.All around I enjoyed every part of the movie especially when it went back into time to show how Willie Weathers got in trouble to begin with.
The juveniles started with no respect just hate and ended up acting as a team through standing up for each other.The most important characters in my eyes are, Dwayne Johnson as Sean Porter, Jade Yorker as Willie Weathers, Setu Taase as Junior Palaita, Michael J.
Some things I liked about the movie were that it was based off of a true story, people could learn from it and it could be inspiring and life changing to some people.
I just watched The Gridiron Gang and in my opinion it was a very good movie I liked how it could go from being in a serious position to making the seriousness funny and I thought it did a good job in showing how much the football program changed the teens lives.
For once there was a lot more football shown than we are usually given in a movie like this.The bad: At times the emotional content of the film was overused and combined with the music and acting....on more than one occasion I thought 'The Rock' and Xzibit would say I love you guys...to the team. |
tt0049621 | Please Murder Me! | Defense lawyer Craig Carlson (Raymond Burr) buys a pistol at a pawn shop and travels to his office, where he deposits the gun in a desk drawer with a file folder, then begins to dictate into a tape recorder. Directing his message to District Attorney Ray Willis (John Dehner), he reveals that he anticipates being murdered within an hour, and begins to tell his story in extended flashbacks.
The memories begin with him explaining to his war buddy and best friend Joe Leeds (Dick Foran) that he is having an affair with Leeds' wife Myra (Angela Lansbury), who wants a divorce. Joe asks Craig to give him a little time to think the matter over. Days later at his own office, Joe finishes writing a letter and gives it to his business partner Lou Kazarian to mail. Joe phones Myra telling her he will be home soon to discuss something. There, he confronts Myra in their bedroom, where a door is closed and a gunshot is heard. Police investigate Joe's death. Myra explains that Joe became irate and threatened her physically, forcing her to shoot him in self-defense. Craig is also on the scene, having arrived before the police and acting as Myra's lawyer.
In the ensuing trial, DA Willis allows the police to present their evidence that a physical struggle did not occur as she'd said. Willis notes that Myra was not employed when she first met Joe, a successful businessman with a good amount of life insurance. In her defense, Craig attributes Myra's inconsistencies regarding the night in question as post-traumatic hysteria. In his closing argument, Craig claims the money motive in Willis' case is not valid because Myra was in love with another man — a revelation that could inspire Joe to cause Myra premeditated harm. Craig then reveals that he himself is Myra's lover.
The jury finds Myra not guilty. She and Craig throw a party to celebrate with friends. When Lou arrives, he reveals privately to Craig that he had forgotten to mail Joe's letter, which was addressed to Craig. Joe discloses in the letter that Myra did indeed marry him for his money, but that she was actually in love with an artist, not with Craig. Joe had decided to ask her to stay married, in part to save Craig from her. Craig then remembers Myra mentioning that an "old friend", an artist named Carl Holt, had visited her in jail during the trial.
Craig goes to see Holt, who explains his long relationship with Myra, interrupted by her marriage to Joe, and states his gratitude and admiration for Craig in his defense work in Myra's trial, especially his posing as Myra's lover as a tactic. Craig later confronts Myra with Joe's letter and his talk with Holt. She admits that she does intend to go on with Holt now she is free.
Accusing her of costing him his best friend, the love of his life and his profession all at once, Craig tells Myra she will pay for her crime regardless, because he will force her to murder him. Myra is incredulous, but Craig soon puts a plan in motion, developing a friendship with Holt, even employing him to paint a portrait to delay Myra and Holt's departure to Europe to marry. All the while, Craig taunts Myra that he will reveal all the evidence to Holt and let him decide if he wants to marry a murderess. As well, Craig meets socially with DA Willis, discussing Myra's case, and lets Myra see them together.
Craig concludes his story being dictated into the tape recorder by saying he has arranged to meet Myra at the office at 12:30 am, which soon arrives. Hearing a knock at the office door, Craig leaves the recorder running and hides the microphone behind a desk photo of himself and Joe, then lets in Myra. He shows her the file he says is full of evidence he's compiled against her, and then sets down the pistol on the desk.
As he starts to make a phone call to Holt, Myra, successfully driven to desperation, takes the gun and shoots Craig, who falls to the floor. Using a handkerchief, she hangs up the phone and wipes her fingerprints from the gun, which she puts in Craig's hand. She finds the file is full of nothing but blank sheets of paper. When DA Willis arrives, she explains that Craig has shot himself. After checking that Craig is in fact dead, Willis learns that Myra had an appointment with Craig for 12:30, then tells her Craig had invited him to come at 12:40. He finds the microphone and recorder, then stops and rewinds the tape. As he begins to play Craig's recording, Myra starts crying, defeated. | murder | train | wikipedia | The movie starts with Attorney Craig Carlson dictating the circumstances of his own upcoming murder into a tape recorder.
Through a series of flashbacks we find out that he has a problem - his best friend's wife (Lansbury) comes to him for help in a divorce.
It takes a while to find out that Lansbury's performance is more subtle than you might think.The movie is economically directed - witness how the attorney picks up his gun in the opening shots.
It's a pity this little (apparently independent?) film noir has not merited a decent restoration and DVD reissue (no one apparently bothered to renew the copyright so scratchy prints were out for a while in 1995 on VHS on "Nostalgia Family Video" and it has been anthologized in a DVD box of "13 Murder Movies"), because the elements in the film are considerably above the "B" film it's usually assumed to be and later work of those involved would be undeniably important.
It isn't a great film, but given those elements, it certainly is an interesting one.The basic flashback form of the story telling is an echo almost too close for comfort of 1944's classic DOUBLE INDEMNITY - with the characters dictating the explanation bound for similar fates; in fact, in the film's chief failing, the original ad campaign for PLEASE MURDER ME!
There were no surprises.Top billed (her first role in that position?) Angela Lansbury was in the middle of a long and (mostly) distinguished movie career mainly playing "bad girls" - years before her Broadway and television career nearly eclipsed her earlier 100+ films - except perhaps for her definitive evil mother in MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE.
didn't get her major studio leads, but her supporting roles in everything from THE RELUCTANT DEBUTANTE to BLUE HAWAII continued to be either out of the top drawer or she made them seem they were until she decamped for Broadway and the lead in the musical MAME which forever changed HER career.Third billed Dick Foran had had the lead in a wartime revival of Rogers & Hart's A CONNECTICUT YANKEE on Broadway, but had mostly switched over from Hollywood roles in minor films to TV work by this shot at an important role in PLEASE MURDER ME!, but it was RAYMOND BURR, perennial film heavy (his greatest movie role was almost certainly the husband across the way in Hitchcock's REAR WINDOW two years before, who was also working more and more in TV who really made PLEASE MURDER ME!
memorable.It is almost certain that it was this role which got Burr his big shot as TV's PERRY MASON the next year.
He was nothing like the 1930's movie Perry Mason, the suave if slightly oily Warren William who was closer to the Perry Mason which Erle Stanley Gardner actually wrote, but watch Burr playing attorney Craig Carlson in PLEASE MURDER ME!
Rather than the stock "heavy" which had been Burr's trademark, this was a persona of warmth and trust that anchors the film and makes the slightly strained story believable.One can only hope that one of the ongoing DVD issues of PERRY MASON TV seasons will eventually pick up the public domain PLEASE MURDER ME!
as a "bonus" feature - despite Attorney Carlson's position at the final fade out, it clearly belongs as part of the Burr/Mason canon.In the mean time, I'm glad IMDb provides links to the film on the "Internet Archive" for those who can't find one of the PD releases.
It's Raymond Burr a year before Perry Mason and I expect his courtroom scenes here did a lot to win him the lead in Mason.
Besides Burr and Lansbury, John Dehner and Denver Pyle did lots of TV work on many different shows.
PLEASE MURDER ME stars Raymond Burr (just before he made it big as Perry Mason), Angela Lansbury and Dick Foran--all capable actors, though hardly starring actors of the day.
Despite this lack of star power and an apparent small budget, it's not a bad film--especially when there is a twist and the plot quickly changes about midway through the movie.The film begins as Burr is sitting in his office in the darkness--dictating to a tape recorder that he's about to be murdered.
Fair little thriller concerns an alleged battered wife (Landsbury) who's supposedly killed her wealthy husband (Foran) in self defence, acquitted of his murder thanks to her romantic liaison with the man's war-time best friend and now eminent attorney (Burr).
But Landsbury's gold digging past is about to emerge and Burr concocts an outrageous plan to expose her as a murdering black widow.Decent cast showcases Burr rehearsing the familiar court-room proceedings that would soon matriculate into "Perry Mason" fame, while John Dehner plays a capable DA and Lamont Johnson features in an acting role as Landsbury's artist 'friend' before he turned to directing.
Raymond Burr is manipulated by a woman, played by Angela Lansbury, into getting her off for shooting her husband and absconding with his money.
It's a pretty good looking movie and you can see Perry Mason emerging here, but that's about it..
I agree with most of the previous comments provided re Please Murder Me. What I want to share is that Raymond Burr played this part as a possible audition for him to play Perry Mason the following year.
I must admit that Burr and Angela Lansbury were great in this forgotten film noir.
Great channel programming and I wonder if Hallmark knows of this movie connection between the Burr and Lansbury..
Raymond Burr is super in this too as Myra's lawyer Craig Carlson, Craig is another man in-love with Myra and her attorney who helps to acquit her for murder of her husband.
The plot is preposterous, and Angela Lansbury's performance will have you in stitches (too good to be true - isn't it true she has the mouth of a truck driver in real life?).
The cherry on the sundae is queer-in-real-life Raymond Burr's character's immense, almost obsessive love for his dead male friend (WINK WINK) as well as his idiotically masochistic obsession with Justice (oh, Ye Gods!).
Robinson on the ride of his life...The saucy pulp fiction, CRIME OF PASSION (1957) in which desperate housewife Barbara Stanwyck inexplicably casts aside a torrid love affair with hard-as-a-rock Sterling Hayden for a cheap fling with Raymond Burr (yeah, can you believe it???)...or John Waters' FEMALE TROUBLE (1974) which always pairs well with any other girl-gone-bad film..
I love Raymond Burr but don't think it was this role that got him Perry Mason, I think it was the DA in A Place in the Sun. Burr's whacking that rowboat was outstanding.
Raymond Burr was a great Perry Mason but not a romantic actor.
Raymond Angela and the always good John Dehner are the reasons to watch this movie and the nostalgia effect if you watched a lot of TV in the 50's as I did.
Then the stranger goes into his dark office, sits at his desk, and records this story on a reel-to-reel tape recorder ..."In exactly 55 minutes I will be dead!"That stranger is Craig Carlson (Raymond Burr), Attorney at Law.Then the Flashback: Craig is a very close friend to Joe Leeds (Dick Foran).
They were war buddies, and after 15 years of friendship Craig must break the news to Joe that he is in love with his wife Myra (Angela Lansbury).
Myra is arrested for murder!A good chunk of the film is about the court case.
The story is told in recorded flashback a la Double Indemnity.Raymond Burr plays a lawyer who defends his lover who has been accused of murder.Burr brings looming veritas to the role.Angela Lansbury plays the lover with restrained evil.The court room sequence is very good.
Perhaps Raymond Burr is practicing for his later role as Perry Mason.John Dehner puts in a good performance as the prosecuting counsel.The climax is a stunner.Although it seems a cheap production, the camera work and lighting are effective.The background music, though not outstanding, supports the action and atmosphere..
Opening with attorney Craig Carlson buying a gun before settling down to leave a message for the police regarding a murder – his own impending murder, the film offers much in the way of plotting.
His friend takes it much better than expected but soon a moment of violence sees all the characters changed or shown in a new light, with the stakes high.I watched this film out of curiosity because not only it is now in the public domain but it also features two very famous names in the lead roles.
Burr is in the sort of stiff lawyer mode that would later work in Perry Mason but here it is too stiff and doesn't fit the material, I would have liked a bit of emotion in his delivery, particularly towards the back end of the film.
The supporting players all go the same way – very stiff and lacking in delivery.Please Murder Me offers an interesting plot but it never really delivers it.
The courtroom scenes feel like Perry Mason taken down a notch, though the movie certainly could have looked like a proof of concept for Raymond Burr's eventual casting in that role.Angela Lansbury fails to exhibit the high drama I expect from her, which was a disappointment.
I'm sure many noir addicts will want to see this just because of Burr's presence, and hey there are far worse movies to waste your time with.
The issues here are straight out of Tennessee Williams.Raymond Burr is a respected defense attorney, upright and honest, but not as shrewd as the one he would shortly start playing on the small screen.
His best buddy is Dick Foran who took a bullet for him in World War II and married Angela Lansbury in that order.Lansbury has apparently lost that zing in her marriage and shoots Foran and then gets Burr to get her off on self defense.
Still Grahame or Jones would have been believable as a woman who Burr humiliates and destroys himself for.Not bad, but not Angela Lansbury..
This excellent thriller is one, if not the only, starring role for Raymond Burr in the movies, one year before he became Perry Mason on TV.
Here he is a lawyer too, who brings out the acquittal of his client (Angela Lansbury)accused of murder, only to discover after the verdict, that she really is guilty as hell.
So, could this have been Raymond Burr's warm-up for his Perry Mason TV series?
Setting yourself up for a murder is a bit beyond the call of duty I'd say, and the same outcome (snaring Angela Lansbury for it) could have been achieved with a ten minute earlier heads up to the District Attorney (John Dehner).
If made today I think a good writer could really make the story a zinger, but you'd have to leave out the part of Attorney Carlson (Burr) admitting in court that he was Myra's (Angela Lansbury) lover.
She was a good looking woman who always seemed to play a bad girl in the early days, starting way back in 1944 as the saucy maid in the 1944 remake of "Gaslight".
***SPOILERS*** Pre-Perry Mason Raymond Burr as defense attorney Craig Carlson is tortured by the fact that he's fallen in love with his best friend Joe Leeds', Dick Foran, wife Myra, Angela Lansbry.
Joe for some strange reason is not at all feeling hurt that Myra want's to leave him but is very concerned that it's his best friend Craig that she's got her hooks into.
With Craig taking on the murder case as Myra's defense attorney he blows the jury away by proving to it's satisfaction that Joe was a violent person capable of murdering his wife who had no choice but to shoot him in self-defense!
The biggest surprise,in fact his ace in the hole, in Craig's defense plan was to reveal that he was the other man who Myra was cheating on Joe with!
At first thinking it was just sour grapes on Joe's part Craig soon finds out that Myra is already planning to dump him for artist Carl Holt, Lamont Johnson, whom she was already having an affair with while he was her lawyer defending her against murder charges murder in her husband Joe death!
Troubled that he helped get a murderess off in the murder of his best friend Joe Leeds Craig could only make things right for himself by setting himself up to be murdered by Myra and having air-tight proof that she in fact murdered him!
This elaborate plan is put into action at the very start of the movie "Please Murder Me" by Craig tricking Myra in that he got the goods on her!
It's now up to Myra to see if she'll go so far as murder to keep the truth about her from getting to Carl and thus facing a possible life sentence if she does.
Craig is banking on Myra's sense of invincibility, in already getting away with murder, to go through with his plan.
Raymond Burr stars as an attorney caught up in the murder of his best friend (Dick Foran) thanks to his affection for his friend's wife (Angela Lansbury).
This was a full year before he started doing Perry Mason, so the movie might be of particular interest to his fans if it was the inspiration for his casting.There isn't all that much else here that's interesting though.
There's an interesting performance by Lamont Johnson as a painter who's also in love with the "femme fatale", but the Burr character is pretty straightforward.
It's frankly bizarre to see an actor like Burr doing these romantic scenes with Lansbury, and his halting delivery does not match his character here very well as it does in most films I've seen him in.
There's no mystery at all really, and the whole suspense is supposed to be around the title of the film and the way that Burr's character is setting up the Lansbury character to implicate herself (double jeopardy prevents her being tried again for the original murder, presumably).
About a year after actor Raymond Burr played silver-tongued Craig Carlson, Attorney-At-Law, in director Peter Godfrey's intriguing murder-mystery "Please Murder Me," he landed the role of a life-time as Erle Stanley Gardner's immortal defense attorney Perry Mason in CBS-TV's courtroom drama that lasted nine years.
Later, Burr would renew his acquaintance with the role in a series of made-for-television movies.
Anyway, Carlson and his best friend Joe Leeds (Dick Foran of "Donovan's Reef") survived the life and death combat on Iwo Jima and became close friends.
Leeds married Myra (Angela Lansbury), but he spent too much time at work and left her alone to her own devices.
Ironically, she would attain a fame equivalent to Burr's Mason during her 12-year run on the television series "Murder, She Wrote," where, she displayed her sleuthing skills each week as Jessica Fletcher.
"Please Murder Me" is a contrived but clever courtroom melodrama, and Burr's Craig Carlson finds himself caught between a rock and a hard place.
Burr is like Perry Mason in this.
I understand that "Please Murder Me" was an audition of sorts for Raymond Burr to play Perry Mason.Fred MacMurray was originally to play Mason.
The person he was with said, "That's Hamilton Burger," to which Gardner responded, "No, that's Perry Mason."Burr stepped out of his usual thug roles in this film to play Craig, an attorney madly in love with his best friend Joe's (Dick Foran) wife Myra (Angela Lansbury).
There's a shot.In the next scene, Myra is claiming self defense to the police, and Craig is on hand as her attorney.
She is found not guilty.Craig wants to get married right away and go on a Mediterranean honeymoon, but Myra asks for more time.
But Craig comes up with an idea that gives this film a good twist.As I said, Burr is very Mason-like, slim and authoritative.
A refreshing and well written movie to enjoy, with obviously cool and superior acting, not only from the couple of leads (he got 2nd billing), Foran has a supporting role, everything in a genre now perhaps less used, the cool urban suspense movie, which is the bourgeois side of the age's trend (no low lives, thugs, gangsters, and it requires both strong plot and acting), cool enough and enough dramatic, set, like another very good one, 'Jordon', in a bourgeois milieu, with the leads aware that they are giving signature roles, it uses the device of a recorded confession from a broken man, and for a time there follows a courtroom drama, enlivened by excellent performances, with Burr wholly convincing as an attorney, the plot seems very simple, with the twist being the murderess' love for the painter, so that the lawyer's vindictive jealousy comes across as petty and mean, the widow makes up for her 1st murder, by a 2nd one, but this time out of love and care, which shows that the lawyer's claim that the painter would be another, 3rd fall guy, is false, he expects her murderous burst precisely out of her love for the young painter, so that while the lawyer remains in the sphere of the vindictiveness, she ascends to proving her love, albeit by losing, presumably, her own life; the whole is less about what the director does, than about what the movie itself does to you.There are semitones of eeriness in the scenes with the three characters (the lawyer, the widow, the painter), the menace, the lawyer's game.
The D.A. is certain she's guilty, but you can't make the love-starved Burr (as close to his Perry Mason role as he would get on film during this time) believe that.
She doesn't count on Burr catching on and plotting justice, and this is what makes the movie a bit more intriguing as it moves on to its chilling conclusion.To see the two great T.V. detectives working together is certainly a curiosity, and they play off each other very well. |
tt4335650 | Carnage Park | In 1978, two thieves, "Scorpion Joe" and Lenny, escape into the desert with a hostage, Vivian, after a failed heist. Lenny dies of a gunshot wound suffered during their escape, and Joe forces Vivian to help him dispose of Lenny's body. After a failed escape attempt, Vivian explains that she was at the bank to seek a loan to save her family's farm. As she covertly reaches for a switchblade on the floor of Joe's car, an unseen assailant shoots out one of the car's tires. Joe handcuffs Vivian to the steering wheel and exits the car, boasting that he will kill whoever shot at them. The hidden sniper kills Joe, then drives up to talk to Vivian. The sniper, Wyatt Moss, tells her that she is trespassing on private property, and insists he had a legal right to kill Joe. Vivian begs him to free her, but he instead knocks her out with a drug.
Wyatt's brother, the sheriff, visits Wyatt's compound to ask if he has seen Vivian. Wyatt denies any knowledge of her, and his brother warns him that she is too well-known for her murder to be hushed up. When Vivian wakes, she is handcuffed to Joe's corpse in the car. She drags the corpse out of the car and uses a rock to smash the handcuff. Once free, she wanders toward a PA system that has a record player attached. When she plays the album on it, a recording of a siren, Wyatt takes several shots at her. She takes off running, pursued by Wyatt. After avoiding a trapped pit, Vivian finds an apparently dead woman who is holding a shiv. Vivian grabs the weapon, startling the woman into semi-consciousness. As Vivian attempts to revive her, Wyatt shoots and kills the woman. The sheriff discovers Lenny's body and loudly announces that he is entering the compound. While Wyatt is distracted, Vivian surprises him with an attack, takes his rifle from him, and shoots him.
Leaving Wyatt for dead with his rifle, Vivian looks for an exit from the fenced-in compound. She follows the cries of a injured man, discovering Travis stuck in a bear trap. Though she frees him, he is unable to move. Travis laments that he is still going to die, as the entire compound is surrounded by miles of electric fencing. Vivian says she believes she has killed Wyatt and promises to return with help. Nearby, she finds a shack that is filled with grisly trophies, such as human ears. Wyatt taunts her on a CB radio, saying he knows she is in the shack, and she hears a gunshot. As Wyatt laughs, she yells at him, drawing the attention of the sheriff, who is investigating the compound. As he enters the shack, Vivian kills him, only to be horrified that it is not Wyatt. Wyatt further taunts her, shooting at her as she attempts to pick up the sheriff's nearby pistol. Once she grabs it, she flees through a trapdoor that leads to a mine shaft.
Wyatt chases Vivian through the mine, which contains many dead bodies, dolls, and a PA system that plays distorted music. Vivian hides among the dead bodies, then engages in a shoot-out with Wyatt, which causes a cave-in near him. The lights go out, and Wyatt's taunts her with manic laughter and militaristic rants. Vivian reaches the end of the mine and breaks through a boarded up exit. As she emerges into the daylight, she laughs hysterically. A note says that Vivian escaped to safety, and dozens of bodies were eventually found in the compound; however, Wyatt was never captured. | murder | train | wikipedia | "Brothers burn faster when they're burning together." The only positive thing about this film was Pat Healy as the crazy ex-marine Wyatt Moss, who set up his own personal amusement park somewhere in the bone-dry desert in California where he lures lost backpackers and hunts them down as a real psychotic hunter.
Just because of this scene, I'm planning to watch some more films with Healy playing in it.I also thought that the sometimes eerie soundtrack and sound clips reverberating from the megaphones weren't so bad.
But otherwise this was a meaningless crime film, starring a madman fascinated by religion, who has his own safari park where victims try to survive.
She was kidnapped by two layabouts who tried to rob a bank and ended up in Carnage Park.
And surely you can expect some fragments that are similar to those in other famous horror movies.The thing that amazes me every time, is the stupidity of the main character.
And a cat could well have an advantage in this game, because it was largely pitch dark in this film.
Also, the attempt to emulate the feel of a 70's movie wasn't really successful.Actually, you can compare this with Mickey Keating's previous creation "Pod".
Carnage Park is a brand new horror film from Director Mickey Keating.
Keating put out two pretty solid horror films last year, Pod and Darling, so I was pretty excited check out his latest offering.
Plus from the trailer the film looked to have a grindhouse type feel to it, that combined with the fact that the cast featured Pat Healy (Innkeepers, Cheap Thills, Compliance) and Ashley Bell (Last Exorcism, Last Exorcism Part 2, The Day) was enough to make me want to see this on it's release.Almost immediately the film had me interested, the opening scene does a good job of setting the tone of the film, then from there they jump right into a homage to one of the great scenes from Quentin Tarantino's "Reservoir Dogs".
The first character we are introduced to (Scorpion Joe) is a very cool character, the type of character that we usually don't see in horror films like this.
Unfortunately though right at the thirty minute point the film started to get pretty bland.
It's not a terrible movie, as I said the first thirty minutes were done very well, but the last hour or so of the film is just basically a rinse and repeat of so many other cat and mouse type flicks.
Probably worth watching for die hard horror fans who need their horror fix, but outside of that I think most people will find "Carnage Park" fairly bland and boring..
It all starts pretty well with the future and the past perfectly blend into each other but the further this one goes it turns into a few problems.I can dig the whole story so-called based on true events a bit like they did wit Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974) even the color grading used reminded me of those good old exploitation flicks.But it's the ending, especially in the mines that took a bit too long for me because naturally it's pitch black in mines but it's also filmed that way.
Don't get me wrong, it is still worth picking up but as said, the mines could have been a bit shorter, it would made it a perfect flick.Gore 1/5 Nudity 0/5 Effects 3/5 Story 2,5/5 Comedy 0/5.
You can see they really gave it a good try with this film.
In a very broad sense,as a hiker I can see the idea of a sniper up in certain hills here in Southern California and that would be horrifying.But the thing is, you can see that in every single scene the writer, director, even the cinematographer had been influenced -greatly- by other films they had watched and he shows.This movie is almost like multiple movies thrown together and not linked well at all.
I'm not sure what film the first reviewer here watched but it doesn't sound like the one I saw.
Carnage Park is fantastic, with a great level of tension all the way through and while I've never been a fan of Ashley Bell (in her silly paranormal movies) she really was a revelation in this - her first appearance in the film not even looking that important until she takes over.
Carnage Park is the kind of film Rob Zombie wishes he could make and while I wasn't that impressed with the directors last offering Darling (though many were) he knocked it out of the park for me this time.
Better once it stops trying to be a Tarantino film.
'Carnage Park' starts out a very different film to the one it finishes as.
It starts out trying to be overly stylish with slow-motion shots, flashbacks, over the top characters and music blaring over the top of scenes.
All things you'd commonly see in Quentin Tarantino films, the only difference is that he has the ability to pull them off.
So the film wasn't off to a great start.
I've scene directors attempt to replicate his style before, usually for the entire duration of a film, and it is simply unbearable.
Luckily for 'Carnage Park' it gives up on that pretty quickly and settles into a fun little film.
Every scene is intense and a lot of them would fit nicely into any modern horror film.
There's actually a lot to like here and if people push through the first 15 minutes or so I think they'll find they're quite enjoying themselves..
I spent 90 minutes of my free time watching Carnage Park.
Seeing reference to: Wolf Creek, Fargo, The Hills Have Eyes, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, The Getaway, Dusk Till Dawn and even House of a 1,000 corpses (not that the last one is a good film) just reminds of how good horror can be and how poor this film ultimately is.
good flick worth a watch.
don't know what the previous reviewer is on but this movie was pretty spot on.
survival/horror genre film making is not an easy task, but this movie pulled it off.
my favorite movies are survival ones and just wanted to let y'all know if you are fan of the genre give the movie a chance.
good modern horror/survival flick.
Carnage Park is one of those thrillers that will probably disgust the regular audience, but will leave horror buffs completely unbothered.
As soon as this film started I knew it was one of the good ones.
Ashley Bell is a fantastic actress, Im not one to study movement or expressions but she really shined through in a movie that really just is a typical game of Cat & Mouse.
I appreciate some of the shots of the film, such as a ditch being in the middle of our focus from birds eye view, and our main actress walking around it.
I'm concerned his directing style needs some editing, and I'm not talking about his film.
Everything about this film is a "distracting" quality.The god awful Seepia, the terrible editing, the lack of tension, the music.
Trying to remember where I'd seen just about every moment in this film before became the distraction, because not only does he lack execution across the board, (we're talking a mish-mash of unoriginal concepts and ideas) he flounders at story telling and making you want to watch.
Keating may play the role of a "horror director", but he seems not well steeped in atmospheres or creating a level of dread that quite possibly, all the terrible films he lifted from, did.
The concept of a B-movie horror film isn't even prevalent.I gave it a 2, and not sure why?
Old school grindhouse movies typically operate by using some sort of hook to bring the viewer in (extreme violence, sex/nudity, bizarre sights, etc).
Modern gindhouse movies either take the idea of the grindhouse hook and ramp it up (Hobo with a Shotgun, Green Inferno, Turbo Kid) or they take the ideas and feel of grindhouse cinema and execute it more elegantly (Tarantino's and to an extent Rodriguez's works).
Carnage Park does neither of these things.
What starts off as a heavily Tarantino inspired thriller turns into a rather pedestrian, predictable, and overall boring retelling of The Most Dangerous game.
Completely stupid, trying to incorporate bits from other movies that were good and even with the stolen bits, they still couldn't manage to put it together.
Possibly the worst movie I've seen but they could shoot and the people that made the movie knew what they were doing, just a POS film.
But...and it's a BIG BUTT...When there is Nothing Original or Compelling on screen it Wastes the Time of the Viewer and Insults those that were Willing to Watch.The most Irritating Ingredient in this Dumb Derivative is, Ironically, someone's decision to Include Audio Feedback, Air-Raid Sirens, and other Screeching Ear-Piercing Intrusions that seem to be the Filmmakers Signature Artistic Attempt to be "Different".Perhaps it's meant to Assault the Audience, but it Insults the Audience with a Torturous Template that Never Ceases in this Abomination that Never Ceases to Show how Awful this Thing is.The Audio is also Accompanied with Loud Screams from the Female Victim with Annoying Regularity.
Ashley Bell seems to be Auditioning for a "Scream Queen" Centerfold.The Movie is Repetitive, Aggravating, and Awful.
The movie, in my view, tried to have a Tarantino vibe.
If the remaining 60 minutes of this movie was as good as the first 30 minutes it could've be really great and I'd likely be rating it 10 stars instead of 5.The description stated the movie was set in the 1970s, but maybe it should have said it watches like a 1970s movie.
Seemed to be common theme for '70s movies to start out going somewhere only to lose direction and fizzle part way through.Could have been awesome, started out great, then when to pot..
Good independent film fun.
I'm gonna rate it a 9.Pros:1)Good use of gore 2)good storytelling (mostly) 3)Good character development 4)Good surprisesCons:1)Stupid and weird at times and maybe not in a good way 2)Parts of movie seem long and pointlessThe movie was pretty good fun and awesome scenery and a good use of a script and story.
I liked the characters and found myself enjoying it and having fun mostly but some stuff just seems unnecessary drawn out and not interesting but for the most part it is a good ride and I love independent films that can give us a good ride so for that it gets a 9.
Maybe better if you can see the humor in dark films..
His films aren't perfect, peppered with self-indulgent dollops of his signature flash-out-of-the-darkness sequences that often remind us that less is more.
While Carnage Park ranks with his best work, there are a few scenes shot in near or total darkness that go on for too long in a misfired attempt to build suspense.
When used late in his films the endings sometimes fizzle, rendering his climax a bit anti-climactic.Despite this editorial shortcoming, Keating ranks among the best young directors working today.
Ashley Bell fans will be delighted with her performance in Carnage Park which showcases her range as an actress and her girl next door sex appeal.
Such a fantastic indie crime/horror film!.
It's a indie crime/horror film about the sniper and the girl trying to escape, or kill him.
It has excellent editing, brilliant cinematography, nice story, good performances.
The Last Exorcism's Ashley Bell is supposed to be annoying from it, but I actually think she gave a superb performance.
While the first hour was entertaining, but I didn't really enjoy the last 25 minutes because mine scene was so darkly filmed and should have been shorter.
If you are a fan of Tarantino/Rob Zombie films, then you will for sure enjoy it (well, maybe except the last 25 minutes).
This movie don't deserves a low rating, I think it's actually such a fantastic film and totally underrated.
Thought has gone in to making something that is visually different - which makes a change from the usual formula lighting and angles so many other budget productions mimic.Ashley Bell brings her unique acting style (and general gorgeousness) to the story - which complement the visuals.
As usual, her acting is superb.The performances of other cast members is equally superb, presenting developed believable characters.My only criticism is that the story could have had more depth and we seem to go from the middle of the story to the end far too rapidly.Being based on true events, I would think that the writers had more than enough material available to create something a bit more well rounded..
Otherwise just "enjoy" a movie that has a couple of shocking things on display.
Tedious, boring n badly directed n badly edited movie..
Inspite of being only around 77 mins, i found the movie tedious n boring.
At times i felt like switching off the movie.
Some decent cinematography but some of the scenes were so badly shot that I felt like turning my face away.
So many times this scene been repeated in horror films man.
Started out as everyone else said, appearing to be a grindhouse / "tarantino-esque" movie, but ends up ( and by ends up, I mean the last 2/3rds) utterly boring, predictable, and then unresolved.
A dumb B-horror movie,very low on content..
And I know it's more sold like an action or crime movie but even that is very low in content.The story is way to simple and a lot of tension is taking out of the action by lack of impact.
The cast is about 7 people I think and the sets are few and kind of boring.The seventies feeling it's suppose to have I never got and there's nothing convincing in this movie to suggest otherwise.
Also from what I heard I thought this would be a bigger movie and that it actually had some budget.Guess I was wrong about that.I found it very lame and to much of an indie to be even be considered as a movie to be played in the theaters.The one I can think of as worthy would be "bone tomahawk"and this definitely don't has that kind of quality.Another one to forget,I don't recommend it.If your into bad indie movies...enjoy..
CARNAGE PARK is a very boring addition to the low budget 'survival horror' genre.
It's a film that was made on the cheap in the desert, shot through with an orange filter that makes the production uniformly boring.
I found the pared-down narrative structure repetitive while the gore effects are juvenile rather than shocking, and the film as a whole bored me..
Around 20 minutes from the end I checked how long left and more or less kept checking how long left until this awful film came to an end, I thought we had an early release but then realised the screen had gone black for no apparent reason, maybe we were suppose to be scared at what we could not see, sometimes it is better to leave the monster reveal near the end..
The only good thing about the movie was it only lasted 77 minutes.
So where do we start, we have a half baked back story for the kidnapped girl, I knew we were in trouble when 50% of the cast died in the first ten minutes, we had an attempt at a Tarantino cartoon type film, a hill's have eyes type etc, at times it was like someone who got a book of quotations for Xmas and uses quotes every other sentence, the director must have been giddy with all the nods to various other films.
In one scene we actually see a plane spraying the sky at no so distant range.The director probably never heard of chemtrails and he just thinks the white lines in the sky is great footage to repeat all over the movie.
Yeah it's majestic....The soundtrack is probably the worst I've come across in a film no matter the genre.
It would actually be better if this "movie" had absolutely no soundtrack at all.
Maybe this was an idea after they finished filming the movie and nobody wanted to get any credits for being in this terrible film, so they asked a deaf and blind person to create the credits sequence.The film editor could be a mentally challenged person, I just couldn't find a scene that was edited by someone with an IQ above 70.
Laughable, amateur, cheap, boring are some of the words that come to mind recalling most of the editing.Someone in his first year of film school is laughing very hard because he knows there will always be something much worse than his worst work as a freshman.
Like this film.Don't watch it, you will thank me for many years to come.
If you did watch it like I did, then welcome to the morons club of "people who watched this film and can't get their 2 hours or their money back, ever"Mr. director, the true story must have been horrific to the people who suffered all this.
You're supposed to scare the audience with a horror film, not make them puke their guts out because of how untalented and uninspiring your movie really is.
Go watch some crappy 80's horror flicks, you may actually get an idea of how to improve your skills of film making.
I understand why some reviewers didn't care for "Carnage Park", but I think that (with some exceptions), the director accomplished what he wanted.
And here's where the director came through - I thought "Carnage Park" was going to be one kind of movie featuring "Scorpion Joe" (yaaay, James Hebert!) , but it abruptly turned into a version of "Texas Chainsaw Massacre" with a sniper (and/or "The Most Dangerous Game").
At this point you get the idea as Vivian must fight for her life.This is a me-too film which starts off rather well, Tarantino grindhouse style and peters out very quickly when the only guy with personality is killed off. |
tt0061204 | The Wrong Box | In Victorian London, elderly brothers Masterman (Mills) and Joseph Finsbury (Richardson), who live next to each other, are the surviving members of a tontine, an investment scheme set up 63 years before, in which the last member stands to receive a fortune. Masterman is attended by his unpromising medical student grandson, Michael (Caine), while his greedy cousins Morris (Cook) and John (Moore), who live in Bournemouth, do their best to keep their annoying uncle Joseph alive there. Masterman, who hasn't talked to his despised brother in many years, summons Joseph to his "deathbed," intending to kill him so that Michael can get the money.
On the train trip to London, Joseph escapes from his minders, entering a compartment and boring the sole occupant with a litany of trivial facts (something he does with everyone he encounters). His traveling companion later turns out to be the "Bournemouth Strangler." Joseph leaves to smoke a cigarette, leaving his coat behind, which the strangler dons. The train then collides with another one coming in the other direction. In the confusion, Morris and John find the strangler's mutilated body and mistakenly believe it is that of their uncle.
Morris decides to try to hide the body long enough for Masterman to pass away, then claim Joseph died of a heart attack upon hearing the news. Morris and John plot to ship the body to their London home. John, left behind to attend to this task, sends the body in a barrel. However, it is delivered to Masterman's house by mistake. The "wrong" box of the title is concurrently shipped to Masterman's house, a crate containing a statue that has the house number partially obscured. Joseph makes his way to London on his own and visits his brother; Masterman attempts to kill his brother a number of times, with Joseph oblivious to the attempts; they separate after quarreling. Meanwhile, Michael meets Joseph's ward, Julia Finsbury (Nanette Newman), and they fall in love.
The containers are mistakenly delivered to the wrong houses. Morris, arriving at Joseph's house in John's absence, sees a delivery wagon just leaving and assumes that his uncle's body has just been delivered. Things become complicated when Michael discovers the contents of the barrel and, after learning of the "altercation" between Masterman and Joseph from family butler Peacock (Wilfrid Lawson), assumes that his grandfather has killed his brother. Michael hides the body in a piano when Julia brings Masterman some broth. That night Michael hires unscrupulous "undertakers" to remove the strangler from the piano and dump it into the Thames, but Masterman falls down the staircase and they assume his is the body. Morris observes the activity and gleefully assumes Masterman has died.
Further misunderstandings and antics ensue the next day as the cousins claim that the tontine has been won, Masterman is returned home after being fished out of the river, Morris orders a coffin to remove the mutilated body he thinks is in Joseph's basement, the coffin is delivered to the wrong house, Michael sells the piano not knowing the strangler's body is still in it, the police are involved when the body in the piano is discovered, Masterman is revealed to be quite alive in the misdelivered coffin, a second coffin ordered by Michael arrives, the cousins make off with the tontine money in the second hearse, and the chase that ensues encounters a real funeral procession in which Joseph is participating. | comedy, murder, melodrama | train | wikipedia | Masterman (John Mills) lives with his grandson Michael (Michael Caine), and Joseph with his two greedy nephews (Morris and John - Peter Cook and Dudley Moore) and his niece Julia (Nanette Newman).
Along the way we meet other characters who are colorful: Dr. Pratt (Peter Sellers) - who at the drop of a hat will tell you about how he fell from medical grace to the backstreet he resides in; Peacock (Wilfred Lawson), Masterman's butler, who makes the average turtle look like it's turbocharged; the police Detective (Tony Hancock) - who can't put together a coherent idea if his life depended on it; and ...the Bournmouth Strangler (the story is from 1888, so we can guess who this character is based on).
That the novel is not quite like the film does not matter (Michael is not a medical student but a clever barrister in the story, and John's relationship with Morris deteriorates in the story due to some money troubles), but this does not matter.
L. Stevenson of "Treasure Island" fame); that the story in spite of its endless comical complications never once becomes too confusing (except of course to Tony Hancock's hapless inspector); and that the story is interpreted by some of the most memorable and talented actors of two generations.The (then) old guard is worthily represented by Ralph Richardson as the deliciously exasperating Joseph Finsbury, John Mills as the cranky and cantankerous Masterman, and especially Wilfrid Lawson's unforgettable doddering yet stalwart butler (his fellow actor Michael Caine has stated that Lawson is his favorite actor--as well as the favorite actor of every other actor who knew him).The (then) younger generation, however, does not pale by comparison.
Peter Cook's Morris Finsbury sets down a delightfully unprincipled cad (one suspects that Masterman may have resembled him in his younger days), yet we can't quite stop rooting for him, because Michael Caine and Nanette Newman strike just the right sweet and innocent tone as Michael and Julia to make us surreptitiously feel that perhaps they deserve to be cheated out of their money.
In this respect, the eventual denouement (which I won't give away) is pleasantly and surprisingly satisfying.Spare some kudos also for the excellent supporting cast, from Peter Sellers' vacuously venal Doctor Pratt and Dame Cicely Courtneidge's imperious Salvation Army major to such brief but perfect walk-ons as the unflappable engine crew ("We haven't heard the last of this") or poor Hackett's lachrymose widow.
The actors involved give the impression they're delighted to be in the film, as they should be.THE WRONG BOX is one of Michael Caine's earlier films and he performs creditably, and Peter Sellers shines in an excellent bit part.
Nevertheless, my hat goes off to three other actors who give the performance of their careers: Ralph Richardson, as the quintessential pedant Joseph Finsbury, the world's most boring narcissist; Peter Cook, as Joseph's incessantly scheming nephew who wants to see his uncle die a few seconds after Masterman croaks; and most especially, Wilfrid Lawson as the wondrously torpid Peacock, Masterman's dignified but disheveled butler whose peculiar grunts and malapropisms remain fresh with every viewing of the film.
I would put Lawson's performance on a par with Humphrey Bogart's in THE CAINE MUTINY or Fred MacMurray's in DOUBLE INDEMNITY -- it is truly that good.THE WRONG BOX ranks on a par with THE LIFE OF BRIAN as one of the finest British comedies ever.
Veteran British stage/cinema actors (Ralph Richardson, John Mills, Wilfred Lawson) play with rising stars (Michael Caine, just off "Alfie", and Peter Cook & Dudley Moore from the groundbreaking "Beyond the Fringe" revue).
Even the tiniest "blink and you'll miss 'em" roles are loaded with familiar character actors (Cicely Courtneidge, John Le Mesurier, Thorley Walters &c) rubbing elbows with rising talents (Jeremy Lloyd, James Villiers, Leonard Rossiter, Graham Stark) making the movie a veritable field day for spotters of British humor.
Funny and often laugh out loud hilarious story of two brothers (John Mills and Ralph Richardson), one of whom must outlive the other in order to win a Tontine started at their boys school and going to the final survivor of the class.
What transpires is "The Wrong Box," a 1966 film directed by Bryan Forbes and also starring Michael Caine, Peter Cook, Dudley Moore, Wilfred Lawson, Nanette Newman (Mrs. Forbes) and Peter Sellers.The first ten minutes or so of the movie is hilarious, as it shows the demise of the other students over the years.
When they go to bury what they think is his body, Cook makes Moore do it rather than put his hands in the dirt, insisting "petal-soft hands are the mark of a great ornithologist." Both Richardson, as the fact-spewing brother, and Mills, as the crazy old coot with murder in his heart, are excellent, as is the rest of the cast.
John Mills and Ralph Richardson play a pair of elderly brothers in Victorian England who are the last surviving members of a tontine, a form of investment/insurance policy in which a group of people pool funds which are disbursed to the last surviving member.
Peter Cook and Dudley Moore play two of Richardson's great-nephews, with Nanette Newman being a cousin to them and Caine.
The editing is brilliant with sound and picture from the end of one scene/shot being cut/combined to great comedic effect with the next scene/shot's start.The script and story are hilarious and keep a fast but not rushed pace until the slightly rushed ending which is the only slight shame but it is not a bad ending at all and does not detract from the whole films appeal.The cast are universally superb with many career best performances albeit in small parts.
Tony Hancock is also brilliant in a cameo, showing his comic talent on the big screen.Peter Cook has never come close to being this good in another film in my opinion.
Dudley Moore is also very funny and Michael Caine is just right in an early role.Legends John Mills and Ralph Richardson are at their incredible best but best of all is Wilfred Lawson as the butler Peacock.
He is mesmerising, unbelievably funny and it is one of the greatest comedy characterisations I've seen.Lawson gives a genius performance in a genius film where from the smallest part to the stars, everyone is perfect and almost everything is perfectly executed.
Every actor creates a memorable comic portrait: shy, naive, Michael Caine, confused Peter Sellers, vengeful rivals Ralph Richardson and John Mills (my favorites), greedy Peter Cooke and randy Dudley Moore and many, many more.
An overly silly, often too chaotic but yet still enjoyable little comedy, it is not as much a showcase for the talents of its director as his previous films were, but it is still well done, with some swift bits of editing, excellent sets and costumes, and some good camera-work.
This is one of those very rare films that has to be called 'perfect'...not a frame out of place It stars nearly every British comic actor of the time in a Victorian period comedy...an ensemble piece of great wit with superb direction by Bryan Forbes.
With Peter Sellers in a cameo that should be required viewing for comic actors, and great comic performances by Ralph Richardson, John Mills, Michael Caine, the luminous Nanette Newman, a transcendent turn by Wilfred Lawson as the world's oldest butler, the best work Peter Cook and Dudley Moore ever did, and a great bit by Tony Hancock, generally unknown in the US, as a detective.
there has been numerous films with Micheal Caine and peter cook which have been released but are not half as good e.g. jaws 3 and and one foot in the grave (t v series on BBC) with slight performances from both Caine and cook could this be something to do with some type of movie red tape that i do not know about as far as i am concerned the story line is perfect and the cast is probably one of the best in a movie there are some very funny moments and as far as i know has only been shown on UK TV very rarely while films like stakeout seem to be on every other week: also it is one of Micheal Caine's best comic performances along with peter cook and Dudley Moore..
I still quote Sir Ralph Richardson's character, after a train blows up and he's found sitting on the loo: "I think I'll take my leave, now." Peter Cook is hilarious in this movie, too.
With a such terrific cast (Ralph Richardson, John Mills, Michael Caine, Peter Sellers, Peter Cook & Dudley Moore, et al.), and cult status pedigree, how strange that the latest video release was the full screen, rather washed out laserdisc.
If that's done the winner of the Tontine is the last survivor among the initial investors.Wouldn't you know it, but the last survivors as it turns out are a pair of feuding brothers, the Finsburys played by John Mills and Ralph Richardson.
Michael Caine, Dudley Moore, and Peter Cook are all good, and Peter Sellers is fantastic in a small role.
But ultimately the film comes down to a cleverly crafted plot that was derived from an old novel by Robert Louis Stevenson and Lloyd Osbourne.The movie is clean enough to watch with your family, though the young kids will miss much of the humor, and some of the comedy comes from the fact that characters pretend to care about the deaths of older family members, when in fact they don't..
Suggested by Robert Louis Stevenson's and Lloyd Osbourne's story, this outrageous comedy involves a pair of estranged, elderly brothers in Victorian England--the last two survivors of a decades old lottery--who, at different points, are thought deceased by their relatives, two of whom will go to any lengths to retrieve the boodle.
The all-star cast (including Peter Cook and Dudley Moore, and Peter Sellers in a guest role as a befuddled doctor) is encouraged to play it over-the-top, and there are laughs nearly all the way through.
However, being patchy overall insufficiently witty and often resorting to heavy-handed comedy which outstays its welcome it fails to achieve that film's level of artistic merit (culminating in a fracas at a graveyard, then, it also brings to mind the contemporaneous THE LOVED ONE [1965]); however, we do begin promisingly enough with a number of nice skits wherein the long line of candidates to the fortune is severely diminished (there's even a gag involving an accident-prone Queen Victoria!).As for the remarkable cast, it's led by Ralph Richardson (amusingly bugging everybody with his pomposity a coachman whispers to himself "God save us!" at Richardson's hope that they meet again) and John Mills (atypically involved in pratfalls, especially when attempting to do in brother Richardson: the two live next door to each other and, yet, haven't spoken in 40 years!) as the last survivors of the deadly tontine.
Also on hand are Michael Caine (as Mills' grandson) who shares a rather boring, and unnecessarily flashily-presented, romance with Nanette Newman (Richardson's ward and director Forbes' real-life wife), Peter Cook and Dudley Moore (making for a characteristically unscrupulous albeit bumbling duo incidentally, I should get to their maligned spoof rendition of THE HOUND OF THE BASKERVILLES [1978] presently), Wilfrid Lawson (who's fun as Mills' doddering butler) and Thorley Walters (the lawyer charged with handing over the money to the eventual winner).
The cast list of this film, also see Bedazzled and Rise of Michael Rimmer, is like a whos-who of British comedy in the 60s.
The movie starts off quite well, rather quirky, with colourful and fun characters played occasionally brilliantly by an excellent cast (Caine, Cook, Newman, Dudley), and visually nice, obviously with a decent budget.
As for Cook and Dudley, watch "Bedazzled", which came out just a year after TWB; it's superior to it and one of the best comedies of the 60s.There are some original ideas, such as the inheritors in a testament not trying to kill their uncle/father/whoever but dedicating their lives to prolonging their life, as is the case with "poor little orphans" Cook and Moore taking care of Richardson's health.
I found the montage lame and underdeveloped, and nothing that followed improved the experience.Judging by other reviews it's clear comedy is a subjective experience, but it's hard not to see how poorly scripted this story is, how hard the actors struggle to give life to the material, and how many jokes were left on the table.The cast is wonderful, but I did feel sorry for them - especially Caine - having to deliver some really poor lines.
I saw The Wrong Box for the cast, who were undoubtedly some of the best actors of that time, and apart from the ending which was a little too rushed for my tastes I enjoyed every minute of this film.
Wilfrid Lawson and Peter Sellers especially are comedy gold, though Tony Hancock is also very funny, Michael Caine more than holds his own, John Mills and Ralph Richardson appeal even if their characters aren't as easy initially to warm to and Peter Cook and Dudley Moore are in their prime and seeing them together is worth the viewing alone.
(As does the original "Bedazzled," of a few years later.)PLUS, you've got Peter Sellers doing one of his most bizarre eccentrics, Ralph Richardson as probably the funniest bore ever to appear in a movie, Tony Hancock at his apoplectic best, and gorgeous photography (if you can ignore the TV antennae).In all, a genuine unsung British comedic masterpiece that deserves much wider recognition..
Peter Sellers was wasted.Caine , Mills & Richardson, Cooke & Moore all did a good job of acting but there did not seem to be enough coherence in the plot to interest me.
Wilfrid Lawson was an heroic drinker.Once when starring as the Duke of Buckingham with fellow boozehound Robert Newton in a production of" Richard the third" he stumbled all over the stage,finally tripping over his sword.As he struggled upright a voice from the audience assailed him "You're p*ssed!".He staggered to the footlights and screwed up his eyes,"if you think I'm p*ssed you should see the Duke of Clarence",he shouted,grinning manically.Now he was either almost permanently p*ssed during the making of "The wrong box",or he was the greatest actor I have ever seen.Mr Bryan Forbes assembled some lovely actors of both generations for his movie of greed and deceit amongst the Victorian upper middle classes.I can feel affinity with the Finsburys because my grandmother was the loser in a Tontine and had she not rather inconsiderately fallen under the wheels of a London Omnibus I might have been heir to a fortune.On the other hand I might have ended up the victim of a fiendish plot by disgruntled relatives.................
Mill's son (Michael Caine) is a decent chap, a promising doctor, while Redgrave's wards, nephews Peter Cook and Dudley Moore, come up with a scheme to get their hands on the money when Richardson goes missing.
This leads to a hysterical chase at the end, sort of a British early 1900's version of "It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World", with a bit of Monty Python and Benny Hill thrown in.You'll delight at the ensemble cast here, which also includes Peter Sellers in one of his zanier roles as the quack doctor utilized to sign a death certificate for Redgrave, who gets the best lines in the film and is extremely funny.
And that damp squib was The Wrong Box. It's a perfectly good natured light comedy, but is another example (like The Bulldog Breed) of a Caine fan suffering for his art - this film is really a showcase for the considerable talents of Ralph Richardson and John Mills.
Throw in the fact that Tony Hancock, Peter Cook and Dudley Moore were also in the cast, and it is fair to say that gives you an idea of the type of movie this was.
If you like comedies where adults behave like children, "The Wrong Box" (based loosely on a yarn co-written by TREASURE ISLAND's Robert Louis Stevenson) is at the top of that genre's heap.British stage and screen stalwarts John Mills and Ralph Richardson play warring brothers named Finsbury, the final members of a tontine (for the purposes of this movie, a "game" where the last survivor snags all the loot).
Young Michael Caine is Mills' grandson, in love with Richardson's ward Julia (Nanette Newman).
This Bryan Forbes film based on an idea stolen free of charge from an out of copright book by Robert Louis Stevenson written under his pen name "Collette" and translated by Reg Varney, who also drove the train; must have kept the entire British film industry gainfully employed for a year or so in Bath (where Tommy Steele and the same people in different costumes were ready to shoot "Half a sixpence".From Shakerspearian legends like Ralph Richardson who rub shoulders with comic legends Peter(s) Cook and Sellers and new up-and-coming, fresh-faced Hollywood great Michael Caine (there's not many people know that)Grab a beer, sit back on the sofa and have another beer for each born actor you can spot.Guest appearances by John Wayne (as a bird's egg) and Walter Huson (as the villain) are missed by anybody who is under 95 years of age.Enjoy !.
This in itself became ridiculous and absolutely tedious to view.Two old brothers survive-John Mills and Ralph Richardson.
Michael Caine, Nanette Newman, Peter Cook, Dudley Moore, John Mills, Ralph Richardson, and Peter Sellers, as well as a host of other familiar English character actors grace this amusing bit of nonsense.
That is not true of Joseph's two scheming sons Morris (Peter Cook) and John (Dudley Moore) who are just as treacherous as Masterman.
Peter Sellers gives one of the movie's best performances as the bumbling Dr. Pratt, who just loves cats.
Same for Nanette Newman as Julia.Ralph Richardson and Peter Cook, of course, deliver hilarious performances. |
tt0046187 | Pickup on South Street | On a crowded New York City subway train, pickpocket Skip McCoy (Richard Widmark) steals Candy's (Jean Peters) wallet. Unbeknownst to Skip or Candy, in the wallet is microfilm of top-secret government information. Candy was delivering an envelope as a final favor to her ex-boyfriend, Joey (Richard Kiley). Joey has told her that it contains stolen business secrets and she believed him, unaware that Joey is actually a communist spy.
Government agent Zara (Willis Bouchey) had Candy under surveillance, hoping she would lead him to the top man in the spy ring. He seeks police help to identify the thief. Police Captain Dan Tiger (Murvyn Vye) has professional informant Moe Williams (Thelma Ritter) brought in. After they agree on a price, she gives him a list of eight names; Zara quickly identifies Skip from his mug shot. Zara tries to get Skip to give up the film, revealing its importance and appealing to his (non-existent) patriotism, but Skip denies everything.
Meanwhile, Joey persuades a reluctant Candy to track down the thief using her underworld connections. The trail leads to Moe, who is delighted to be able to sell the same information a second time, knowing that her good friend Skip will not mind.
Candy searches Skip's waterfront shack that night while he is out. When he returns, he spots her flashlight, sneaks in and knocks her out. When she comes to, she tries to get the film from him without success. The second time she visits, she is puzzled when he calls her a "commie" and demands $25,000 for the film. Despite his rough treatment, however, she finds herself falling in love with him. Skip thinks she is only acting.
When she returns to Joey, his superior gives him a day to get the film back, and leaves him a gun. Candy finally realizes the truth. She turns to Moe for help, since Skip will not believe it if she tells him he is in danger. Moe tries, but fails, to convince Skip to give the film to the government. Moe goes home, and finds Joey waiting for her. Knowing that her strength is failing, and that she is dying, Moe refuses to reveal Skip's address for any amount of money, and taunts Joey with being a turncoat, and a rat until he shoots her dead.
The next morning, Skip returns home to find Candy there. She blames herself for Moe's death, but to her dismay, Skip is still willing to deal with Joey. When he starts to leave with the film, she knocks him out with a bottle and takes it to Zara and Tiger. Zara asks her to give Joey the film, so he can lead them to his boss. Candy does, but Joey notices that there is a frame missing. He beats Candy in an attempt to get Skip's address, then shoots her as she tries to leave. In her purse, Joey finds the address. Skip visits Candy in the hospital and comforts her.
Joey and an associate go to the shack, but Skip hears them coming and hides underneath. When Joey is ordered to deliver the portion of film he does have, Skip follows him to a subway station. He watches as the film is exchanged in a restroom, then knocks out the ringleader and chases after and beats up Joey.
Later, at the police station, Tiger predicts Skip will return to his criminal ways, but he and a recovered Candy depart to start a new life. | realism, violence, suspenseful, murder, romantic | train | wikipedia | It's not cartoon-like -- it's subtly woven into the background in a way that strikes you on a subconscious level until you've seen the film a few times and it just "clicks" that there's an alarm bell going off when she starts frantically going through her bag.Richard Widmark is way on top of his game as a smart-alec -- he's really great -- but the highlight performance of the film was the first scene for "Moe," the street peddler/informer, played by Thelma Ritter.
Wonderful stuff."Pickup On South Street" is also one of the few movies where, even though the characters aren't perfect, you do care about them -- perhaps because they have been somewhat branded by their pasts in ways that are hard to escape: Skip as a "three-time loser" and Candy as a youngish woman who has "knocked around" a lot.
Director Samuel Fuller concocts a brilliant visual set-up to this gritty story: cocky pickpocket unwittingly lifts some microfilm from a woman's purse; it turns out she's a courier for the Communists, and now they are both being watched by the police.
The best of the seven Sam Fuller movies that I've seen (including Park Row, Run of the Arrow, Verboten!, Shock Corridor, The Naked Kiss, The Big Red One, and this film), Pickup on South Street counts as one of the best film noirs.
Directed by Samuel Fuller, who also wrote the screenplay, Pickup on South Street is a tough, brutal, well made film about a pickpocket (Richard Widmark) who inadvertently aquires top-secret microfilm and becomes a target for espionage agents.
It's film-noir at its best and although the performances are very good its grand character actress Thelma Ritter who steals the movie.
It's quite an achievement that Fuller has crafted one of the best anti heroes of the 50s, and i'm sure he was most grateful to the performance of Richard Widmark as McCoy, all grin and icy cold heart, his interplay with the wonderful Jean Peters as Candy is excellent, and is the films heart.
However it is the Oscar nominated Thelma Ritter who takes the acting honours, her Moe is strong and as seedy as the surrounding characters, but there is a tired warmth to her that Ritter conveys majestically.It's a B movie in texture but an A film in execution, Pickup On South Street is a real classy and entertaining film that is the best of its most intriguing director.
In New York, the pickpocket Skip McCoy (Richard Widmark) steals a wallet in the purse of a woman named Candy (Jean Peters) in the subway.
It's too much for my budget at the moment, or I would purchase it, because the film is a good example of film noir...and I enjoy watching Richard Widmark, Jean Peters and Thelma Ritter.Criterion produces great DVDs but sometimes the asking price is just a bit much.
That's the case here for an 80-minute black-and-white, mono sound film that is good but nothing extraordinary, cinematography-wise.The story is the story here (as opposed to visuals, actors, sound, sets, etc.) as a pickpocket (Widmark) inadvertently winds up with espionage microfilm in his possession after pilfering Peters' purse.
Everyone but Peters is a believable character in this movie: Widmark, the cops, the U.S. agents and the Communists and, especially Ritter as "Moe," an informant.
That's the premise of this 1953 espionage film noir, starring Richard Widmark as the sly pickpocket, Skip McCoy, who unknowingly interrupts an impending transfer of American military secrets, as he picks the purse of a beautiful courier (Jean Peters) standing in a crowded New York subway.
The cops' informant is an old lady named Moe (Thelma Ritter), street-savvy, but pitiful, poignant, and tired, trying to save up enough money to buy herself a decent burial plot.The film's B&W lighting is delightfully noir.
Pickup on South Street (1953) *** 1/2 (out of 4) Three time loser Skip McCoy (Richard Widmark) picks the pocket of a woman (Jean Peters) and ends up with some film that contains information meant for some Communist.
The last film noir I saw was Pickup on South Street (1953), directed by cult figure (and idolised by the likes of Jean-Luc Godard and François Truffaut) Samuel Fuller, this is a biting, hard film noir, starring Richard Widmark, Jean Peters and Thelma Ritter.The story is thus: Skip McCoy (Widmark), a pickpocket who steals a wallet belonging to Candy (Peters) in the subway and contains on microfilm, government secrets (an excellent "MacGuffin" as Hitchcock would call it).
Skip McCoy (Richard Widmark) pick-pockets Candy's (Jean Peters) wallet which contains an important microfiche that is intended for the Communist cause.
Samuel Fuller's "Pickup on South Street" (awfully translated here as "The Angel of Evil") could be more fun if it was more thrilling, and use less dialogs in that theater filmed way that was distractive in some points.Richard Widmark plays a thief who simply had to steal the wallet of a beautiful woman (Jean Peters) that was followed by the FBI in a case of espionage involving Communists who are looking for a secret film that was in the wallet (nature of it it's not revealed through the whole thing, what a mess!).
Helping all the characters, except the villain, there's Moe (Thelma Ritter, wonderful) an informant of the underground and criminal world who works for the police giving informations on burglar's in trade of money and sell some ties.The plot goes well until it slowed it down during the ending, very boring and with no excitement at all; and the most difficult task of all is to get really like the main characters, the tough thief and the girl who wants the film back trying to seduce this man, I couldn't care for both of them, both annoying and mean to each other.
"Pickup on South Street" is the quick and dirty story of Skip, a pickpocket, (Richard Widmark) and Candy (Jean Peters) a mule for commie spies.
You look at him and never forget for a minute that you are watching Richard Widmark, famous Hollywood noir actor.Jean Peters is the best thing about the movie.
This film was directed in the days when plot, character believability and theme actually mattered.Jean Peters, Widmark, and Thelma Ritter steal the spotlight.
Two major factors seem to have boasted this film's stature: The direction by Samuel Fuller and yet another great performance by Thelma Ritter, which earned her an Oscar-nomination, quite unusual for a small role in a B-movie.
The stellar direction by Fuller and Thelma Ritter's impressive performance, who easily walks away with the movie, make it watchable, but otherwise, quite an ordinary film-noir with a muddled and clichéd storyline and a political message that's mostly distracting and hardly interesting or intriguing.Camera Obscura --- 6/10.
It may be just 80 minutes long but this Sam Fuller written and directed film noir feature isn't short on good acting, memorable lines or great scenes.
What he doesn't know is that the woman herself is unknowingly carrying a top-secret patent planted on her by her boyfriend Joey, soon afterwards revealed as a Communist agent, keen to pass the secret onto his boss to get it out of the country and that she is being watched by police agents before Widmark's opportunism upsets their plans.Too early to be called a Cold War Thriller, nevertheless the red threat is painted lurid and large as we see Joey ruthlessly dispatch police informer Moe, sympathetically played in her broadest "Noo Yoik" accent by Thelma Ritter and later rough up his errant messenger, streetwalker Candy, played with verve by Jean Peters as he too seeks back the Magoffin film negative in the possession of Widmark.
It all climaxes in a no-holds barred drop-down fist-fight between McCoy and Joey on the New York subway as the former, who the whole movie long has been resisting the police's appeals to his patriotism, is inspired by Joey's two personal acts of Commie violence to finally take a side.Widmark is electric as usual as the smirking con-man who gradually develops a heart and conscience as the film progresses.
Due to its excessive brutality and sadistic beatings (especially the rough slapping around of pretty Candy), this rough'n'tough Crime/Thriller from 1953 ran into a lot of serious flak from the censors prior to its initial release.In order to appease the picky censor board's pointless grumblings, several violent scenes were quickly re-shot and even a "cutesy-pie", little happy ending was tacked onto the story for good measure.And because this film's theme dealt directly with Communist espionage on American turf, FBI agent, J.
Zanuck (then head of 20th Century Fox) about the unpatriotic attitude of Richard Widmark's lippy character and his "Are you waving the flag at me?" line.Of course (as you can well-imagine), the whole controversy that all of this silly attention stirred up prior to "Pickup's" initial release did absolute wonders as a means of advertising and, thus, selling it to the curious movie-going public, and generating big box-office bucks.Pickup's story deals with the serious events that are set into motion after the brazen pickpocket, Skip McCoy, steals a wallet being carried by pretty, little Candy.Unknown to both Skip and Candy, this innocent-looking wallet actually contains a strip of microfilm of top-secret information that was being delivered to a group of ruthless Communist spies operating within the seedy underworld of NYC.Filmed in stark b&w, this hard-edged Crime/Drama had a running time of only 80 minutes.
Not only was Fuller a well-known war correspondent, he also served in WWII, including Omaha Beach on D-Day. This movie provided him with a stellar cast: Richard Widmark as Skip, Jean Peters as Candy, Thelma Ritter as Moe, and Richard Kiley as Joey.
It is a story of the times as small-time pickpocket Skip, works his magic fingers on Candy's purse while they are facing each other on the subway.The real fun begins as we watch the police, the feds and the communists all trying to hunt him down.
This picture was a noir but the best acting was done by females - Jean Peters as a stereotypical slut-with-a-heart-of-gold and Thelma Ritter as a bag woman but called a 'stoolie' for identification purposes in the film.
From the opening scene aboard a crowded train where a ruthless pickpocket is at work (RICHARD WIDMARK) stealing from a woman's purse (JEAN PETERS), PICKUP ON SOUTH STREET is relentlessly fascinating to watch.
This is a film with real villains- Joey and his Communist associates- but no real heroes.It is, in fact, the people on the wrong side of the law- Skip the pickpocket, Moe the paid informer and Candy the promiscuous good-time girl- who come closer to being heroes than any of the policemen or Government agents.
There are excellent performances in all three roles from Richard Widmark, Jean Peters and Thelma Ritter, who received a well-deserved "Best Supporting Actress" Oscar nomination for her portrayal of Moe. It seems strange that Fuller turned down Ava Gardner for Candy on the grounds that she "looked too glamorous", as Peters looks absolutely stunning.
Small time pickpocket Skip McCoy (Richard Widmark) steals what he thinks is money from a beautiful woman's (Jean Peters) pocketbook.
Samuel Fuller brings his customary playful and stylish direction to this seedy, pulpy story and manages to create one of the undiscovered gems of 1950s cinema.Richard Widmark plays a petty thief tough guy (a role he perfected over the course of many movies), who snatches a young lady's (Jean Peters) wallet on a New York subway and with it a piece of much-wanted microfilm.
When violence occurs against her, we genuinely care about her well being, and it's typical of Fuller's renegade, ahead-of-his-time style that a happy ending is not necessarily a foregone conclusion.But the ultimate success of "Pickup on South Street" rests squarely on the world-weary shoulders of Thelma Ritter, who plays Moe, a feisty lady who makes money any way she can, whether that be selling neckties or acting as a police informant.
As director and writer Fuller gets the tough edge right and I particularly liked the camera movement – incredibly close to the characters at times, unafraid to shoot a scene with one character blocking the other, and with good urgent movement in the action sequences.Pickup is not a perfect film but it is a very strong one – and for sure much stronger than an anti-communist genre piece could have been.
Richard Widmark is a pickpocket who picks the wrong pocket in "Pickup on South Street," also starring Jean Peters, Richard Kiley, and Thelma Ritter.
Widmark is an expert pickpocket who steals Jean Peters' wallet on the subway while she's delivering film for her ex-boyfriend, Richard Kiley.
With the help of a street woman named Moe, who knows the technique of all the big "snitches," Widmark is quickly identified, and soon Peters and the police are separately after the film he's hiding."Pickup on South Street" captures the crowded, dingy subways of New York and its dark piers beautifully, and the performances are terrific.
***SPOILERS*** Post WWII Film-Noir spy drama set in New York City with three-time loser and just released pick-pocket artist Skip McCoy, Richard Widmark, lifting a purse that contained an important piece of microfilm off Candy, Jean Peters, on the New York City Subway.
Together they put an end to the commie spy ring that Joey was involved with.I really liked the theme song "Again" that Samuel Fuller used that was very effective as well as moving in the romantic scenes in the film between Skip and Candy..
Pickup On South Street is yet another of cult director Sam Fuller's takes on the Cold War, as pickpocket Richard Widmark steals some microfilm that contains information vital to the Communists (who are, naturally, everywhere), who, along with the FBI, are looking for Widmark, who is not, as one might imagine, a very patriotic fellow.
This is a strangely intense, violent film, done on a medium budget, featuring fine acting by Widmark, leading lady Jean Peters, and especially character actress Thelma Ritter, who has never been better than she is here.
Though (unexpectedly) prone to melodrama, and with just a hint of anti-Communist propaganda, 'Pickup on South Street' is a strong film noir that succeeds most outstandingly in its evocation of setting the underground of New York City.When just-out-of-prison pickpocket Skip McCoy (Richard Widmark) snags the purse of a woman on the subway (Jean Peters), he pockets more than he'd originally bargained for.
The opening scene on the train is the film's finest, as McCoy breathlessly and silently fishes around in his victim's hand bag, recalling Bresson's 'Pickpocket (1959).' Thelma Ritter is terrific as a tired street-woman who'll peddle information to anybody willing to pay for it (though, of course, she draws the line at Commies).
A gritty dark movie directed by by Sam Fuller leads the viewer through a winding plot after a pickpocket steals and intercepts microfilm containing sensitive information from Candy, played by Jean Peters, destined to be shared by communist spies.
Arrogant smart aleck pickpocket Skip McCoy (Richard Widmark) really picks on the wrong purse when he snatches a wallet from Candy (Jean Peters).
Film Noir Meets Cold War. A pickpocket (Richard Widmark) unwittingly lifts a message destined for enemy agents and becomes a target for a Communist spy ring.In August 1952, the script was deemed unacceptable by the Production Code, by reasons of "excessive brutality and sadistic beatings, of both men and women." The committee also expressed disdain for the vicious beating of the character "Candy", on the part of "Joey." Apparently we had slid backwards in the 1950s, as such things would have been fine a decade earlier.The French release of the movie removed any reference to spies and microfilm in the translation.
On a crowded New York City subway, petty pickpocket Richard Widmark (as Skip McCoy) sneaks his fingers into the purse of pretty part-time prostitute Jean Peters (as Candy).
Joe MacDonald's photography is stylish.******* Pickup on South Street (5/29/53) Samuel Fuller ~ Richard Widmark, Jean Peters, Thelma Ritter, Richard Kiley.
She has enriched so many films and in almost every one becomes a sort of Greek Chorus; it's Bette Davis we watch in All About Eve, but it's Thelma that backgrounds the commentary--whether it's an acidic riposte to Eve's sad story of theatrical neglect or the plethora of furs on the bed--"looks like a dead animal act." Ritter was nominated many times for an Oscar, and should have won in this film for her worn-out informer who is "just doing her job" in this tightly-knit film noir.It's Jean Peters who is perhaps the titular star, surprisingly rich as a rather confused femme fatale who falls for Richard Widmark's hard-edged, nervous pickpocket, living on the water in a strange little coop where he keeps his treasures on a rope in the water.
Samuel Fuller's style of directing and the cinematography by Joseph MacDonald are excellent and there are many scenes which through their composition and lighting produce a strong sense of mood and atmosphere.Ace pickpocket and repeat offender Skip McCoy (Richard Widmark) gets into deep water when he steals a wallet from a young woman named Candy (Jean Peters) on the New York subway.
Basically recently released crook Skip McCoy (Richard Widmark) is back to his old habits when he pickpockets the purse of Candy (Jean Peters) in a crowded subway.
This film is a spicy little piece of film-making from Sam Fuller which gives Richard Widmark the chance to show of some of his best, most edgy acting in the role of Skip McCoy, a small-time thief who stumbles onto a military secret while picking beautiful Candy's (Jean Peters) pocket on a crowded bus.
Wonderful film with Richard Widmark, Jean Peters and Oscar nominee Thelma Ritter really shine. |
tt0317950 | Nola | After fleeing from her abusive stepfather, Nola (Emmy Rossum) travels to New York City searching for her biological father. She spends her first night sleeping in Central Park, but her luck changes when she is hired by the owner of a small diner. She ends up staying with the frycook/law school student Ben (James Badge Dale) until the real owner of the diner, Ben's landlady Margaret (Mary McDonnell), hires Nola as her assistant for her escort service.
Things go well at the escort service until Niles, a billionaire client of Margaret's service, has a bad session. Niles likes to receive rough physical activity from men cross-dressing as women, but only to a point. Wendy, one of Niles's favorites, went a little too far and sent Niles into a rage. Niles demands Margaret rough Wendy up or else he will have it done, along with inducing the police to investigate the escort service. Nola attempts to help by making up Wendy to look battered and bruised, documenting it with photos, then sending her out of the country until Niles can calm down. Niles's informants spot Wendy, no longer wearing the bruise makeup, trying to flee. Niles responds by arranging a subpeona for Margaret to appear before a grand jury and calling Nola directly, threatening her by revealing detailed information about her upbringing.
Further events lead Nola closer to finding her real father, but not without the help of a journalist (Steven Bauer), who is in need of a story on escort services. | pornographic | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0085266 | Revenge of the Boogeyman | As young children, Laura Porter and her brother Henry witness their parents' brutal murder by a hooded man, whom they believe to be the Boogeyman. As an adult, Henry has attended group therapy, improving such that he is instead currently looking for work. Laura joins this group as he leaves, meeting the other members: nyctophobic Mark, germaphobic Paul, masochistic Alison, agoraphobic and commitment-averse Darren, and Nicky, a bulimic girl who fears extreme weight gain.
Upon her joining, however, the members of the group are targeted and murdered one by one. All of their deaths relate to their fears: Mark falls down an elevator shaft, trying to escape from the darkness when the lights go out, and is torn in half. Paul accidentally consumes a cockroach while eating a bag of chips; he is given cleaning solution by a masked figure, and upon drinking it, burns a hole in his throat. Laura begins to suspect these deaths are not accidental. The hospital loses power, leaving Laura, Alison, Darren, Nicky, Dr. Jessica Ryan, and the receptionist Gloria in the dark. Gloria goes to the basement to turn the lights back on, but once the patients return to their rooms, Alison is tied to her bed by the Boogeyman. He places maggots on her arms, which burrow into her skin via her self-inflicted incisions, and she kills herself attempting to cut them out.
Dr. Ryan goes to the basement to check on Gloria, but is electrocuted by the Boogeyman while standing in a puddle of water. Laura finds a file on her brother and those of other patients with bogyphobia (phobia of the Boogeyman). She learns that all bogyphobia patients - including Tim Jensen, the protagonist of the first film - have committed suicide after being treated by Dr. Mitchell Allen. Darren and Nicky have sex in the locker room as Laura finds Alison; she alerts them to Alison's corpse, but they find upon returning that the blood and maggots have been cleaned up, leading them to believe that Laura is hallucinating. Darren and Nicky go to his room, where they argue about the viability of their relationship. Darren forces Nicky out of his room, and is then attacked by the Boogeyman, who disembowels him and removes his heart.
Laura finds Nicky on a basement table with hoses attached to her, pumping bile into her body until she explodes. The Boogeyman chases Laura through the hospital; along the way she finds Gloria's body and Dr. Ryan, barely alive and mumbling in a trance-like state. She also runs into Dr. Allen, who believes Laura committed the killings. He tries to sedate her, but is stopped by the Boogeyman, who stabs him and shoves two needles into his eyes. The Boogeyman is revealed to be Henry; Dr. Allen had locked him in a closet in an attempt to treat him of his bogyphobia, and the Boogeyman possessed Henry at that time. The chase ends when Laura decapitates the Boogeyman with gardening shears. The police arrive and discover that under the Boogeyman mask was Dr. Ryan: after killing Dr. Allen but prior to chasing Laura, Henry puts the mask on the doctor and escaped. Laura realizes that Henry is running free and is arrested for the murder of Dr. Ryan.
In a post-credits scene, the Boogeyman looks at a picture of Laura and Henry as adults before disappearing. | violence, dark, murder, flashback | train | wikipedia | Bizarre, pretentious, idiotic sequel starts off with 40 minutes of flashback footage of the first movie.
So much footage is used from part one, that when the end credits roll, they actually credit both the cast of this movie AND the first one!When the flashbacks mercifully end, the rest of this movie is pretty much Ulli Lommel poking the viewer in the eyes with this ridiculous story about filmmakers wanting to do a movie based on the events in part one, then a certain piece of broken mirror turns up and you can guess the rest.
Perhaps she can't remember because of Lomell using a flashlight for lighting in many scenes, and the for-no-apparent-reason kaleidoscope vision some people have in the film?We're then treated to see (or is that tricked into seeing?) some of the most idiotic killings ever filmed: death by electric toothbrush, death by shaving cream, death by salad tongs, death by sucking on a tailpipe after being slapped on the ass by a ladder(?!) etc.No writer is credited (actually this was written by Bruce Starr, Ulli Lommel and Suzanna Love - she incidentally looks great in this movie, but you can watch the first movie to see her) and directed by Bruce Starr, Ulli Lommel and Paul Wilson (but both Ulli Lommel and Paul Wilson took their names off of this, and IMDb doesn't even list Wilson's name here) this was filmed in 1981 and not released until '83, and there is even a flashback sequence within a flashback sequence - what more can you ask for?
The British version, titled "Revenge of the Boogeyman" has a completely different set of titles: red lettering, like that found on a birthday cake, on plain white cards.
Now, about the so-called Director's Cut/ Redux: The original Boogeyman II recycled tens of minutes of footage of the first film, and this version recycles even more, approximately eighty to ninety percent of the Director's Cut/ Redux is whole chunks of the first film repeated again and narrated by Ulli Lommell, in the guise of Lommell being questioned by off-screen police about the deaths which occurred in the original Boogeyman film, from 1980.
(Who am I kidding, like there was really even a script for this) Apparently this redux/ director's cut takes place 22 years later, and the police are just now getting around to questioning him!
The Director's Cut/ Redux version gets a 1/ 10, and almost makes the original Boogeyman II look like a classic..
This is more flashbacks of the first "Boogeyman" movie than anything else (literally %75 of this film), and what it dosen't rip off is boring, cheap garbage.
In fact the best thing I can say about it is that it isn't quite as bad as the next sequel, "Return of the Boogeyman", which is only surpassed by maybe "Plan 9 from Outer Space" or perhaps a test pattern.
It was released in 2003 after additional footage was added.Revenge of the Bogey Man is a good title because Ulli Lommel takes his revenge on us by showing all of the original Boogeyman film within this and some additional footage that really adds nothing to the story.Can you say ripoff?
Don't bother to watch the original because the entire movie is here.What the heck was he thinking?
Boogeyman II(1983/2002) * 1/2 (out of 4) Original Cut BOMB (out of 4) Redux VersionNotorious follow up to the 1980 cult classic has that films only survivor (Suzanna Love) going to Hollywood to see a friend when several producers become interested in her story.
The only problem is that part of the broken mirror from that original film is with her and soon the boogeyman is once again killing folks.
If the story sounds mildly interesting then you can just forget that because sadly this film is made up of at least sixty-percent of footage from the original movie.
I still remember the first time I watched this film and how confused and disappointed I was that it didn't feature more of a story.
THE BOOGEYMAN was a surprise hit and an effective thriller but none of that eeriness made its way to this cheap sequel, which was made after Lommel turned down an offer from Paramount for a bigger budget.
Once you try and get past the fact that the majority of this movie is from the original, you're left with a rather nutty film.
We get some extremely bizarre and at times downright stupid death scenes including one with a tooth brush and another with a car muffler.
I hated this film with a passion when I first saw it and the "director's cut", released through Image, didn't do the film any justice as it just featured this film minus about twenty-minutes and then with new footage thrown back into the film making it more BOOGEYMAN 4 than anything else.
No matter how the movie struck me this time there's no denying that this is still a major disappointment considering how effective the first film was and how much more could have been done here.
As it is, the film comes off as Lommel just throwing a fit about Hollywood as that's what takes up a lot of the new footage.When THE BOOGEYMAN became a huge hit in 1980 every studio lined up hoping Ulli Lommel would do a sequel.
Boogeyman 2 started with over forty-minutes worth of footage from the first film and then the second half had the director starring as a director being forced into making a sequel and the boogeyman shows up to kill the producer's.
He then adds fifteen minutes of newly shot footage (of himself) and pretty much changes the entire film to where you should really be calling this Boogeyman 4.
Since there isn't a part 4 I'd say that's what this is suppose to be, although Image is still selling the DVD as a sequel to the original film, which is certainly false marketing.
So in the end, Lommel made a hit film in 1980, kept the rights to that film and since then has made two sequels plus this thing with that original footage with newly added stuff on each one.
Again, the original part 2 was a horrid film but it did feature some hilarious death scenes including one by a muffler and another by a toothbrush.
This "Redux" version makes the film look even worse and it's a damn outrage that Image would release what's basically part 4 as the original part 2.
Here's why, the DVD of Boogeyman 2 isn't the VHS version from the 80's, it's a hack job from a hack director who went and took forty+ minutes worth of footage from the first film and the 'new' Boogeyman 2 footage is a bunch of scenes that play in a fast forward mode - what the ???????????
This makes no sense and is so badly done that it leaves the viewer chucking the DVD in disgust.The original part 2 was a decent horror film but this new DVD version is a worthless piece of garbage.AVOID this film.
Now that most OOP's and other obscure movies are available on DVD I just watched the original Boogeyman 2.
Under interrogation from the police, art-house film-maker turned horror director Mickey Lombard (Ulli Lommel) gives his account of the events that have resulted in his arrest for a series of grisly murders.In the mid 80s, UK horror fans were treated with utter contempt by the BBFC when the organisation saw fit to draw up a list of films they deemed unsuitable for public viewing due to their graphic nature—a list which included several films that are now recognised as classics of the genre.
Years later, horror fans who actively seek out all of the official 'nasty' titles for the sake of completion can find themselves playing a game of horror movie Russian roulette.One video nasty that is most definitely the movie equivalent of a loaded chamber is Ulli Lommell's Boogeyman II (AKA Revenge of the Boogeyman), an absolutely dire snooze-fest that almost makes taking a bullet to the brain seem like the preferable option (it would certainly involve a lot less suffering).
Consisting primarily of regurgitated footage from the first film, plus a few additional scenes starring the director himself and some risible supernatural killings (including death by electric toothbrush!?!), Boogeyman II makes most of the other nasties look like classics in comparison (so perhaps it's not an entirely worthless flick after all).So bad is the film, in fact, that it has been suggested by some (including Lommell himself, unsurprisingly) that the whole thing was a massive two fingers up to the film industry by a disgruntled director unable to receive funding for anything but horror films.
If this was the case, then I guess Lommell succeeded: his film is a joyless experience from start to finish, one which must have had his investors seething with rage.Incredibly, twenty years after its initial release, director Lommell issued a re-edited 'Redux' version intended to finally realise his original vision.
It didn't make sense, so much that I restarted it a few times to make sure I wasn't watching "the making of Boogeyman II".
It looked like the worst B movie I've ever seen.
If there was ever a film that didn't need a sequel, it was Ulli Lommel's The Bogey Man. This follow-up would have been more understandable if it were a personal project from the same director, but for some reason; someone called Bruce Starr has taken up the reigns (I neither know, or care, the reasons for this.
The plot this time focuses on some people in Hollywood who want to make a film based on the events of the first Bogey Man film (groan), this gives Brucey Starr an opportunity to stick a load of scenes from the original together with the stuff he directed.
Revenge of the Boogeyman is quite simply an awful film.
Don't get me entirely wrong here; I actually like the original Boogeyman.
This is barely film-making to be honest and director Ulli Lommel should really hang his head in shame but seeing as his franchise has repeated the exact same trick a further two times I suspect he isn't strictly too bothered.Once we get beyond forty minutes of flash-backs we kick into a new story where Lommel himself plays a director who has been asked to make a film about events depicted in the first movie.
The rest of the movie involves the Boogeyman returning and killing various people in what has to be a series of the most stupid death scenes ever conceived for a motion picture.
The only reason I can conceivably think you should watch this is if you are attempting to complete the video nasty list.
Writer/director Ulli Lommel is nowadays a very notorious and even quite hated individual because he unleashes multiple downright insufferable straight-to-video horror stinkers on the market every single year, but there once was a time when he was a promising filmmaker.
In the very earliest phase of his career he made the near-brilliant "The Tenderness of Wolves" and throughout the early eighties he made a handful of inferior but highly amusing horror movies, like "Brain Waves", "The Devonsville Terror" and "The Boogeyman".
Ulli Lommel and his buddies must have been so proud on their accomplishment that they decided to re-use all the best footage to fill up almost three quarters of the sequel.
Yes, you read that right: "Boogeyman II" is stuffed like a Christmas turkey with key footage of the original, and that's the main reason why it receives so many negative reviews around here.
Through long and extremely detailed flashbacks, Lacey tells the story about the murderous spirit in the little piece of mirror to befriended actress and her husband director (played by Ulli Lommel himself, with his atrocious German accent).
Naturally they want to exploit Lacey's bizarre thriller story and turn it into a horror movie, but then the Boogeyman returns to kill them all during a typical Hollywood pool party.
The film still got included in the infamous list of video nasties, but only because of the stock footage of the original and not because of the ridiculous new murder set pieces..
I think what this director needs to do is release the original version of this film otherwise sooner or later he will go out of the business!!!
As other reviewers have already commented, this film is half scenes from part 1 and half new, ridiculous, hilarious killings.
In BOOGEYMAN II, Ulli Lommel, who was the director of THE BOOGEYMAN (and the "unofficial" director of this sequel) plays Mickey.
Ulli Lommel is a TERRIBLE actor, just like Ed was.
The acting from both women are identically bad.Aside from the criminally long flashbacks, which show whole sequences from the first movie, BOOGEYMAN II is made up of other amazing cost saving ways, moments like when we only see filmed action with the voices of the actors added later in post-production.
So, from the looks of it, Lommel simply filmed two actors standing next to the pool and the content or the dialogue was written and added later in post-production.
Cost saving techniques like this are very reminiscent of what Ed Wood did with his films.Another thing that reminded me of Ed Wood was the moralistic tone of the "story": should they make a movie about Suzanna's experience or not?
When Lommel walks around his house, with corpses all around and thinking it's all a prank, well, it ends up being more embarrassing than funny.Then there are the absolutely ridiculous death scenes, which for some unexplained reason, always involve a man and a woman getting killed together.
This is probably the funniest death scene ever conceived for a movie.BOOGEYMAN II is remarkably awful but it's so bad that, like Ed Wood movies, it's really entertaining in a "it's so bad it's good" way.
THE BOOGEYMAN, though not the greatest film in the world, was pretty good and looks like a masterpiece compared to this stupid sequel.
Anyway, at least Suzanna Love is beautiful and the music is the one good thing to be found in this weird movie.It's obvious Ulli Lommel, who apparently hated making horror films and couldn't get funding for anything but horror films, did this movie out of spite.
The film is a slap on the face, to fans of horror, to fans of the first movie, to anyone who rented this.
The version of Boogeyman II I will be commenting on is the 'Director's Cut' entitled Boogeyman Redux on screen & released on DVD which has newly shot on video footage inserted into a an absolute mess of clips form the first two Boogeyman films.
Boogeyman Redux starts with some footage from Boogeyman (1980) & then cuts to Mickey Lombard (Ulli Lommel) in shades & a baseball cap sitting at a table being filmed presumably by the police as he is read his rights after being charged with murder.
Art film director Lombard begins to tell his story, a story that began 22 years ago when a woman came to him & told him a strange story about some killing committed by the boogeyman & that he should make a film about them.
The remaining 10% is interview footage with Lombard as he bridges the chunks together & annoyingly there is footage taken from Boogeyman II (1983) which for some reason Lommel has decided to speed up & replace the soundtrack with an awful electronic score, once all the good scenes from the original Boogeyman are used Boogeyman Redux ends.
Directed by Ulli Lommel this has to be one of the worst films ever, please bear in mind that I'm referring to the 'Director's Cut' DVD version & NOT the Boogeyman II I thought I was getting.
In fact I have seen the original cut of Boogeyman II years ago & I would be interested in comparing the two.
Basically just about the entire film is footage from Boogeyman with a few sections cut out, it's like it was cut down for an hour TV time-slot with some of the more boring exposition scenes cut out & the Lombard interview scenes in place of the commercials as they're about as entertaining & useful.
The sped up footage from Boogeman II is worthless & the bits with Lommel as Lombard being interrogated by the police are obviously shot on video & look out of place & as tacked on as they surely were.
There really isn't much else to say except just watch the original Boogeyman instead, it's virtually the same as this just without the annoying Lommel popping up every 10 or 15 minutes & doesn't have the frustrating sped up footage from Boogeyman II, this is a complete mess of a film & I hated it.
The Cinema of Ulli Lommel: Boogeyman II Redux.
Boogeyman II Redux (1983) was Ulli Lommel's re-editing of the first Boogeyman with new footage of himself as "the director" being interviewed about the murders that were committed in the first movie.
Well, Ulli Lommel wanted to create his perfect vision of the movie, a cut of the film that he always wanted to do (and also to keep retaining the rights to Boogeyman).
If you haven't seen the first film then you'll enjoy it more than if you never watched the original.The "Redux" also features two "trailers" for future Boogeyman sequels (one is for the rarely seen Return of the Boogeyman and another is a hybrid of two of Lommel's other films "War Birds" and "U.F.O." The clip for Boogeyman 5 is pieces of those films edited together with a couple of scenes from The Boogeyman.
All I wish for is that he release his entire catalog on d.v.d. I will be one of the many that'll by his films because I actually enjoy his style of film making.Despite what people say, the spliced in footage doesn't look bad and Boogeyman II Redux is worth another look at. |
tt0104114 | The Distinguished Gentleman | A Florida con man named Thomas Jefferson Johnson uses the passing of the longtime Congressman from his district, Jeff Johnson (who died of a heart attack while having sex with his secretary), to get elected to the United States Congress as a freshman Congressman, where the money flows from lobbyists. Omitting his first name, and abbreviating his middle name, he calls himself "Jeff" Johnson. He then manages to get on the ballot by pitching a seniors organization, the Silver Foxes, to nominate him as their candidate for office.
Once on the election ballot, he uses the dead Congressman's old campaign material and runs a low budget campaign that appeals to name recognition, figuring most people do not pay much attention and simply vote for the "name you know." He wins a slim victory and is off to Washington, a place where the "streets are lined with gold."
Initially, the lucrative donations and campaign contributions roll in, but as he learns the nature of the con game in Washington D.C., he starts to see how the greed and corruption makes it difficult to address issues such as campaign finance reform, environmental protection, and the possibility that electric power companies may have a product that is giving kids in a small town cancer.
In trying to address these issues, Congressman Johnson finds himself double-crossed by the Chairman of the Committee on Power and Industry, Rep. Dick Dodge. Johnson decides to fight back the only way he knows how: with a con. Johnson succeeds and exposes Dodge as corrupt. As the film ends, it appears likely that Johnson will be thrown out of Congress for the manner in which he was elected, but he defiantly declares, "I'm gonna run for President!" then breaking the fourth wall. | revenge, satire | train | wikipedia | Normally, I dont like Eddie Murphy films.
Also, it is not as scathing about the American political system as it could be, giving out the impression that apart from a few bad apples, the majority of politicians do have the publics best interests at heart.Anyone who enjoyed this should try and check out the English tv series "Yes, Minister".
Though it laid a big fat egg at the box office, THE DISTINGUISHED GENTLEMAN is still one of Eddie Murphy's smartest and most entertaining films.
Eddie plays a career con man who decides there is real money to be made in the political arena and using the name of his state's recently deceased incumbent, runs for Congress and is actually elected on the strength of his predecessor's name.
Upon his arrival in Washington, he finds himself courted by many special lobbyists and finds him squaring off against one semi-crooked congressman (the late Lane Smith), whose personal agendas outweigh his duties to the people he represents and it is through his dealings with this guy and learning that politics is more than the big dodge he thought it was going to be, our hero learns to be a better person.
This clever comedy takes the expected pot-shots at Washington, DC and politics in general, but also presents a fun good vs evil story surrounded by some elaborate trappings that make for a sophisticated comic romp.
It's not the kind of film hard-core Eddie-philes expect from him, but for those looking for something a little original and very funny...have your fill here..
As an Eddie Murphy vehicle, I was what somewhat curious to see if it would be an educational movie or just a comedic flick.
Eddie Murphy has arrived as an actor that is still capable of making quality films..
Murphy plays a charming con man who swindles his way into Congress through voter inattention -- they think he's the incumbent, who is actually deceased.
I think this is the best Eddie Murphy movie ever!
I'll start off by saying I don't particularly like Eddie Murphy.
I think he is not always in tune with what is funny, and the only movie that he was in that I truly enjoyed (I thought he was excellent in the Nutty Proffessor but I didn't like the movie really) was Beverly Hills Cop.
Here's why:Eddie Murphy does not force his humor in this movie, like he tries in almost everything else I've seen him in.
Not only that, you actually see a little drama from Eddie, which while not ranking up there with the likes of Hanks and Hackman, he certainly makes you believe he's got another side to him.The movie, while stretching credibility, attacks the System very well, both dramatically and humorously.
If one watches this movie expecting a mild satire instead of a barrel of laughs or a breathtaking plot, they will probably enjoy it, assuming they didn't hate Beverly Hills Cop..
The only thing this movie lacks is violence and nudity, not that it needs either.I've never seen a more thorough and realistic comedy about government and politics before or since this film.
There are a few liberal connotations in The Distinguished Gentleman (particularly environmental), but they are immediately balanced and authenticated by the conditions presented in the story.This film isn't an absolute probe into political science, but it gives a more lucid perspective of politics than the media would ever care to attempt.
If you appreciate the comedy of Eddie Murphy and have a critical appreciation for politics, you will enjoy this film.I'd give it a 9.5, but the IMDB won't allow decimals..
Thomas Jefferson Johnson is a small time con artist who realises the money in politics when he overhears Congressman Jeff Johnson during one of his scams.
Once in town he gets on the gravy train straight away joining his colleagues in Congress, he is soon up to his neck in contributions and fund raisers but is this really what it is all about?Although it starts out with plenty of big, easy targets the first half of the film is lively and quite funny.
The broad satire is never that cutting or intelligent but it does the job for an Eddie Murphy comedy.
He Like Steve Martin in the '70s,became a stand-up comedian,treated like a rock star.Then came great films like 48 Hours,Trading Places & Beverly Hills Cop #1 & Pt.2 and Coming To America.
In 1992 it seemed he had rebounded with "Boomerang" but then came this.The Distinguished gentleman takes Murphy,once again back to the street smart,con artist he'd played before.
In the last moment,I was like,"That's it?"Four stars is a generous rating here but I feel that Murphy was at least trying to say good-bye to his 80s super-star and hello to maturity,which he finally found.
Eddie Murphy is a great actor and he proves it in this movie.
Victoria Rowell as Murphy's lawyer-activist love interest, Lane Smith as his double-dealing "political" mentor, and Joe Don Baker as the power magnate who tries to put both men in his pocket, bat great cleanup.
All of this movie, coming from a pure political buff like myself, is great.
Dutton's great performance as Eliah Hawkins, a preachy minister-Maryland congressman who I think is like Keyes in every way..
Lane Smith does a good job of being a corrupt politician, as does Joe Don Baker as being the CEO of a Power company.
Eddie Murphy plays a con turned congressman.
I believe it may have been an attempt for Eddie Murphy to explore a serious character-role for a change.
Some viewers consider this film political satire, others could say its almost documentary-like.
Starring Eddie Murphy as Thomas Jefferson Johnson, he's the name you know!Jonathan Lynn directed this film, which has not always garnered the best reviews (even though James Garner was part of the cast).
Still, if you like Eddie Murphy, give this film a look, you won't be dissatisfied..
The film centers around Murphy as a con man who gets himself elected to Congress and his attempts to put as much money in his pocket as possible.In order to maximize his influence with lobbyists, Murphy gets himself appointed to the most powerful committee in Congress, which in real-life is the Ways & Means Committee and when this film was made, was run by Dan Rostenkowski, but in the film is run by the equally corrupt Dick Dodge.In 1994, Rostenkowski was indicted on corruption charges and stepped down as Ways and Means chairman; he lost his House seat in the Congressional elections later that year.
This film is a must for anyone interested in politics and for anyone that would like to see Murphy play a different role than his usual fare..
The plot was flimsy, the film moved WAY to fast at the beginning, and the big conspiracy was about power lines causing cancer...It was sad that was the best they could come up with.
If you want to see truly great acting by Eddie Murphy, rent Bowfinger, Coming to America, or Trading Places.
Here is yet another in a long, long line of Hollywood films in which all the black people are smarter than the stupid white folks, and all the politicians are corrupt.
Let's also get one of the hotter black stars of the era to play the "hero," too, and have him show all those corrupt politicians how it should be done, even though that "good guy." played by Eddie Murphy, is a crook, too.
It's also too profane, but that's no surprise with Murphy in the lead role and a total unknown - who has remained such in the last 15 years, Victoria Powell - as the female lead.This is a poor man's "Trading Places," another movie in which a nobody, here a slimeball con man, can turn into a somebody, a man elected to congress.
I quite enjoyed "The Distinguished Gentleman." In my opinion, it's one of Eddie Murphy's better efforts.
I think this movie is very funny and Eddie Murphy is just awesome as usual.
I especially liked the first three quarters of the movie - the truth is that given the good cast and essential plot the Director and the writers could have given it a different twist towards the end and THEN it would have been a winner.
it's just that the movie hits too close to the concerns i feel when i view the "comedy" that goes on every day in washington!if it weren't for the blatantly funny lines and over-the-top portrayal by murphy, i think this could be classified as a "black comedy".
It's a FUNNY movie, and I know a lot of people saw it when cable started playing it like mad.
Begins Like A Sharp Political Satire As Good As An Ealing Comedy....
Watching it again as a mature adult I really appreciate the nuances of the movie.Eddie Murphy plays Thomas Jefferson Johnson--Jeff Johnson for short, a small time conman in Florida.
He fits right in in Congress because he's just as sleazy as the rest of them until he his faced with a real issue from one of his constituents.The Distinguished Gentleman is Trading Places in Washington.
Just like in Trading Places Eddie Murphy was put into a prominent position through fraud.
Eddie Murphy is a fine impressionist as we've seen from Coming to America, The Nutty Professor, and I'd even add this movie to the list.This may not have been the best Eddie Murphy film but I think it's a lot better than the 5.9 rating it has.
"A Distinguished Gentleman" is about a con man Thomas Jefferson Johnson (Eddie Murphy) who realizes that the best con that he could pull is not as a small time operator in Florida, but as a Congressman in Washington D.C. making shady backroom deals with corporate lobbyists.
But what also makes the first three-fifths so good is the use of humor as for indicting not only the political system, but also in a subtle way American society.
And this movie gives him some great moments especially in the beginning.Eddie Murphy starts as a Florida con 'artist' accompanied by some accomplices blackmailing people who use his private fake phone-sex service.
His way to the top of course hardly meets any difficulty but, after all, this is a comedy so we don't mind as long as it's entertaining.But then things go wrong, Johnson meets a Pro Bono lobbyist, falls in love with her pretty fast but their relationship doesn't add anything to the movie and is not developed and chemistry between both actors is obviously missing.First, Johnson enjoys his journey at the Congress but he soon realizes he can't keep a straight face and simultaneously take part to the different frauds and corruption present.This is where the movie takes a turn for the serious and forgets it started out as a comedy.
All this is done in an unexplainable cheesy way.Shame, as the movie contained some good ideas for a comedy but director Jonathan Lynn seems to have been distracted and forgot that his original intention was to make a good comedy with Eddie Murphy having a good time at Congress..
See other comments if you want to find out about the plot.The movie has that fast-paced early 90's feel where the plot develops way too fast with too many minor characters running around.
Honestly, this movie is not funny and not entertaining on any level.While not as bad as Best Defense (is any movie?), there is a reason 1992 saw it come and go in just three weeks.If you like Murphy, get Trading Places (excellent), 48 Hours or Another 48 Hours.
However, I suppose I can't help forgetting about real political satire like the BBC series "Yes Minister" and "Yes, Prime Minister".And there is where this movie falls short, namely in the writing.
Eddy Murphy is supposed to be a con artist, but at several points in the movie his character is simply to naive to be believable.This movie could have used some sharp political satirist writing on it, to highlight absurdity and stupidity of what happens when government comes down to the level of large administrative bodies which always have their own momentum and agendas.The problem with this and other American political satire movies is that the writers don't trust the audience to get it.
This one is unexpectedly terrific and clever.Next to 48 hours, this is Eddie Murphy's best performance ever.
Eddie Murphy is a small-time con man who uses congressman James Garner's sudden death to propel himself into the biggest con game of all -- Washington politics.
As he learns along the way, his character grows, but so does his conscience.Eddie Murphy handles the entire transformation remarkably well.
No wonder this movie was a big disappointment.I was hoping that this would of been a return to glory for Eddie Murphy, doing pure comedy after the comedy-drama of Boomerang, but this one is too serious and preachy.
The set-up sounds great: Murphy plays Jeff Johnson, a hustler who decides to lie his way to Congress by claiming to be the elected Congressman from some backwoods part of America who elected a dead man to the post.
Instead, he discovers that some government officials are even more corrupt than he is and he must use his "power" to make things right for the little guy.While a movie like this could have been good, Eddie is placed in a vacuum.
(Unless you want to argue that the politician isn't small time I guess.) Anyway hilarious rib-ticklers aside
When local hustler Jeff Johnson capitalizes on a naming similarity and vaults into the US Senate, he immediately sets about reaching towards all the well manicured hands holding out money and favours.Seeing a handsome and well spoken black man gives party high-ups ideas, they latch onto Johnson and give him simple instructions "Shut up and smile big".This works well initially when Johnson amazingly is fast tracked through to positions others in parliament wait years for, but then things change for Johnson
As the DVD cover might say Johnson comes into contact with a well meaning and determined young woman named Celia, who catches both his eye and his heart.
If it were Stallone they would have played off the 'big dumb guy with muscles' angle, Bruce Willis would have smirked his way through proceedings and a bunch of peripheral actors would have seen it vanish from shelves and cinemas within weeks.But they got Ed near the height of his powers, as well as his smile and laugh Murphy gets to unleash his array of voices and characters to provide a few decent chuckles, and it must be said that the supporting cast are all pretty reasonable in a paint by numbers affair.I liked it.
Actually Mame, you could be a great deal of help, I have a few minor questions.Thomas Jefferson Johnson: Chairman Dodge, please!
"My husband never gave me any, since he was doing the secretary, now its MY turn!" If you replay the scene where Eddie Murphy approaches Mrs Johnson of obtaining the campaign items, the flow later suggests she like to hit on a black man.
I enjoyed the movie when I first saw it but the end just grates on me now, as the bad guys are actually right and the good guys are the ones who want to spend millions of dollars fixing a non-existent problem.
The opening part of the film is still funny, and matches up pretty good with how I expect politics to be like in real life.Still funny, just a shame that history has changed the moral of the story to - don't trust the well meaning caring people, the crooked politicians have it right..
Murphy goons his way through this film more of a caracature than a character of a conman elected to congress.
A good story line and supporting cast make for an enjoyable movie, in spite of Murphy's muggings and lack luster romantic partner..
The Distinguished Gentleman is one of those movies that was a little too smart for its audience.
I think its one of Eddie Murphy's better movies.The story: Eddie Murphy plays Thomas Jefferson Johnson, a small-time crook that runs for Congress and wins.
This being after he meets up a cancer-stricken girl that is a victim of the power lines over her school.Eddie Murphy is great as the slick con man and he looks like he wants to be in this movie not like these later flicks where he phones in his performance.
Eddie Murphy plays a naive but slightly corrupt huckster who believes getting into office in Washington will give him the kind of cushy job that will pay him well to do very little actual work.
Eddie Murphy and political satire.
For all this, it's worth watching for Eddie Murphy's performance..
Eddie Murphy goes to Washington.
The scene in which he arrives in Washington, and is then praised by his peers for getting elected on somebody elses' name goes to show how this con is not treated with suspicion, but with praise.It is an interesting movie because it attacks politics and politicians.Thomas Jefferson Johnson (Eddie Murphy) is a conman and believes that he is in control of everything.
He gets into Congress and then manages to promote himself into the Power and Energy Committee, the one with the most money.This movie makes politicians out to be people with no real ambitions other than to make money.
He is to sit down and shutup.The Distinguished Gentleman is a very funny movie, and interweaved with the comedy are scathing attacks at politicians.
(Eddie Murphy) was nice.
Clearly with (The Distinguished Gentleman) the man wanted to make comedy with something serious in the mix this time.
Wanna hear something good; this is way WAY better than Murphy's other movie from the same year, the supposed romantic comedy, (Boomerang)!.
This is passable 80's Eddie Murphy winding its way into the 90's. |
tt0139465 | The Minion | The film's plot revolves around the coming of the Apocalypse, heralded by the imminent liberation of the Antichrist from the depths of Hell through a certain gateway at the close of one full millennium. This gate can only be opened by a special key, which has been kept guarded by the order of the Templars (who in this version existed since the last days of Jesus). The key in turn is sought out by the servant of the Antichrist, simply known as the Minion, a demonic spirit that transfers itself into the next available host body when his previous one is killed off. His first attempt to gain the key at the close of the year 999 is foiled; the sole surviving Templar of the company charged with hiding the key eventually takes off with a ship to the west, to what was at that time known as the "end of the world", to keep it from the Minion's grasp.
A thousand years later, near Christmas of 1999, two city engineer workers accidentally find a hidden Templar burial chamber beneath New York City. A Mohawk archeologist, Karen Goodleaf, is tasked with the examination of the chamber and its contents, but then the Minion attacks. Before he can claim the key, however, he is hindered by a man in priest garb, who kills the Minion's host body with a blow from a spiked gauntlet to a certain part of the neck and then takes the key for himself. Startled and confused, Karen chases after the man, who gradually introduces himself as "Lukas". Lukas Sadorov is a Templar and a former Speznas who deserted the Soviet army following a massacre on civilians in Afghanistan, sent by the head of his order to recover the key. After a lot of insistence, Karen tags along with Lukas and eventually gains his trust, and after having seen the Minion in action, she decides to aid him in his quest by proposing to hide the key in a nuclear waste depository built on the grounds of her childhood reservation home, whose lingering radioactivity would theoretically prevent the Minion's host bodies from claiming it. She enlists the help of her grandfather, Michael Bear, a Mohawk shaman who works as a foreman at the depository plant, in order to gain access to the facility.
However, the Minion repeatedly takes over people who unwittingly come into contact with his previous, if disabled host bodies, enabling him to continue his relentless pursuit. He finally takes possession of Karen's former archeology tutor, Professor Schulman, who is providing assistance to the NYPD during the investigation of the apparent serial murder case, and tricks the police into opening a manhunt on Lukas. After killing Karen's grandfather and donning his radiation suit as a disguise, he tricks Lukas into giving him the key and escapes with it to Jerusalem, the location of the Templar's sanctuary and the gate to Hell hidden within its crypts.
The Minion arrives at the Templars' headquarters just before Lukas and Karen do, taking the Templars by surprise and killing most of them. Bernhard, one of the Templar Knights, manages to kill the Minion, but in his eagerness to prove himself better than Lukas, he accidentally allows the Minion to take possession of him and thus insert the key into the gate. Lukas and Karen arrive shortly after, and while Karen tries to remove the key from the lock, Lukas battles the possessed Bernhard and kills him. Together, he and Karen, although tempted by the Antichrist himself, manage to prevent the gate's unlocking just before the final seal on the door is burst. With the Templars decimated, Lukas decides to rebuild the order, and Karen spontaneously declares to join him in his efforts, marking the dawn of a new generation of Templars to guard the gate and the key. | good versus evil, cult, violence, romantic | train | wikipedia | Worst portrayal of archaeology in a movie EVER.
Please believe me when I tell you, dear ones, archaeologists don't go about their business acting like obsessive, `I work alone,' TV criminologists gasping (made-up) historical trivia into a dictaphone while diving straight for the shiny things without any sort of support team (and if we ever get that possessive about archaeological material, someone needs to slap us upside the head.) Makes Indiana Jones look professional in comparison.
Dolph Lundgren plays Lukas, a member of a secret order of Templars, who is tasked to keep the key away from the minion.
The movie begins a thousand years ago, in the Middle East where a couple of knight templars flee from the minion.
Needless to say, the minion is after the key, and the movie becomes a long winded chase scene between the minion and Lukas and archeologist.The movie, is just that, a low budget B-movie flick.
You'll follow the chase but you won't ever feel involved in the story which willfully takes ideas from previous movies (especially The Terminator films).
The fight scenes with the minion is troublesome, in that you never get the sense of how good or how bad a warrior this demon is.
The whole idea of a secret order of Templars, a door to hell, and the key isn't well explained.
The movie seems to have been made with the feeling there's not much potential to the story but only enough to make a few bucks.
Dolph Lundgren sure looks like he wish he were somewhere else.The verdict: 2 of 5 stars..
Dolph Lundgren just looked positively bored.
The only redeeming quality I could find in this movie was that the artifacts looked authentic enough to pass for medieval or Gothic period pieces.
When seeing this first time i thought that it was poor because there was not much action in it and that is what you'd expect from a Dolph film, but having watched it again and concentrated more on the plot and characters i found it quite good.
Its promise was really in the story, it was similar to End of days with Satan as the threat of human extinction, but the plot was a lot better than Arnies film but the fact that E-O-Days had the big budget, and the impressive cast list it will be preferable to most people.
The cast in the Minion has Dolph has it's only recognizable name and face but to be fair the other performances are of a good standard.
I think it would make an interesting film if just for once the world did end or the bad guy wins then at least it would surprise the audience, just when they expect the hero to save us from Satan he gets impaled with a spear or something and turns the earth into a blazing inferno then follows on by eating Jennifer Anistons charred bottom, but thats not gonna happen.
As for this film it's a decent enough film with a good plot let down by the director who has only done the Minion and it shows, the film does'nt live up to its potential but i still liked it..
P.U. The Minion (AKA Fallen Knight) stars Dolph Lundgren as a priest who must keep a key out of the hands of a demon who is trying to set the antichrist free.
This is not a movie...It consists of one sided fights (That are poor) And bad acting that will make anybody groan.
The Templars should keep this movie from an audience.....Because this groan inducing bore will have you wishing the end of the world would happen just you could get out of this stinkbomb.
The story is actually quite good but the way it´s carried out made even my body hurt.
The actors, except for Dolph who kinda sucks also, perform so badly you can´t help but wonder if their reason for being there is that they´re all friends of the director, who by the way must have been absent most, if not all, of the time.
Dolph Lundgren stars as a templar who comes to New York when a key that unlocks the anti-Christ is found by an archaeologist, of course the demon is only a couple miles behind Dolph and isn't killed so easily as he transfers from body to body.
(Like Fallen without the suspense) Of course Lundgren is out of his element and the movie is completely unwatchable.
I admit to being a fan of Dolph Lundgren, like Steven Seagal and Jean-Claude Van Damme, I try to watch his movies whenever they're on TV.
Worst of all is Lundgren's woefully unconvincing perf as a tough guy priest (!) all of this made worse that the movie is such a rip off of Fallen (Which was good) and End Of Days (Which was bad but better than this) overall this movie is the worst movie I've seen from Dolph Lundgren.
My entire body was tense throughout the duration of the movie because I could not wait for the awful thing to be over and done.
Very Strange Movie But It Wasn't That Bad I Wished It Was Done A lot Better.
this movie was so strange the story and way it looks of movies.
Dolph Can Do Russian Accent like in Rocky IV, Red Scorpion, The Mechanik AKA The Russian Specialist he can do a German or French Accent in War Pigs But His Character Is A Jewish Character can't do a Jewish Accent i am sorry his voice in this movie sounds terrible in this movie just terrible gives me headaches but he was a Templar and a former Speznas who deserted the Soviet army following a massacre on civilians in Afghanistan.
the story is similar to Arnold Schwarzenegger end of days expect this is a very low budget movie sadly can't be bigger movie i wish this was directed by Peter Hymas Who Made End of Days Dolph Character can team up with Schwarzenegger Character.
this movie come out after end of days one year later it's because it's kinda Similar story to End of Days with New York, Christmas Eve, 1999 - at the dawn of the new millennium - a subway construction crew unearths an eight hundred year old Celtic skeleton and a mysterious key.
News of the discovery reaches a Middle East monastery where the warrior monks knowns as the Knights Templer - an ancient sect entrusted with protecting holy relics - choose their best pupil, Lukas (Dolph Lundgren) to face the diabolical threat.
As Lukas races to New York, an evil Minion seizes Karen and uses its body like a parasite and host.
Lukas arrives just in time to rescue Karen and despatch the Minion.
now he kills a lot Demons in this movie and theirs another character with him is woman Karen Goodleaf (Françoise Robertson) Who Saw All What Happened Follows Lukas, She Doesn't Get What's Going on she Decides to Follow Lukas.
Now This is So Similar to End of Days the all Thing and Horror and Apocalypse and Christmas all That did Peter Hymas Watch This Movie Made his Own Movie Better Then This ?
i believe Peter Hymas is a Better Director then from this movie Jean-Marc Piché Who Can't Make Action a lot to it or Horror in it, i thought this was most strangest movie i have watched like Character Comes in with Heavy Weapons in Police Station i am like ok ?
Sadly Theirs Not Much Action In Movie The Only Shameful Thing is When Dolph Character Lukas Has This Great Looking Glove with sharp objects on top of it and if he punch's it, it kills person it looks sick that glove i wished he would use that in movie the all movie use that Glove killing all demons but no he uses that for 30 min or less he loose it sadly shame.
there is action i like ending of showdown with Dolph And Villain each another with weapons was great looking and well shot i love that scene pretty fun but movie wasn't fun.
There is action moments but movie wasn't great but i like idea of having Dolph Lundgren In Horror movie like End of Days.
But Sadly End of Days Is A Better Movie Then This.
this kinda hard to watch but unless if your Lundgren fan like me then you could watch this movie very easily i thought story was really good and having Dolph in it but i really wish it was peter hymas making this movie with Arnold and Dolph to save world but sadly it didn't happen or no one had thought of it.
When your movie is envious of "End of Days"...
"Fallen Knight" here in Canada) is a boring fantasy action flick with bad acting, a lazy script and with a budget so thin (too thin for grenade explosions apparently) that there's no way any audience could see it without being disappointed.
The plot, not that you will remember or care by the time the movie is over, concerns a warrior belonging to an ancient order or super priests who have to prevent "The Minion", a servant of the Antichrist from opening a doorway to Hell and unleashing the apocalypse every thousand years.
The Minion is able to possess the bodies of people, so even when our hero Lukas (Dolph Lundgren) or the woman who decides to join his quest, Karen (Françoise Robertson) get rid of it, the big bad will just come back in the body of another person.
You would think that would make for some sort of excitement, particularly when you see Lukas' ridiculous spiked gauntlet thing, but the movie wastes every opportunity to deliver.
An obvious plot point for example, would be for a character we care about to be possessed by "The Minion" to create the "are they going to find a way to bring him back, or are they going to have to kill their friend?" scenario but this never happens.
Even if you are a hardcore fan of Dolph Lundgren, the action scenes are bad so there's no reason to see this.
This is probably one of the worst movies I have ever seen.
If you really want to know what NOT to do when either writing, directing or editing a movie, watch this!.
STAR RATING:*****Unmissable.****Very Good***Okay**You Could Go Out For A Meal Instead*Avoid At All Costs.Sigh,why must Dolphy boy always go on about being a better actor than people give him credit for when he keeps churning this sort of far fetched nonsense out.I suppose from what I was expecting of it,it was entertaining enough.His accomplice was quite attractive,though she was dressed kind of like a hooker.But,as ever,towards the end,I thought it just got pathetically silly.Nuclear silos?What on earth did they have to do with the story?And since when can you phone somebody in a church?I've come to a conclusion that I will probably enjoy most of his films...but I'm going to stop taking them so seriously,because they're at the mental level of a 2 year old.
Dolph Lundgren (Lukas) is at his best and Françoise Robertson (Karen Goodleaf) shines in this movie.
This story is well written and has a great plot, with some great choreographed fight scenes.
The Director (Jean-Marc Piché) did such a great job when he directed this movie that it is obvious that he put in allot of hard work and long hours in putting this great movie together.
As to the special effects they did such a great job making the actual fighting seem real.
It is so obvious that anyone who has seen this movie would see how great it is.
I would recommend to anyone that they either purchase, rent, borrow, or watch this movie on TV.Karen Goodleaf shows great courage and heroism throughout the movie, and endures the death of a loved one with dignity.
Dolph Lundgren carries out his mission to prevent the Minion from releasing Lucifer from his prison with a missionary zeal.
Terrible - One of Lundgren's worst movies.
Unfortunately this movie is just SO bad that I can't think of any redeeming quality in it.I simply can't believe that they spent 12 million $ on this movie.
That's a mystery more intriguing than the whole movie.Dolph Lundgren in this movie plays a tough guy priest !
I've seen better fights in amateurish movies
The story rips off "Fallen" and "End of days" , but that's the smallest problem.
The authors couldn't even get the dates right (The Knights Templar did not even exist until the early 12th century).
Wow and I thought that any Steven Segal movie was bad.
Every time I thought that the movie couldn't get worse it proved me wrong.
The story was good but the actors couldn't carry it off.
It may not be one of Dolph's shining moments, but The Minion really isn't all that bad..
When archaeologist Karen Goodleaf (Robertson) goes to investigate a burial site found underneath New York City, she gets way more than she bargained for.
This key just happens to unlock the hiding place of "The Minion", a devil or demon of some sort.
Luckily, Lukas (Dolph), is sent from a monastery in Jerusalem to help recover the key before it falls into the wrong hands.
As it turns out, Lukas is a direct descendant of The Templars, and his "warrior priest" status helps Karen fend off the powers of The Minion, whose spirit can inhabit the bodies of others.
The Minion has some noteworthy ideas, such as modern-day Templars, and the dialogue is fairly interesting, or at least attempts to be.
So many DTV movies seem like they're not even trying.
The dialogue to convey said ideas is delivered convincingly by Dolph, who must have chosen this role because it's a bit different than what he's usually known for (or he was hitting a rough patch in his career and had no other option but to go to Canada and shoot this).Now while there are historical references (among plenty of mumbo-jumbo, of course) - the film borrows heavily from such contemporary movies as The Relic (1997), but crosses it with C.H.U.D.
Actually, an entire movie could - nay - MUST be made of Dolph fighting more baddies and punks with a spiked glove.
Anyway, add in a demon in some kind of supernatural prison, and Dolph as the most badass dude to wear a white Priest's collar, and you have a decently entertaining Dolph vehicle, despite its flaws.It may not be one of Dolph's shining moments, but The Minion really isn't all that bad.
The best actor who ever lived, Adolphus Lundgren, graces the movie with his presence, with this shining luminary of the thespian arts miming a black-clad Knight Templar in his inimitable, hard-hitting fashion.
If you have but one hour left to live, this movie is what you should spend the time with.
Not one of Dolph Lundgren's best.
He plays Lukas Sadorov, an ex- Spetznaz soldier turned priest in a sort of Templar order, who comes to New York when an ancient key is discovered by workers digging a tunnel.
Apparently the key unlocks a special cell in the Templar order's monastery in Israel in which is imprisoned a Someone .
Also on the trail of the key is The Minion, who is the servant of the Someone.
The identity of the Someone, how the key came to New York, and the overall plot itself are ludicrous.
Why the Templar order never destroyed the key instead of hiding it for centuries as it was never to be used again is never mentioned.
Dolph Lundgren himself looks uninterested most of the time and even in the action scenes looks half-hearted.
The Minion is played by several people as it can leap from person to person, only to give itself away by a hilarious kind of growl."Some questions are best left unanswered" says one of the characters.
This movie had the potential to be really good, considering some of the plot elements are borrowed from the sci-fi actioner THE HIDDEN.
But someone somewhere really dropped the ball on this one.Dolph plays a butt-kicking monk (!) who travels to New York to retrieve a key that unlocks a door beneath his monastery that has imprisoned the antichrist for 2000 years.
He must battle the minion, who is a spirit that jumps from body to body much like THE HIDDEN and JASON GOES TO HELL.
The minion, naturally, wants the key so it can let the antichrist out.
Along for the ride is an annoying female archaeologist and together she and Dolph are chased by the minion-possessed bodies.If I'm making this sound entertaining, forget it.
The pacing is very awkward and sluggish, the acting subpar at best, and the fight scenes staged poorly.
Dolph sleepwalks through his role and spouts some of the worst dialogue of his career.The cheese factor really picks up at the end when the minion battles an army of machine-gun wielding monks at the monastery, but the rest of this flick is a snoozefest.Too bad, I really wanted to like this..
The 1st half is kind of dull, with lots of boring and pointless dialog, but the 2nd half is great with lots, of action, however, Dolph has done a LOT better, as i was a bit disappointed by this movie.
This may be Dolph's worst(well at least that i have seen so far), and, the ending was kinda abrupt.
Dolph Lundgren is AMAZING as always, however, he looked bored here, and had to spurt out some awful dialog, but he kicked that ass, and made the movie bearable, and his chemistry with Françoise Robertson, is decent.
Françoise Robertson, is good looking but is kind of annoying at times, but she did okay.
**1/2 out of 5 Dolph has done a lot better. |
tt1351186 | Luster | Luster takes place over a weekend in Los Angeles.
=== Friday ===
Jackson wakes up in the aftermath of an orgy and heads to his job at his friend Sam's alternative record store. At the store he gets a call from Sonny Spike. On his way out the door, Jackson runs into customer Derek, who professes his love at first sight.
Jackson meets Sonny at his hotel and Sonny asks him to write the lyrics for Sonny's next album. Stoked, Jackson stops back at his house where he finds his cousin Jed in the shower, which immediately inspires thoughts of incest. Jackson and Jed head back to the store, just in time to head out to a book signing by Kurt Domain with Sam (who, sadly, leaves friend Alyssa behind).
At the book signing, Jackson runs into Billy, who he'd met at last night's orgy. Jackson professes his love at first sight for Billy, who agrees to have coffee but flatly informs Jackson he won't have sex with him. The author spots Jed, and, taking him as his muse, writes a piece on Jed's body.
=== Saturday morning ===
Jackson, inspired by Jed, writes several poems. Meanwhile, Jed is in the desert, serving as muse to yet a third artist, Alyssa. A bloodied Billy calls Jackson at the record store. Jackson picks him up and takes him home. Billy explains that his ex-lover sexually tortured him.
Leaving Billy to sleep, Jackson gives his poems to Sonny, who thinks they're great but changes the sex of the subjects to female. Jed returns to Jackson's place and crawls into bed next to Billy. Jackson goes back to work, where Derek is waiting for him. Derek again professes his love. Jackson explains he doesn't feel the same but they kiss anyway. Jackson drives Derek home.
Alyssa takes her photos of Jed to a gallery and lands a showing in New York City.
Billy wakes up next to Jed and engages in some sexual torture of his own. Sonny decides he must meet Jackson's inspiration and sends a private investigator to get him. The P.I. finds Billy and brings him to Sonny. It was Sonny who had tortured Billy previously. Billy tells Sonny that he tortured someone that morning and realized that he hated it and that he wants to enslave himself to Sonny.
Sam visits his mother and surprises her with the news that he's paid off her mortgage.
Jackson returns home and finds Jed handcuffed in the shower.
=== Saturday night ===
Sam, Jackson and Jed go on a bar crawl through the city. Jackson runs into Sonny and Billy in the restroom of one bar and beats Billy up for what he did to Jed. Sonny gets turned on by it. When Jackson leaves the bar, Sam and Jed are arguing over Sam's unrequited love for someone. Sam drops Jackson and Jed off at Jackson's and gives Jed a videotape to give to Jackson. Jed goes inside and he and Jackson have sex.
=== Sunday morning ===
Jackson takes Jed to the airport for his flight back to Iowa. Jed tells him about the tape. Jackson returns home to find Alyssa and her girlfriend Sandra, who tell him that Sam has killed himself. On the tape, Sam says he's in love with Jackson. He knows he'll never be able to be with Jackson the way he wants to and that he has a lot of pain because of that. Distraught, Jackson runs all the way to Derek's place before the tape even ends. He has Derek reassure him that Derek loves him. Jackson strips naked and tells Derek "I'm all yours." Jackson says he doesn't know if he loves Derek but he does think Derek's pretty special, and special is "pretty fuckin' good." | murder | train | wikipedia | Mason does a good job straddling the line between the gritty indie style he's become known for, and mainstream marketability..
One of the most underrated directors working today is Adam Mason.
Mason made waves in the indie scene when Dimension Extreme picked up his feature debut "Broken".
When his follow-up, "The Devil's Chair" punched me in the gut, I was sure that he would become a household name.
Here we are, several films later, and it feels like Adam's films are getting even less attention.
"Blood River", which was one of the best films of 2009, has yet to even secure North American distribution.
This is despite the high praise the film has been met with from most whom have seen it.
Mason's experimental film "Pig", which was filmed almost entirely in one take, has been made available by the director through online premieres, but is still not readily available to those that wish to see it.
Skip forward a year, and Adam is back with "Luster".
Though, admittedly not a horror film, it's dark enough of a comedy, and intense enough of a thriller that it plays well to fans of the genre.
Much like his last several films, Mason is having some trouble securing distribution, which is a sad thing, because this is his most polished film to date.
"Luster" would play well on the big screen, and I honestly believe that if given the shot, it would stand toe to toe against anything that Hollywood has to offer."Luster" follows the title character, Thomas Luster, played by the amazing Andrew Howard.
Thomas is dealing with a severe case of insomnia.
He also suspects his wife of fooling around with his eccentric neighbor.
When he starts receiving strange letters telling him to stop taking his insomnia medication, he assumes it's his neighbor playing with his mind.
Thomas, and his homeless friend Les, played by Tommy Flanagan(Sons of Anarchy) take a trip to a local pawnshop, and walk away with some video surveillance equipment to try and catch his neighbor in the act.
When Thomas reviews the surveillance footage, he discovers that something far more sinister is afoot.
When Thomas' personal life crumbles, bodies start to drop, and Luster is left to battle his inner demons.One of the most impressive things about Adam Mason, is that he can take a budget that most filmmakers would scoff at, and turn it into a brilliant, polished cinematic experience.
"Luster" is no exception.
Mason turns in a finished product that would convince even the most educated cinephile that he had much more to work with.
It saddens me that films like "Paranormal Activity" receive support from big name studios, yet films like "Blood River" and "Luster" have gone unnoticed.
A lot of people complain about the state of Hollywood films today, but only a handful are actually willing to do something about it.
How can you complain about a lack of creativity in one breath, then slap your hard earned dollars down on the counter for whatever this month's hot new pillaging of our childhood favorites happens to be?
Andrew Howard's performance is the driving force behind "Luster".
Howard is a regular in Mason's films, and every time he steps in front of a camera he brings his A game.
Howard takes us on a roller coaster ride of emotions as we follow him on a steady decline into madness.
Anyone that has ever gone a couple of days without sleep knows that your mind starts playing tricks on you after a while.
This is portrayed with a level of brilliance, both by Andrew's acting chops, and the impeccable writing of both Mason, and his writing partner Simon Boyes.The cinematography of "Luster" is great, as with all of Mason's films.
The spectacular lighting is what really sets the mood though.
One scene in particular features Andrew Howard standing in a bathroom caked in blood.
The scene looks spectacular, proving that the aesthetics of your film rely heavily on your knowledge of lighting a scene.
A lot of people don't realize this, but sometimes fake blood that is used on the set doesn't resemble blood at all.
Mason himself admits that without the lighting of the scene mentioned above, the blood that Andrew Howard is covered in would have looked terrible.Mason does a good job straddling the line between the gritty indie style he's become known for, and mainstream marketability.
Fans of his previous work will not be disappointed, yet casual viewers are not left feeling alienated.
The characters are all interesting, and easy to relate to.
The story is smart, and compelling, yet easy to follow, and the ending is both satisfying, and unexpected.
Adam Mason stepped outside of his comfort level with this film, proving that he's not a one-trick pony.
With Andrew Howard's career building steam, perhaps a much deserved theatrical release will be given to "Luster" in the year to come..
Good movie.
I originally watched this because I'm a huge Tommy Flanagan fan.
And I loved it.
Good twists, great acting all the way around, with a good ending.
If you're looking for a blood and gore horror movie, this isn't the movie for you, but if you like creepy, psychological thrillers, I can't recommend this enough.Andrew Howard does a great job of portraying the insomniac man, who is slowly losing his mind due to lack of sleep.
He pulls off the character perfectly, all the way through the movie.Tommy Flanagan is hilarious in this, as the crazy, homeless vet who is trying to help out Thomas Luster.
Every time he was on screen he made me laugh.It starts off at a slow pace, and gradually builds up, reaching the peak about mid-way through, and drags you along for the rest, keeping you on the edge of your seat..
Another hit from Adam Mason..
When you hear the name Adam Mason followed by Andrew Howard, you instantly are filled with this sudden realization that you are in for a treat, it is almost the same feeling you get Christmas morning as a child, when you look over at your clock and take in what day it is, at least that is how I feel every time I find out they are working together on another project and it was no different when I heard the news that "Luster" was in the works.I have watched this film now a total of four times, and each and every time I view it, I find more and more to like about it.
Once again Adam Mason has a winner on his hands with "Luster" and proves that he is not a name to be forgotten.
After a string of classics such as "The Devils Chair", "Blood River" and "Pig" and now "Luster" he has gone way beyond the needed criteria to land a spot on my list of top horror directors."Luster" has it all, a solid and entertaining story that is both original and ultra thought provoking, stunning practical special effects that shame most big budget Hollywood releases by sticking to the gritty and raw feeling that Mason has mastered over the years, and to finish the total package an excellent all around cast and convincing top notch acting by all who were involved.Once again Andrew Howard does an incredible job, this time portraying Thomas Luster, who has found himself on a downward spiral in every sense of the word.
Andrew delivers such a realistic and moving performance, you really build up an attachment and sense of honestly feeling bad for his character and what he is going through something that is rarely achieved in the horror genre these days where most characters are nothing more than slabs of meat included for the sake of being dismantled in gruesome ways.The entire cast of "Luster" did astonishing jobs with their characters, Tess Panzer, who plays Thomas's wife Jennifer Luster was on top of her game, and my personal favorite character Les played by Tommy Flanagan, who you may recognized from his role on the hit FX series "Son's of Anarchy" really stole the show for me, you would honestly believe that he was a homeless vet he plays the role so authentically.The writing ability of Adam Mason and Simon Boyes, time after time produce truly creepy and most of the times very feasible scenario's in their viewers minds that leave them haunted forever by what they just witnessed.
"Luster" is no different in this department, once it all becomes unraveled and you grasp what has been going on you will find yourself desperately craving to find another soul who has seen the film so you can gab about it like a tween girl who just finished the latest issue of "Tiger Beat".While "Luster" is not your typical Adam Mason style horror film, as it has more thriller, psychological, who did it undertones than his previous films, any fans of his earlier work will not be let down this time around.
While there is not as much gore in "Luster" as his previous films either, when it does occur it's done in the familiar gritty fashion that Adam has always delivered in his films.I guarantee after you watch "Luster" you'll think twice about taking that little chalk flavored capsule in order to get to sleep when a bout of insomnia strikes you again, you'll start to second guess yourself every time you "Misplace" an object in your home and you will forever feel the effects left behind by "Luster", ensuring that there's always a part of you that asks what if?
Thanks to an insanely strong script, and characters that are both believable and memorable both main and supporting wise, "Luster" is sure to win crowd after crowd whenever it is released.
I highly recommend any fan of the horror genre go out of their way to see this movie upon release and if you are not familiar with Adam Mason's earlier work, I insist that you IMDb his name and go down the list, I would start with "The Devils Chair" and work my way through his impressive library of true horror films.On Behalf of The Liberal Dead I give "Luster" a very solid and deserving 9 out of 10, and award for best psychological twist in a horror film in a very long time..
Another Adam Mason Movie...Bad Boy of Film.
I've seen three Adam Mason movies, and I think he's an excellent director, but I think his nihilist streak is probably keeping him from getting more well known.
There are other great directors (Miike, Sono, Todd Solondz) who also have the same nihilistic tendencies, but eventually they do have a philosophical point to make in their films.
Luster pretty much had no philosophical point to make, unless you want to say that murdering anyone that slightly annoys you, and screwingevery woman you meet (even if you're married) will lead to complete fulfillment in life.
Sure, I know he's trying to make an entertaining movie (and he always succeeds), but so are those three directors I named above.
Those three guys show some of the sickest things that have ever been shown in the history of cinema, but they do have some type of message in their films, no matter how bleak.
Mason doesn't seem to care about that aspect of a film at all, which doesn't bother me; I'll always watch his films (I'm looking forward to "Junkie"), but that type of attitude (maybe from making too many rock videos?) might have something to do with his relative obscurity to film goers..
FIND YOUR DARK SIDE.
Thomas (Andrew Howard) owns a design studio and has trouble sleeping.
As it turns out this is a modern Jekyll and Hyde film.
Thomas doesn't remember what his other half does at night, but he leaves him notes and messages on his phone.There is talk radio chatter in the background that connects to the film.
Normally I like this stuff as being clever, but this one is borderline.
The acting was decent.
Good characters.
The plot didn't keep up with the rest of the film.
The film has a quirky style to it.
It is listed as a horror and indeed the film has horror elements such as blood and killing, but I did feel it as a horror as much as I did a thriller.Worth a rental.Parental Guide: F-bomb, sex, male rear nudity (Andrew Howard)..
Great Movie.
I was scrolling through the long list of movies provided by cable and was torn between Luster and another one that looked interesting.
I'm glad I picked Luster.
It is essentially a spin on Dr. Jekyl and Mr. Hyde comically wrought in an LA landscape that makes it hard not to side with the monster.
One of the great pleasures of the movie is the constantly running dialog of a radio station persona reviling the weak nice guy and encouraging such saps to morph into snakes.
A variety of LA narcissists and simpletons populate the landscape along with some truly likable sorts.
The viewer is invited into the main characters fundamental schism and may well sit on the fence as the protagonist does bloody battle with himself.
In Dr. Jekyl and Mr Hyde the cultural background is a Victorian world in which the humorless Mr. Hyde is repulsive and an assault on virtue.
In this version Thomas Luster becomes better looking and more compelling when he is at his worst almost winking at the camera and inviting us to appreciate his rampage of murder and lust.
The film is shot on a low budget but plays as well as wealthier films.
The script is very witty and the lead does a wonderful job of getting us to identify with the tormented nice guy, recoil as he does at the horrors wrought by his alters even as its hard not to resent his mousiness.
The tension in the movie is well crafted and while we pity the chump chewing on his fingernails the picture is also pathetically funny.
I have never seen any other Adam Mason films.
Count me a fan now. |
tt0040789 | Silver River | During the American Civil War, soldier Mike McComb is cashiered from the army when he disobeys orders in order to prevent the Confederates from stealing the one million dollars he is guarding by burning the money. After being publicly humiliated by the townspeople, he and his friend 'Pistol' Porter confiscate gambling equipment and set out to Silver City, Nevada to open a saloon and gambling hall. On his way to St. Joseph, Mike meets Georgia Moore, a beautiful but serious woman that runs the Silver River mine with her husband Stanley and is currently hiring all the available wagons.
McComb wins ownership of the wagons in a poker game, much to Georgia's anger. Although he allows her to travel with him, she is unamused with McComb's playful behavior and soon abandons him. Once in Silver City, McComb, in a short time, builds the most successful saloon of the area. He hires John Plato Beck as his lawyer, an alcoholic but good-hearted man. Meanwhile, Georgia is worried when she finds out Stanley has bought back his wagons from McComb in exchange for 6,000 shares in the mine. This is only worsened when it turns out that Stanley does not have the money to finish his smelter and has to go to McComb for finances. Mike agrees to finance him, in exchange for a third interest in the mine. Furthermore, McComb announces to open a town bank, in which the townspeople can accept to pay vouchers in lieu of cash.
Despite having become one of the most rich and successful men in area, his bank empire even receiving a visit from the President of the United States, Ulysses S. Grant, McComb is unable to charm Georgia. Encouraged by the President, McComb plans on extending his empire up to and including Black Rock Range. Although he is aware of the dangerous Shoshone Indians in that area, he assigns Stanley to realize his plans. When Plato makes him feel guilty, McComb warns Georgia about the danger her husband is in, but it turns out that they are too late: Stanley has been killed by the Indians.
After the funeral, Georgia shortly visits San Francisco and is romanced by McComb upon her return. During a formal dinner party, Plato throws a tantrum while drunk and breaks up the party with accusations against McComb. The townspeople start to lose their faith in McComb and withdraw their money from his bank. To worsen matters, the other owners try to corner the silver market. Georgia begs McComb to reopen the mines, and when he refuses, she leaves him. Soon after, McComb is forced to file bankruptcy. Meanwhile, Plato runs for the United States Senate and in front of a crowd is killed by his competition Sweeney. McComb convinces the towsnpeople to avenge Plato's death. However, when Sweeney is about to be killed by the mob, McComb stops them and convinces them to allow Sweeney to stand trial. He promises to make Silver City a better place, and Georgia, impressed with McComb's new attitude, reunites with him. | murder | train | wikipedia | null |
tt1629701 | Spider-Man: Shattered Dimensions | === Setting ===
An artifact known as the "Tablet of Order and Chaos" is shattered into 17 pieces during a brief battle between Spider-Man and Mysterio, who promptly escapes with a piece. Madame Web reveals this blunder sent 12 of the fragments to three different realities across the multiverse, including "a past unlike ours", "a present day out of sync", and "a distant future which may or may not come to pass", each with their own Spidey. To restore balance to the multiverse, the Amazing Spider-Man (Spider-Man's main incarnation) is assisted by Spider-Man Noir (Spider-Man's 1930s incarnation), Spider-Man 2099 (the original Spider-Man's worthy successor from a distant future) and Ultimate Spider-Man (Spider-Man's younger incarnation from an alternate present, who is told by Webb to re-bond with a Venom black suit for this quest only) as the fragments landed in their worlds. Each Spider-Man easily gains their first tablet fragment and turns it over to Madame Web; however, she explains evildoers will be drawn to the power of the fragments like moths to a flame. "Why'd you have to go and jinx us?" Adding to the bad news, Mysterio's fragment makes his illusions real.
=== Plot ===
The game begins in the Amazing universe, with Amazing Spider-Man pursuing Kraven the Hunter for his tablet fragment. When Amazing Spider-Man confronts him, Kraven uses the fragment's powers to gain super speed. Amazing Spider-Man manages to defeat Kraven and claim the fragment. In the Noir universe, Spider-Man Noir moves through the shadows to claim a fragment from Hammerhead. When confronted, Hammerhead uses it to fuse his guns to his arms, and decides to use his new powers to overthrow his boss. Spider-Man Noir manages to defeat Hammerhead and claim his fragment. In the 2099 universe, Spider-Man 2099 chases Hobgoblin through the city; cornered, Hobgoblin uses the fragment to amplify his psy-powers. Spider-Man 2099 eventually defeats Hobgoblin and claims the fragment. In the Ultimate universe, Ultimate Spider-Man battles Electro at a nearby dam where Electro uses the fragment to grow larger and make minions to fight Ultimate Spider-Man. Ultimate Spider-Man tricks Electro into attacking a dam which releases water, shorting out Electro's powers. Ultimate Spider-Man then claims his fragment. Meanwhile, Mysterio is robbing the museum with his new powers when his fragment shows him the Spider-Men giving their fragments to Madame Web. Craving more power, Mysterio leaves to find Madame Web.
Amazing Spider-Man then finds a fragment in the clutches of Sandman at an abandoned quarry owned by Roxxon Industries. Sandman uses the fragment's power to take over the quarry and create minions, which he uses to attack Amazing Spider-Man. Amazing Spider-Man defeats Sandman with the use of water, claiming his fragment. Spider-Man Noir pursues Vulture through the streets; Vulture's fragment grants him teleportation powers. When he finally faces Vulture, Spider-Man Noir defeats him by exposing him to light, then claims the fragment. Spider-Man 2099 chases Scorpion for a fragment stolen from the Public Eye; it allows Scorpion to lay eggs that hatch into smaller clones of himself. Scorpion explains that he was hired to steal it so that he could be human again, right before Spider-Man 2099 traps him under debris and claims the fragment. Ultimate Spider-Man is challenged to appear on Deadpool's reality show: Pain Factor. He maneuvers through an off-shore oil rig, which has been converted to a television set, while fighting Deadpool's fans, destroying cameras and evading tidal waves. Deadpool gives him the fragment for winning, wondering what it does; Ultimate Spider-Man explains, only to realize the fragment is a prop. Deadpool uses the real fragment, creating two clones of himself, each duplicate with a different weapon and same mind. Ultimate Spider-Man defeats Deadpool and claims the fragment, but is left confused as to how he's going to get home.
In the Amazing universe, Madame Web receives the four fragments. Mysterio attacks, threatening to kill her if Amazing Spider-Man doesn't bring him the other fragments. Amazing Spider-Man finds the next fragment in a construction yard; unfortunately, Juggernaut is chased through by Silver Sable's Wild Pack, getting the fragment stuck underfoot. Amazing Spider-Man isolates Juggernaut from them, hoping to get the fragment; however, Juggernaut uses it to become stronger, at the cost of increased vulnerability. Amazing Spider-Man defeats Juggernaut and claims the fragment. In the Noir universe, The Goblin uses a fragment to become monstrous. After a battle under a circus tent, Goblin is defeated and Spider-Man Noir claims his fragment. In the 2099 universe, Spider-Man 2099 encounters Doctor Octopus, head of Alchemax's Shadow Division, and the one who hired Scorpion. Driven insane by the fragment, she plans to use it to power a one-of-a-kind reactor. Spider-Man 2099 shuts down the reactor and claims the fragment. In the Ultimate universe, S.H.I.E.L.D. has acquired a tablet fragment and Carnage in the Triskelion; however, attempting to create a new energy source, they make the mistake of attempting to combine the two. Carnage escapes, draining the life from the S.H.I.E.L.D. agents and using the fragment's power to turn them into his zombie minions. When Ultimate Spider-Man arrives, and to his horror, the Triskelion is already under Carnage's control. Ultimate Spider-Man stops Carnage with the help of reprogrammed Spider-slayers. After Carnage is defeated, Ultimate Spider-Man claims his fragment.
Despite Amazing Spider-Man's efforts, the tablet reconstructs itself and is absorbed by Mysterio; effectively now a god, he shatters all the borders separating the other realities, planning to build a new one under his sole rule. The Spider-Men, teleported to their location by Madame Web, defeat Mysterio and separate him from the tablet. As Mysterio tries to reclaim the Tablet of Order and Chaos, the Spider-Men knock him out. Madame Web then thanks them for saving all of reality. After the others return to their own dimensions and the walls between them are repaired, Amazing Spider-Man takes Mysterio to prison.
During the credits, Madame Web is then visited by Spider-Ham who hoped to help save reality but answered Madame Web's call a bit too late. Madame Web is left baffled by his sudden appearance. | violence, sci-fi | train | wikipedia | my experience from the game !. well the game play is OK i would give it 5/10 because sometime the camera is annoying . and the concept is very good as you can play as four avatars at 1 game . and graphic are disgusting as compare to Web of shadows this game is damn boring and the controls are very much bad well game's cut scenes are good but cut scenes looks very different from the game play and game play is quite cartoon type and seems like I'm watch anime spider-man well the best game play is with black spider-man and there is not any kind of free roam kind of this in this game ! well 'I' think it is not worth buys as Web of shadows is much better then this actually i m very upset of graphics i expect a lot from 'this game' .. The best Spider Man Game I have played. Well, it's the only one I have ever pulled through to completing.This one is about Mysterio. He steals a mystical tablet and in confrontation with Spider-Man, shatters across dimensions. Entering enemy hands making them more powerful. This looks like a bigger job than just one Spider-Man. Aside from the regular Spider-Man you have the Noir Spider-Man, Ultimate Spider-Man, Spider-Man 2099.Now each level where you play as one of the characters seem like their own little games. There is no 2 Spider-Men that fight the same way. You have the Amazing Spider-Man who's fighting style is the same as in most other Spider-Man games, The Noir Spider-Man plays more like a Stealth game, The Ultimate Spider-Man doesn't have that much difference to the normal Spider-Man other than you can unleash the power of the Black Suit, The 2099 one is like the normal one except you can sometimes see in slow motion and sky-dive. So these are not just skins.The game play is the most fun I have played in a Spider Man game. It really gets addictive. I also enjoyed the final level where ALL the Spider Men band together and try and fight Mysterio (who wields the entire tablet) while keeping the same rules of their game play.So if you enjoy gaming and comic book reading (or comic book movies) then pick this one up. It really is the best Spider Man Game I have played.. Loved it!. "Spider-Man: Shattered Dimensions" is a very enjoyable game. In it, you get to play as four different versions of the Spider-Man character: The Amazing Spider-Man, Spider-Man Noir, Ultimate Spider-Man and Spider-Man 2099.If you're worried each Spider-Man will play the same, only look different, don't be! They each have their own unique fighting style and environment.The voice acting is incredible! Each Spider-Man is voiced by an actor who has previously portrayed Spidey in his different animated series. Neil Patrick Harris ("Spider-Man: The New Animated Series") provides the voice for The Amazing Spider-Man, Christopher Daniel Barnes ("Spider-Man: The Animated Series) provides the voice for Spider-Man Noir, Josh Keaton ("The Spectacular Spider-Man") provides the voice for Ultimate Spider-Man, and Dan Gilvezan ("Spider-Man and his Amazing Friends") provides the voice for Spider-Man 2099. Listen for Stan "The Man" Lee, creator of many of Marvel Comics most beloved characters to provide the opening voice-over narration, too! I think this was an especially nice touch as it lends a real feeling of authenticity to the game.There is plenty of action, a great story, a numerous amount of famous Spidey villains across four different dimensions to keep you busy, all in all, it was a great pleasure to play this game.I definitely recommend getting a hold of it. I know I had a whole lot of fun playing it. At first, I was bummed "Shattered Dimensions" utilized a level setup instead of an "open world", but I think they did a nice job of making each Spider-Man's levels different that the game never felt monotonous. I wish I could say the same for "Spider-Man: Edge of Time", Beenox's latest Spidey offering. Hopefully, they'll get their act together and produce another quality game like "Shattered Dimensions", and I'd like to see the open world format reintroduced next time. That'd be cool! |
tt0196499 | Diaries Notes and Sketches | I went to the woods because I wished to live deliberately, to front only the essential facts of life, and see if I could not learn what it had to teach, and not, when I came to die, discover that I had not lived. I did not wish to live what was not life, living is so dear; nor did I wish to practice resignation, unless it was quite necessary. I wanted to live deep and suck out all the marrow of life, to live so sturdily and Spartan-like as to put to rout all that was not life, to cut a broad swath and shave close, to drive life into a corner, and reduce it to its lowest terms, and, if it proved to be mean, why then to get the whole and genuine meanness of it, and publish its meanness to the world; or if it were sublime, to know it by experience, and be able to give a true account of it in my next excursion.
Part memoir and part spiritual quest, Walden opens with the announcement that Thoreau spent two years at Walden Pond living a simple life without support of any kind. Readers are reminded that at the time of publication, Thoreau is back to living among the civilized again. The book is separated into specific chapters that each focus on specific themes:
Economy: In this first and longest chapter, Thoreau outlines his project: a two-year, two-month, and two-day stay at a cozy, "tightly shingled and plastered", English-style 10' × 15' cottage in the woods near Walden Pond. He does this, he says, to illustrate the spiritual benefits of a simplified lifestyle. He easily supplies the four necessities of life (food, shelter, clothing, and fuel) with the help of family and friends, particularly his mother, his best friend, and Mr. and Mrs. Ralph Waldo Emerson. The latter provided Thoreau with a work exchange – he could build a small house and plant a garden if he cleared some land on the woodlot and did other chores while there. Thoreau meticulously records his expenditures and earnings, demonstrating his understanding of "economy", as he builds his house and buys and grows food. For a home and freedom, he spent a mere $28.12½, in 1845 (about $863 in today's money). At the end of this chapter, Thoreau inserts a poem, "The Pretensions of Poverty", by seventeenth-century English poet Thomas Carew. The poem criticizes those who think that their poverty gives them unearned moral and intellectual superiority. Much attention is devoted to the skepticism and wonderment with which townspeople greeted both him and his project as he tries to protect his views from those of the townspeople who seem to view society as the only place to live. He recounts the reasons for his move to Walden Pond along with detailed steps back to the construction of his new home (methods, support, etc.).
Where I Lived, and What I Lived For: Thoreau recollects thoughts of places he stayed at before selecting Walden Pond, and quotes Roman Philosopher Cato's advice "consider buying a farm very carefully before signing the papers". His possibilities included a nearby Hollowell farm (where the "wife" unexpectedly decided she wanted to keep the farm). Thoreau takes to the woods dreaming of an existence free of obligations and full of leisure. He announces that he resides far from social relationships that mail represents (post office) and the majority of the chapter focuses on his thoughts while constructing and living in his new home at Walden.
Reading: Thoreau discusses the benefits of classical literature, preferably in the original Greek or Latin, and bemoans the lack of sophistication in Concord evident in the popularity of unsophisticated literature. He also loved to read books by world travelers. He yearns for a time when each New England village supports "wise men" to educate and thereby ennoble the population.
Sounds: Thoreau encourages the reader to be “forever on the alert” and “looking always at what is to be seen.” Although truth can be found in literature, it can equally be found in nature. In addition to self-development, an advantage of developing one’s perceptiveness is its tendency to alleviate boredom. Rather than “look abroad for amusement, to society and the theatre,” Thoreau’s own life, including supposedly dull pastimes like housework, becomes a source of amusement that “never ceases to be novel.” Likewise, he obtains pleasure in the sounds that ring around his cabin: church bells ringing, carriages rattling and rumbling, cows lowing, whip-poor-wills singing, owls hooting, frogs croaking, and cockerels crowing. “All sound heard at the greatest possible distance,” he contends “produces one and the same effect.” Likening the train’s cloud of steam to a comet tail and its commotion to “the scream of a hawk,” the train becomes homologous with nature and Thoreau praises its associated commerce for its enterprise, bravery, and cosmopolitanism, proclaiming: “I watch the passage of the morning cars with the same feeling that I do the rising of the sun.”
Solitude: Thoreau reflects on the feeling of solitude. He explains how loneliness can occur even amid companions if one's heart is not open to them. Thoreau meditates on the pleasures of escaping society and the petty things that society entails (gossip, fights, etc.). He also reflects on his new companion, an old settler who arrives nearby and an old woman with great memory ("memory runs back farther than mythology"). Thoreau repeatedly reflects on the benefits of nature and of his deep communion with it and states that the only "medicine he needs is a draught of morning air".
Visitors: Thoreau talks about how he enjoys companionship (despite his love for solitude) and always leaves three chairs ready for visitors. The entire chapter focuses on the coming and going of visitors, and how he has more comers in Walden than he did in the city. He receives visits from those living or working nearby and gives special attention to a French Canadian born woodsman named Alec Thérien. Unlike Thoreau, Thérien cannot read or write and is described as leading an "animal life". He compares Thérien to Walden Pond itself. Thoreau then reflects on the women and children who seem to enjoy the pond more than men...and how men are limited because their lives are taken up.
The Bean-Field: Reflection on Thoreau's planting and his enjoyment of this new job/hobby. He touches upon the joys of his environment, the sights and sounds of nature, but also on the military sounds nearby. The rest of the chapter focuses on his earnings and his cultivation of crops (including how he spends just under fifteen dollars on this).
The Village: The chapter focuses on Thoreau's second bath and on his reflections on the journeys he takes several times a week to Concord, where he gathers the latest gossip and meets with townsmen. On one of his journeys into Concord, Thoreau is detained and jailed for his refusal to pay a poll tax to the "state that buys and sells men, women, and children, like cattle at the door of its senate-house".
The Ponds: In autumn, Thoreau discusses the countryside and writes down his observations about the geography of Walden Pond and its neighbors: Flint's Pond (or Sandy Pond), White Pond, and Goose Pond. Although Flint's is the largest, Thoreau's favorites are Walden and White ponds, which he describes as lovelier than diamonds.
Baker Farm: While on an afternoon ramble in the woods, Thoreau gets caught in a rainstorm and takes shelter in the dirty, dismal hut of John Field, a penniless but hard-working Irish farmhand, and his wife and children. Thoreau urges Field to live a simple but independent and fulfilling life in the woods, thereby freeing himself of employers and creditors. But the Irishman won't give up his aspirations of luxury and the quest for the American dream.
Higher Laws: Thoreau discusses whether hunting wild animals and eating meat is necessary. He concludes that the primitive, carnal sensuality of humans drives them to kill and eat animals, and that a person who transcends this propensity is superior to those who cannot. (Thoreau eats fish and occasionally salt pork and woodchuck.) In addition to vegetarianism, he lauds chastity, work, and teetotalism. He also recognizes that Native Americans need to hunt and kill moose for survival in "The Maine Woods", and ate moose on a trip to Maine while he was living at Walden. Here is a list of the laws that he mentions:
One must love that of the wild just as much as one loves that of the good.
What men already know instinctively is true humanity.
The hunter is the greatest friend of the animal which is hunted.
No human older than an adolescent would wantonly murder any creature which reveres its own life as much as the killer.
If the day and the night make one joyful, one is successful.
The highest form of self-restraint is when one can subsist not on other animals, but of plants and crops cultivated from the earth.
Brute Neighbors: is a simplified version of one of Thoreau's conversations with William Ellery Channing, who sometimes accompanied Thoreau on fishing trips when Channing had come up from Concord. The conversation is about a hermit (himself) and a poet (Channing) and how the poet is absorbed in the clouds while the hermit is occupied with the more practical task of getting fish for dinner and how in the end, the poet regrets his failure to catch fish. The chapter also mentions Thoreau's interaction with a mouse that he lives with, the scene in which an ant battles a smaller ant, and his frequent encounters with cats.
House-Warming: After picking November berries in the woods, Thoreau adds a chimney, and finally plasters the walls of his sturdy house to stave off the cold of the oncoming winter. He also lays in a good supply of firewood, and expresses affection for wood and fire.
Former Inhabitants; and Winter Visitors: Thoreau relates the stories of people who formerly lived in the vicinity of Walden Pond. Then he talks about a few of the visitors he receives during the winter: a farmer, a woodchopper, and his best friend, the poet Ellery Channing.
Winter Animals: Thoreau amuses himself by watching wildlife during the winter. He relates his observations of owls, hares, red squirrels, mice, and various birds as they hunt, sing, and eat the scraps and corn he put out for them. He also describes a fox hunt that passes by.
The Pond in Winter: Thoreau describes Walden Pond as it appears during the winter. He claims to have sounded its depths and located an underground outlet. Then he recounts how 100 laborers came to cut great blocks of ice from the pond, the ice to be shipped to the Carolinas.
Spring: As spring arrives, Walden and the other ponds melt with powerful thundering and rumbling. Thoreau enjoys watching the thaw, and grows ecstatic as he witnesses the green rebirth of nature. He watches the geese winging their way north, and a hawk playing by itself in the sky. As nature is reborn, the narrator implies, so is he. He departs Walden on September 6, 1847.
Conclusion: This final chapter is more passionate and urgent than its predecessors. In it, he criticizes conformity: "If a man does not keep pace with his companions, perhaps it is because he hears a different drummer. Let him step to the music which he hears, however measured or far away", By doing so, men may find happiness and self-fulfillment.
I do not say that John or Jonathan will realize all this; but such is the character of that morrow which mere lapse of time can never make to dawn. The light which puts out our eyes is darkness to us. Only that day dawns to which we are awake. There is more day to dawn. The sun is but a morning star. | avant garde, home movie | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0051636 | From Hell to Texas | Tod Lohman is on the run from a posse. The ruthless land baron Hunter Boyd has sent men, including sons Otis and Tom, in pursuit of Tod for having killed another son.
Otis Boyd stampedes horses toward Tod, but gunshots drive them in the opposite direction and Otis is trampled instead. Tod then gets the drop on Tom Boyd and insists he did not kill their brother, but before Tod can leave, Tom Boyd shoots his horse.
On foot, Tod collapses near a river bank. He is found by kindly rancher Amos Bradley and daughter Juanita, who provide food and shelter. Juanita takes a liking to Tod, who is searching for his missing father and was brought up with Biblical lessons and principles by his mother.
Tod departs but is soon surrounded by Hunter Boyd and his men. In gratitude for not shooting Tom Boyd when he had the chance, Hunter Boyd permits a horse and a four-hour headstart to Tod, then resumes the chase.
Tod discovers that his father has died. A member of the posse shoots old man Bradley, which proves the last straw for Tod after having tried to turn the other cheek. But during a gun battle in town, Tom Boyd is engulfed by flames after a chandelier's crash. Tod's instincts take over. He saves the life of Tom, whose appreciative father Hunter finally calls off the feud. | revenge | train | wikipedia | It is fast paced and full of action, has interesting characters you care about and romance but not too much and good plotting.
The casting is excellent especially with Murray in the lead and one has to wonder why it is sitting on a shelf somewhere while lesser films are on video and TV and shown repeatedly.
On his travels he meets and befriends Amos Bradley and his adopted daughter, Juanita, it's a meeting that holds the key to Tod's future.Henry Hathaway directs this one, and the first thing that sticks out is just how interesting his characters are, this is not just a throwaway Western, it has depth of feeling and lays out a story that isn't purely relying on action to entertain the viewers.
That said, Hathaway doesn't skimp on the action scenes, an excellent beef stampede and an Indian pursuit, resplendent with horse jumping heroics, deliver promptly for the discerning action viewer.
Locke called The Hell Bent Kid, this adaptation is adroitly telling the story of an honest and naive young man on the lam, it's the naivety of Lohman that gives the picture its emotional heart, all framed excellently by Hathaway in the Alabama Hills vista.The cast are across the board solid, Don Murray, Chill Wills, Diane Varsi, R.G. Armstrong and a fresh faced Dennis Hopper all earn their respective pay cheques.
It's understandably not up to the high standard of Hathaway's big hitters like True Grit and The Sons Of Katie Elder, it is however a picture that is definitely worth checking out if you are given the opportunity.
It was a memorable film that i first saw on 'Saturday Night At the Movies" when I was 12 years old, (six years after it was released in 1958).
Being raised on a diet of TV and movie westerns, 'From Hell to Texas' stood out from all of them; I identified with the lead and had a crush on Diane Varsi that lasted for years.I saw this feature only one more time when I was 21, just before shipping out to Nam. This time I identified with the scope of the film and the depth of the characters.
Chill Will gave a memorable performance definitely a cut above his typical side-kick comic relief roll, and I thought it interesting for a father to actually help his daughter's suitor in such a unstinting fashion.
Opposite Wills was R.G. Armstrong and his son Dennis Hopper, though the heavies one could not really hate them.
An underrated western from Henry Hathaway worth seeing more than once!.
This film, starring underused actors Don Murray and Diane Varsi backed by outstanding support by fine character actors like R.G. Armstrong, Chill Wills, Adolfo Acosta and a young Dennis Hopper among others, is a tense film with many nuances.
Hathaway directs a scene of a cattle stampede coming directly at the viewer.
Decent western with a cowboy on the run and being relentlessly pursued by a posse on his way.
Interesting and enjoyable Western with a deep meaning upon the power of forgiveness and an attractive ending .
This cultured actioner Western contains noisy action , dashingly violent scenes , rider pursuits , impressive Indians attacks and loads of crossfire .This splendid motion picture was professional and convincingly directed by Henry Hathaway , doing an useful job and being well starred by top-notch actors .
When ranch hand Tod Lohman (Don Murray who recently passed away) accidentally kills the son of a powerful rancher (R.G. Armstrong) , he panics and flees , as he on the run with posse on his trail .
As the rancher carries out his vengeful crew hunt Tod down , being accompanied by his another wild son (Dennis Hooper) and crafty Mexican underling (Rodolfo Acosta) .
At the farm Tod falls for his daughter (Diane Varsi) but trouble won't remain far away for long time .
Exciting Western also titled ¨Manhunt¨ packs thrills , emotion , shootouts , go riding , a love story and including timeless resonance about a merciless as well as useless vengeance .
Striking interpretations by a good cast , particularly R.G. Armstrong as vengeful father in typical fire-eating form and Dennis Hopper who worked steadily in Western genre through the 1960s including twice more with Hathaway: "The Sons of Katie Elder" in 1965 and "True Grit" in 1969.
Support cast is frankly well , plenty of familiar faces such as Chill Wills , Dennis Hopper , Jay C.
Atmospheric and evocative musical score by Daniel Amfitheatroph .This well-paced in cracking style flick was stunningly directed by Henry Hathaway and usually works very well , being capable handled in spectacular photography , adding gorgeous outdoors from Alabama Hills, Lone Pine, Iverson Ranch , Chatsworth, Los Angeles, Bishop, and Death Valley, California .
Henry Hathaway does the human touch and full of insight that accompanied him during most of his films and the story develops pleasantly in large frames with an interesting plot and fully adjusted to the requirements of the action .
His fetish actor was John Wayne , both of whom collaborated in various sincere Westerns , they included ¨North to Alaska¨ , ¨The sons of Katie Elder¨ and Wayne's Academy Award-winning ¨True grit¨, among others .
Hathaway himself was only even nominated for an Oscar , but his movies themselves are testimony to his skills to heighten narrative tension and shoot action so exhilarating it made adrenalin run .
Henry was a craftsman who had a long career from the 30s with successful films , and especially Westerns , as ¨Brigham Young¨ and ¨Raw Hide¨ .
He was an expert on Western genre as he proved in ¨True grit¨ , ¨Five card stud¨ , ¨Nevada Smith¨ , ¨How the West was won¨ , ¨Rawhide¨ , ¨Brigham Young¨ , ¨Buffalo Stampede¨, ¨Garden of evil¨ , ¨The sons of Katie Elder¨ and , of course this , ¨From Hell to Texas¨ .
It came out the same time as Bonanza did on TV and yes there is a patriarchical family here too with such as John Larch as the eldest son and Dennis Hopper as the youngest.
I switched on the TV today and accidentally caught this movie (having missed the first 8 mins) on (Freeview) FilmFour (UK) digital TV channel.The "info" panel said it was first released in 1958 and directed by Henry Hathaway - a name I recognised from all those movie history books.All the other reviewers have told all you need to know about the plot.
Henry Hathaway's westerns are more ambitious than simple action films,their high moral standards favorably compare to those of John Ford ,Henry King or Delmer Dames.At first sight,"from hell to Texas " seems a plea against violence ,but it's not only that.Although a sharpshooter ,Don Murray's character is nothing more than a child who is clueless.The scenes by the river are revealing:he's a shy prudish lad ,whose only guide is his bible and his mother's photograph .In fact,he's desperately searching for a father.On his way,he will meet two older,wiser men for whom he's only a kid .
It's really amazing how much these characters feel the hero's weakness and how they want to protect him.Another father is his fiercest enemy because this man thinks he's responsible for his son's death.The screenplay smartly avoids the events that led to the chase.On one hand,a young man trying to find a place he can call home (you do not like solitude,don't you,he says to a horse ),on another a blind father who destroys his family because of a false revenge.The rebuilding of a family,with ,in parallel ,the nearly destruction of another one..
A good cast in a fine Western.
There's plenty of action and the story moves along at a quick pace, however it cannot compare to the novel(The Hell Bent Kid)by Charles O.
The strong point was R G Armstrong's patriarchal father with a curious sense of justice; having caught up with the fugitive Murray, he gives him a horse to replace the one his son had shot and then gives him a headstart before renewing the chase.
The worst part was the cloying, instant romance between Murray and tomboy Varsi.Incidentally, previous commentator edk313 reckons he spotted "Jack Elam's inimitable face with a look of horror on it because he is a cowboy in the path of the stampede!
I'd love to know the story on that scene." In the version I've just seen on British TV I didn't spot Elam, the only casualty of the stampede being one of Armstrong's sons.
Interesting western story of misguided revenge..
The stars, Murray & Varsi, are good if a little bland.
The old-timers, Wills & Armstrong, steal the show & give the movie some extra flavor.
Hopper plays the role of "the youngest son" with the usual angst we have come to expect from him.
It is very hard to define when somebody is a good person, and Tod Lohman (Don Murray) in this western is certainly one.
At a certain moment R.G.Armstrong (Hunter Boyd) asks the priest: Why are people so willing to help this man who they hardly know?
And this excellent western takes us on the journey of a man hunted because he unwillingly was responsible for the death of someone who wanted to kill him.
Everson one of the great authorities in Westerns considers this film the best western from 1950 to 1962, between "Wagon Master" and "Ride the High Country".
"But in "From Hell to Texas" he (Hathaway) seems to have combined the sentiment and austerity of Hart and the slickness and spectacle of Ford" (A Pictorial History of the Western Film, page 221).
Great action scenes, great cinematography, great Henry Hathaway...
If you have an all-region DVD player, which costs less than $100, you may order a very fine anamorphic widescreen copy of this film from Amazon Italy.Don Murray, on the run after an accidental killing, eludes R.G. Armstrong and a very young Dennis Hopper in this stark western from Henry Hathaway.
I just watched From Hell To Texas on You Tube, and if you like westerns it should be a must see.
One thing I do not agree with are the comments that along with Shane, this is the best western of the 1950's.
From Hell To Texas is not even the best Don Murray western: Bus Stop was his best.
If anyone wants to great westerns from that era, should instead put on movies starring Gary Cooper, Randolph Scott, Richard Widmark, John Wayne, Gregory Peck, James Stewart or Alan Ladd ( including One Foot In Hell co-starring: Yes: Don Murray)).
Mostly.for the scenery and supporting actors RG Armstrong and Chill Wills..
crammed within the "chase" formula of this western are delightful surprises a pacifist cowboy hero who - nevertheless - is wickedly good with a rifle the chasers aren't villains - they are men whose actions are made understandable - if not condonable good lead actor - Don Murray - whose real life pacifism seems to find perfect expression in this film good supporting actors - Chill Wills - R G Armstrong - J C Flippen - Dennis Hopper - Margofine direction by Henry Hathaway - with shots that seemed to presage Hathaway's TRUE GRIT and most delightful of all - Diane Varsi - in my favorite film of hers.
Despite the directorial reins of Hathaway, there is nothing on show here to lift 'From Hell to Texas' above the multitude of Western fodder released in the 1950's.
Murray plays a young man who is on the run from the Boyd family who think that he murdered one of their brothers.
On the way he runs into the kindly father-figure of Amos Bradley and his fiery daughter, Juanita, who take him under their wing.The main character of Tod Lohman isn't particularly interesting - he has a bible in his backpack so we know he's really a good kid - and he is developed along the lines of a Billy the Kid-type misunderstood youth who only needs a bit of parental care to become a model citizen.
By midway the film has played all of its cards and can only manage a low pair, as the story wanders towards a conclusion which offers no surprises.
When even Dennis Hopper comes across as square you know you're not in for an edge of your seat ride.
A film of interest to anyone studying Western themes and trends, but for the mainstream fan this is inoffensive but very forgettable..
From Hell To Texas as cattle baron R.G. Armstrong on a mission.
Armstrong has all his men out hunting Don Murray the young cowboy who was brawling with his son.For a guy who says he has scruples about killing people Murray does a pretty good job of taking care of business.
Murray starts a horse stampede to elude Armstrong's men and another of his sons Ken Scott is killed.
In fact all kinds of people help in Murray's flight including Indian trader Jay C.
Flippen and rancher Chill Wills who has six daughters at home with oldest Diane Varsi giving Murray the once over.Henry Hathaway directed this and keeps action and the interest going.
From Hell To Texas is a good A budget western even without any really big western names in the cast.
A good one for western fans..
The character Tod is virtuous as are the characters of Chill Wills and his family.
The western vistas are captured well by the photographer Dennis Hopper, known in more modern times for non-western roles plays a spoiled and insecure youngest son of the antagonist a role similar to his in the Gunfight at the O.K. Corral.I always enjoy Chill Wills.
He is a kind, upstanding, generous family man with a lovely daughter.Just all in all an enjoyable movie.
I would rather have the movie 15 minutes longer and develop the good guys after the villains are gone..
Riveting Western Film.
I've seen a lot of westerns and just discovered this gripping film packed with everything one would expect from the genre of a excellent western.
We follow Tod Lohman ( Don Murray ) an innocent cowpoke trying to escape being hunted like a animal by the ruthless land baron, Hunter Boyd ( R.
G. Armstrong ) who will not except the fact that his son died by accident and is bent on killing Tod for a crime he did not commit.
I cannot give a synopsis for this film, as it would spoil it for the reader if they are able to have a chance to view this underrated western gem.
I will say it is a story filled with an excellent cast which includes Dennis Hopper in the role of Tom Boyd, the clumsy son, Chills Wills with the beautiful Diane Varsi playing his daughter Juanita and eventual love interest of Don Murray who gives a superb performance playing the hunted Tod Lohman.
Add in other great character actors and magnificent cinematography along with a perfectly paced story line, packed full of riveting action and you have an above average man on the run western film.
I was lucky to come across this little known film and highly urge the reader to seek this one out if you are a fan of films made during the heyday of Hollywood's western ride..
A standard western, in which Don Murray plays Tod, who is wandering around looking for his long lost father, who abandoned him and his mother.
He has recently gotten into trouble with local cattle baron Hunter Boyd(R.G. Armstrong), being blamed for killing his son Shorty.
Apparently, they were fighting over something, we are never told what.Hunter and a posse of some of his hands plus his 2 remaining sons have been trailing Tod, who has stopped at a stream to check on his horse's leg.
Fortunately, he comes upon an elderly man(Chill Wills, as Amos Bradley) and his adopted daughter Juanita(Diane Varsi), by a stream with a hot spring nearby.
Later, while Tod is sleeping, she sneaks over and kisses him, before quickly disappearing under her blanket...Just then, Hunter shows up with his gang, with an extra horse, saying Boyds don't shoot men's horses.
Tod has a gun battle in the rocks with one of Hunter's men, then encounters a grizzled trader(Jay Flippen, as Jake), who invites him to ride inside his wagon, after hearing his story.
Tod stops at several other places, looking for his father.
Juanita had told her father about her feeling for Tod, thus the idea is to have them get to know one another better.
Amos suggests Tod might like to stay on and help run the ranch.
Tod accepts provisionally, but says he has to keep running from Hunter's bunch in the meanwhile....
Diane Varsi, as Juanita, and Don Murray, as Tod, seem to have difficulty expressing their attraction verbally.
It's the standard formula: boy meets girl, girl hates boy initially, girl gradually warms up to boy, girl madly in love with boy.It's usually a treat to have Chill Wills and Jay Flippen play major secondary characters, and this film is no exception..
U.K. and Australian release title: MAN HUNT (up to 150 feet censored).SYNOPSIS: Tod Lohman (Don Murray), a peace-loving man, is pursued across the New Mexico wastelands by Tom Boyd (Dennis Hopper), his brother Otis (Ken Scott), and a small posse who wish to believe Tod had murdered another brother when actually the brother had accidentally fallen on Tod's knife during a fight.
Tod meets Amos Bradley (Chill Wills), a rancher, and his daughter, Nita (Diane Varsi).
Amos knows the Boyds are after Tod but he himself has no love for any of them.NOTES: One of the two best westerns of the 1950s, according to William K.
True also that the heavy is an appropriately strong, interesting character — "a powerful wicked man but with a peculiar sense of justice all his own" — forcefully played by R.
And alas they are just as insipidly played by folk like Chill Wills and Diane Varsi. |
tt3368222 | Angry Indian Goddesses | Freida (Sarah-Jane Dias) is a fashion photographer who invites a group of friends to her family's home to announce that she is getting married. The group consists of Madhurita or Mad (Anushka Manchanda), a Bollywood singer, Pamela Jaswal or Pammy (Pavleen Gujral), a trophy wife, Suranjana or Su (Sandhya Mridul), a businesswoman, Nargis (Tannishtha Chatterjee), an activist and Joanna or Jo (Amrit Maghera), an aspiring actress. The announcement sets off a chain of reactions, letting out hidden secrets. After the announcement, the wild bunch of girls from all over India descends upon Goa. Thus begins an impromptu bachelorette party, and a riotous roller-coaster ride of girl-bonding. Amidst the fun and frenzy, the girls are oblivious of the impending doom and go on living life like there is no tomorrow.
Everything's set for a night of celebration. There's only one issue: Frieda won't say who her betrothed is. As they banter their way through celebration, their conversation, derived entirely from improvisations among the actors, covers everything from sex to street harassment to the buff (and often shirtless) next-door neighbour. During the trip, the women are harassed and they react boldly. Their harassers are enraged and they are shaken. As the holiday progresses, we become acquainted with the women's dreams, desires, fears and, above all, their unwavering bond with one another -a bond that eventually takes them to extreme lengths. Later, the ladies come to know that Freida is getting married to Nargis (which is illegal under the IPC section 377). A night before the marriage, the group decides to party . At the party, a heated argument between Jo and the ladies regarding her accent leads Jo to walk out, but the party continues till late in the night. When they decide to go home, they look about for Jo . She is found dead on the beach, apparently raped. The doctor, who arrives in the ambulance, refuses to remove her before the police come as she is already dead. The police reach shortly and the police officer in charge (Adil Hussain) conducts his preliminary inquiries in a manner that shames the women, reiterating their lack of faith in a patriarchal society that treats women shabbily. They go home, distraught and frustrated. Su's daughter Maya had followed Jo when she left the party and took photos of her subsequently. The pictures reveal that it is the group of men who had harassed the friends earlier that raped Jo. One of the women, Su, heads back to the beach with a gun. The rest of the group chases after her. Su shoots 3 of the rapists before Nargis stops her, Mad takes the gun and kills the other two. At Jo's funeral, the group makes a series of sentimental speeches, Nargis' speech summarizing the worth of a woman and hopes that in the next lives of women, they would be able to write their own stories. The police officer interrupts the ceremony, asking for a confession of guilt from the women and wanting them to stand up. The story has an open-ended conclusion with the entire congregation in the church standing up in solidarity with the women. | murder | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0035958 | 'Gung Ho!': The Story of Carlson's Makin Island Raiders | The local auto plant in fictional Hadleyville, Pennsylvania, which supplied most of the town's jobs, has been closed for nine months. The former foreman Hunt Stevenson (Michael Keaton) goes to Tokyo to try to convince the Assan Motors Corporation to reopen the plant. The Japanese company agrees and, upon their arrival in the U.S., they take advantage of the desperate work force to institute many changes. The workers are not permitted a union, are paid lower wages, are moved around within the factory so that each worker learns every job, and are held to seemingly impossible standards of efficiency and quality. Adding to the strain in the relationship, the Americans find humor in the demand that they do calisthenics as a group each morning and that the Japanese executives eat their lunches with chopsticks and bathe together in the river near the factory. The workers also display a poor work ethic and lackadaisical attitude toward quality control.
The Japanese executive in charge of the plant is Takahara "Kaz" Kazuhiro (Gedde Watanabe), who has been a failure in his career thus far because he is too lenient on his workers. When Hunt first meets Kaz in Japan, the latter is being ridiculed by his peers and being required to wear ribbons of shame. He has been given one final chance to redeem himself by making the American plant a success. Intent on becoming the strict manager his superiors expect, he gives Hunt a large promotion on the condition that he work as a liaison between the Japanese management and the American workers, to smooth the transition and convince the workers to obey the new rules. More concerned with keeping his promotion than with the welfare of his fellow workers, Hunt does everything he can to trick the American workers into compliance, but the culture clash becomes too great and he begins to lose control of the men.
In an attempt to solve the problem, Hunt makes a deal with Kaz: if the plant can produce 15,000 cars in one month, thereby making it as productive as the best Japanese auto plant, then the workers will all be given raises and jobs will be created for the remaining unemployed workers in the town. However, if the workers fall even one car short, they will get nothing. When Hunt calls an assembly to tell the workers about the deal, they balk at the idea of making so many cars in so short a time. Under pressure from the crowd, Hunt lies and says that if they make 13,000, they will get a partial raise. After nearly a month of working long hours toward a goal of 13,000—despite Hunt's pleas for them to aim for the full 15,000—the truth is discovered and the workers strike.
At the town's annual 4th of July picnic, Conrad Zwart, the mayor of Hadleyville (Rance Howard) addresses to the people that Assan Motors plans to abandon the factory again because of the strike, which would mean the end of the town. The mayor threatens to kill Hunt, but Willie (John Turturro), one of the workers, intervenes, insisting that it wasn't Hunt's fault for the closure. The mayor, even more furious with the townspeople taking Hunt's word over his, abandons the picnic. But by then Hunt comes clean with the 15,000 car deal. He also responds by addressing his observations that the real reason the workers are facing such difficulties is because the Japanese have the work ethic that too many Americans have abandoned. While his audience is not impressed, Hunt, hoping to save the town and atone for his deception, and Kaz, desperate to show his worth to his superiors, go back into the factory the next day and begin to build cars by themselves. Inspired, the workers return and continue to work toward their goal and pursue it with the level of diligence the Japanese managers had encouraged. Just before the final inspection, Hunt and the workers line up a number of incomplete cars in hopes of fooling the executives. The ruse fails when the car that Hunt had supposedly bought for himself falls apart when he attempts to drive it away. The strict CEO (Satoshi Yamamura) is nonetheless impressed by the workers' performance and declares the goal met, calling them a "Good team."
As the end credits roll, the workers and management have compromised, with the latter agreeing to partially ease up on their requirements and pay the employees better while the workers agree to be more cooperative, such as participating in the morning calisthenics. | revenge, violence | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0057919 | Carry On Jack | Carry On Jack starts with the death of Admiral Horatio Nelson (Jimmy Thompson), whose last words are that Britain needs a bigger navy with more men, followed by his famous request for a kiss to Hardy (Anton Rodgers). In the main story, Albert Poop-Decker (Bernard Cribbins) has taken 8 1⁄2 years and still not qualified as midshipman, but is promoted by the First Sea Lord (Cecil Parker) as England needs officers. He is to join the frigate Venus at Plymouth. Arriving to find the crew all celebrating as they are sailing tomorrow, he takes a sedan chair with no bottom (so he has to run), carried by a young man and his father (Jim Dale and Ian Wilson, respectively) to Dirty Dick's Tavern.
Mobbed by women in the tavern as he is holding a sovereign aloft (as advised by Dale), he is rescued by serving maid, Sally (Juliet Mills). She wants to go to sea to find her shanghaied boyfriend Roger, but landlord Ned (George Woodbridge) has let her down. She finds that Poop-Decker has not reported to the ship yet and is unknown to them, so in a room upstairs she knocks him out and takes his midshipman's uniform.
Poop-Decker wakes and dons a dress to cover his long johns, and downstairs, along with a cess pit cleaner named Walter Sweetly (Charles Hawtrey), is shanghaied by a press gang run by the Venus' First Officer Lieutenant Jonathan Howett (Donald Houston) and his bosun, Mr Angel (Percy Herbert). They come to when at sea and are introduced to Captain Fearless (Kenneth Williams). Poop-Decker makes himself known, but there is already a Midshipman Poop-Decker aboard – Sally, in disguise. Poop-Decker, as a hopeless seaman, goes on to continually upset Howett by doing the wrong thing. Sally reveals her true identity to Poop-Decker after he has been punished, and he decides to let things continue as they are. Eventually, in the course of the film Poop-Decker and Sally fall in love with each other.
After three months at sea and no action, the crew are very restless, and when they finally see a Spanish ship, the Captain has them sail away from it. Howett and Angel hatch a plot, making it look like the ship has been boarded by the enemy during a night raid and using Poop-Decker as an expendable dupe to get the Captain leave the ship on his own volition. Poop-Decker, Sweetly and Sally thus help the Captain into a boat, and they leave the ship, but while leaving his cabin, the Captain gets a splinter in his foot, which later goes gangrenous. When they reach dry land, Captain Fearless reckons that they are in France and they need only to walk a short distance to reach Calais, while they are actually standing on Spanish soil. Sally and Poop-Decker spot a party of civilians and steal their clothes while they are bathing.
Now in charge of the ship, Howett and Angel sail for Cadiz and plan on taking it from Don Luis (Patrick Cargill), the Spanish Governor. They are successful, but their plot is ruined by Poop-Decker's group, who stumble into Cadiz (believing it to be Le Havre) and recapture the Venus. Sailing back to England, they encounter a pirate ship, whose crew seizes the Venus. The Captain (Patch, played by Peter Gilmore) turns out to be Sally's lost love Roger, but upon seeing him as a coarse, brutal rogue, she no longer wants to have anything to do with him. In order to force her compliance, Patch and Hook (Ed Devereaux) try to make Poop-Decker and Fearless walk the plank, but Poop-Decker manages to escape and cut down a sail, which covers the pirates, capturing them.
In Cadiz, the former crew of the Venus are taken to be shot, but escape with five empty Spanish Men of War to England for prize money and glory. They are within sight of England when they encounter the Venus. While Poop-Decker, Sally and Walter are working below decks on cutting off Fearless's badly infected leg, a fire gets out of control on deck and burns a sail, which sets off the Venus' primed cannons, hitting all five Spanish ships and thus once again thwarting Howett's shot at fame and glory. Poop-Decker and his companions end up at the Admiralty as heroes. Fearless is promoted to Admiral and given a desk job. Poop-Decker and Sweetly are given the rank of honorary Captains, with pensions, but Poop-Decker reveals that he is going to leave the service to marry Sally. | historical fiction | train | wikipedia | Many would say if the Name "Carry On Jack" was mentioned, "I haven't seen that one" or "That was terrible wasn't it." To many Carry On Fans..the film is often very underrated.This is due to a very large lack of regulars within it.Sid James is not in it, nor is anyone common from the Hudis films such as Liz Fraser or Ted Ray.This was in fact the first film "written" by Talbot Rothwell (though Carry On Cabby was screened first but written second).The film i feel is a classic.The jokes come thick and fast.Many are quite visual!
(wont spoil it for you!) Superb Performances from Charles Hawtrey, Jim dale (In the little part he plays) and Bernard Cribbens(in fact his first carry on outing!).8.7/10.
Kenneth Williams gives his usual over-the-top performance as the anything-but-fearless Captain Fearless, Juliet Mills gives the most amusingly unconvincing impersonation of a man since Some Like It Hot, and Bernard Cribbins is great as the good-hearted, but woefully naive Albert Poopdecker.
Charlie Hawtrey plays his usual character as well as ever, and all in all the plot once more becomes just the backdrop for all the gags, double entendre, and slapstick we all expect and love from the movies we know so well..
It is also well written although I must say I did not find it very funny, there are not that many laughs but kids I think will love it.I have found it interesting that the carry on movies are no longer as funny as I recalled them as a child.
Juliet Mills is utterly delightful and as always does a great job in the film.Of course its really pushing the boundaries of belief that the crew actually thought she was a bloke.
Cribbens was a great talent and so much better than the awful Kenneth Connor who was the weakest link in all the Carry on movies.
Not a great film nor a great Carry On but it is amusing and broad enough to satisfy fans.
While Albert tries to cope with this, he unwittingly finds a plot by First Officer Jonathon Howett to remove Captain Fearless from command of the Venus.I'm not entirely what to make of the decision to show this film on the day also taken to mark the 200th anniversary of the Battle of Trafalgar (28th June 2005) but I decided to watch it anyway.
Notable for being the first time that the Carry On series went for a full on historical setting with full costumes this film isn't really notable for anything else.
This is not to say that it is not amusing because, like many of the series, it is broadly entertaining in a very basic way and is fun if you like the series just don't expect to be bowled over by it.The lack of the regulars is a bit of a problem but the film soldiers on regardless.
Cribbins takes on the role usually played by Jim Dale (who turns up in a minor role) and does it reasonably well.
Hawtrey is his usual self again to good effect.Overall not a great film or a great entry in the series but it is broadly amusing and will please fans of the series.
This title intended as a spoof on the troubled MUTINY ON THE BOUNTY (1962) emerges as the odd one out in the "Carry On" series: not only do we only find just three regular performers here (Kenneth Williams, Charles Hawtrey and Jim Dale), but there's little typical material; taken on its merits, however, it isn't bad at all and not quite the dud described on the series' official website!
Incidentally, the irregular actors are the ones who score best particularly Bernard Cribbins as an unlikely but likable hero (his character is named Poop-Decker!) and Donald Houston, intense as the villain of the piece; on the feminine side, there's the surprise casting of Juliet Mills (as a floozie who passes off as a midshipman she sets out in search of her lost love, who turns out to be a pirate leader!).
As I said, the "Carry On" stalwarts rather play second-fiddle here (especially Dale, who only gets an inconsequential bit early on), though Williams and Hawtrey manage to assert themselves during the film's latter half (when Houston and cohort Percy Herbert instigate a mutiny and our heroes are cast off at sea).While there are obviously a number of laughs scattered throughout, the general tone is atypically serious: Williams playing the cowardly skipper of the "Venus", he's given the unsurprisingly ironic name of Captain Fearless even loses a leg and, consequently, gets twice the "desk job" he so craved for.
Also in the cast is Cecil Parker as the long-suffering Admiral who sets the naïve, bumbling Cribbins off on a naval career and reappears at the end to decorate him and his companions (Houston has blackmailed Spanish Governor Patrick Cargill into yielding his entire fleet and is taking it victoriously back to England, when it's unwittingly destroyed by Cribbins & Co.
I do like the Carry On films in general, and while Jack is not the best, it is still amusing.
However, the film looks great, great costumes and sets, and while never absolutely hilarious it is amusing enough.
And the acting is fairly good, Charles Hawtrey almost steals the show, Kenneth Williams isn't given as much to do but he is good, Jim Dale's is small but he is hilarious, Juliet Mills is pleasant (and has a great derriere), while Bernard Cribbins is very likable.
Despite only having TWO (albeit the best two) regulars (Williams and Hawtrey) (Dale could not be considerd a regular at this point), this remains one of my favourites.
It stars Bernard Cribbins, Kenneth Williams, Juliet Mills, Charles Hawtrey, Donald Houston & Percy Herbert.
It's the 8TH of the popular film franchise that would eventually finish at 31.Albert Poopdecker (Cribbins) is all set to finally take up assignment on HMS Venus when he loses his uniform in a house of ill repute.
However, there's mutiny afoot and Albert soon finds himself at the centre of all sorts of misunderstandings.Not one from the series that is name checked by fans or critics, Carry On Jack is a little better than its reputation suggest it is.
It's also a very important entry in the Carry On pantheon,for it was the first time Rothwell, the man who shaped the series, would be in sole charge of writing.
Cribbins, too, is full of life and raises enough laughs as he plays off of the reliable Hawtrey.Not overtly smutty or as manic as some of the other historical parodies that followed it, Carry On Jack is a fun and tidy time filler.
Not at all convincing.The cow in the lifeboat bit was good.The amputation joke would have NEVER existed in American film or television back in '64.The one joke I always recalled was 'the captain fell on deck right where that plaque is.'"I'm not surprised, I nearly tripped over the silly thing the other day myself."When I first heard that line, I had to do a triple take.
No, Sid James, Kenneth Conner, Joan Sims, dear Hattie and Barbara Windsor (thus far, I have only seen her in one, Carry On Spying) weren't in this one.The interchanging performers basically doing the same characters is a standout for this assortment of movies.
Winsome bar wench Sally (Juliet Mills) steals the identity of bumbling midshipman Albert Poop-Decker (Bernard Cribbins), taking his place aboard frigate HMS Venus in the hope of sailing to France to find her missing sweetheart Roger.
Meanwhile, the real Albert is press-ganged into service on the same ship, but no-one will believe his unlikely story.The mere thought of the lovely Juliet Mills being able to pass for a man is, of course, utterly ridiculous (reminding me of a similarly silly episode of Blackadder), but despite this preposterous conceit, the notable absence of many of the series' major players, and a lack of any truly classic gags, I can't help but enjoy this movie.
With its well-realised period setting, Miss Mills obvious charms (she looks great even posing as a man), Jim Dale's brief but hilarious turn as a money-grabbing sedan chair operative, and some of the scurviest pirates ever to set sail for the seven seas, this rousing Carry On tale is still good for a Yo Ho Ho!.
Warming Up. Carry on Jack is not the most memorable Carry On, in fact its all a bit silly really and lacks much of the sauciness of latter films.
The title comes from what they used to call British sailors, Jack Tars.Midshipman Albert Poopdecker played by Bernard Cribbins is little thrown out of sea school just to make room and given his first assignment on the HMS Venus a frigate ship of the line.
But on his way there Cribbins is waylaid in a cat house where one of the girls played by Juliet Mills steals his uniform and credentials.
To make matters worse a press gang comes along and takes Cribbins and Charles Hawtrey.The HMS Venus has a Regency fop for a captain in Kenneth Williams and a first officer in Donald Houston who'd like to take his place.
And Juliet Mills on board playing a midshipman named Albert Poopdecker.
Her breasts are just super spectacular man boobs if she'd let the crew see them and confirm their beliefs.In the end after surviving a mutiny, a capture by pirates and saving the United Kingdom from invasion, Hawtrey, Cribbins, Mills, and Williams, are national heroes.But it's how they do it that provides loads of laughs in this Carry On classic..
Watched this for the first time since I was 5 or 6 last night and it pre-dates Carry On's golden age and is a bit boring to be honest, okay I was watching it at midnight, but I dozed through the third quarter and considering I was wide awake and laughing out loud through an episode of the IT crowd at 1am the movie has to take some of the blame!
The film struggles because most the carry on team are missing!
In fact the best moments come from Jim Dale's cameo right at the start of the movie.
Jim Dale does a generic west country accent rather than a proper Plymouthian "Janner" accent which would've been amazing, but he's still the best thing in the movie.To summarise, awful script, few laughs, few carry on stars, too long.
I've given it 2/10 rather than 1/10 for Jim Dale's cameo.If you are looking for Carry On movies at their hilarious best then, try Carry on Sergeant, Cowboy, Cleo, Up the Kyber and Screaming.
Although it's not up there with the best of the CARRY ON series, CARRY ON JACK proves to be as likable and inoffensive as the majority of the films.
This one suffers from a lack of regulars (only Kenneth Williams, Charles Hawtrey & Jim Dale appear) but makes up for it with great authenticity in the costumes and early 19th century locales.Bernard Cribbins (CARRY ON SPYING) stars as a Midshipman who's accidentally pressganged into working aboard one of the British's fleets ships.
Cribbins plays it straighter than you might expect, and doesn't get many gags (saying that, the one involving his sword and a carriage wheel is a classic), although Williams has fun as the cowardly Captain Fearless and both Dale and Hawtrey are delightful..
Old enough to know that no sailor worth his salted pork and rum ration would think anybody with a classical "cliffhanger" backside like Juliet Mills had at that time could possibly be a man.
Bernard Cribbins makes his series debut as naive 'Albert Poop-Decker', who gets posted to the H.M.S. Venus, commanded by the sheepish 'Captain Fearless' ( Kenneth Williams ).
The night before the ship is due to set sail, he heads for 'Dirty Dicks', a disreputable inn near the docks, where he meets the lovely 'Sally' ( Juliet Mills ).
While he struggles to prove his identity, the First Officer ( Donald Houston ) the Bosun ( Percy Herbert ) are plotting secretly to organise a mutiny...'Jack' looks great, and there are some amusing moments scattered about, such as Jim Dale and Ian Wilson as a pair of scoundrels who run a carrier service.
Juliet Mills had appeared in two other Peter Rogers/Gerald Thomas pictures - 'Twice Round The Daffodils' ( 1962 ) and 'Nurse On Wheels' ( 1963 ).The use of actors such as Donald Houston, Anton Rodgers, Cecil Parker, Patrick Cargill unfortunately negates the 'Carry On' atmosphere.
Messrs Hawtrey and Williams play to their strengths and Miss Juliet Mills has the requisite English Rose quality for her role.
With scurvy pirates,fiendish Frenchies and flashy - eyed Spaniards,"Carry on Jack" has a lot of fun at the expense of several movie genres but always in a good - natured way.
An average Carry-On. This isn't the best of the carry-ons but its nowhere near the worst.There are only three of the regulars in Carry-On Jack,and they are Kenneth Williams,Charles Hawtrey and Jim Dale and if you can count Peter Gilmore as the fourth as he did appear in a few other Carry-Ons{Henry,Up The Kyhber,Cabby}in brief roles.However Carry-On Jack does have a splendid cast such as Juliet Mills,Bernard Cribbins,Patrick Cargill and some other famous faces from British cinema,who you will easily recognise.The jokes in this one are very few and far between although the idea of the whole story is amusing,a woman stealing an officers clothes so that she can impersonate him and run off to sea.The story is quite good and would be very amusing for kids,as it has the usual slapstick humour and also has battle scenes and pirates.This Carry-On is rarely seen on TV these days and is probably one of the first Carry-Ons to be made in colour.Id highly recommend this one for the under twelves,although its also mildly amusing if your an adult..
Not The Best Thus Far. I have just watched my first two "Carry On" films: this one and Carry on Cleo.
I am a big fan of Round the Horne, so I was overjoyed to find out that Kenneth Williams (whom I have never seen in real life- on film or TV, etc.) would be the star.
However, I was disappointed with Carry on Jack; either it is because Williams doesn't have a very big part as he did in C.O. Cleo, or there was two much action and a very unfunny side plot (the first-mates or whoever plotting against the captain).
In spite of the welcome return of Kenneth Williams, this is my least favourite film in the series so far.
The only other member of the core "Carry On" team present is Charles Hawtrey but that would not be a problem if the script were better.
It doesn't really feel like a "Carry On" film.
Bernard Cribbins, Juliet Mills and Cecil Parker were all good but even good actors trying their best can't save a comedy with a bad script.
However, Donald Houston, who is good in other films, is horribly over the top and his scenes are fairly painful.
Basically Midshipman Albert Poop-Decker (Bernard Cribbins) has managed to get himself aboard frigate Venus, commanded by actually quivery Captain Fearless (Kenneth Williams), and they all have adventures on the high seas through Spanish waters, rebelling and shipwrecking.
Also starring Juliet Mills as Sally, Charles Hawtrey as Walter Sweetly, Donald Houston as First Officer Jonathan Howett, Percy Herbert as Mr. Angel, Ed Devereaux as Pirate Hook, Jim Dale as Young Carrier, Ian Wilson as Ancient Carrier, George Woodbridge as Ned, Cecil Parker as First Sealord, Jimmy Thompson as Adm. Horatio Nelson, Anton Rodgers as Hardy, Patrick Cargill as Spanish Governor Don Luis and Peter Gilmore as Pirate Captain Patch/Roger.
I can see why this film is not as memorable as most of the others, I did lose interest a little ,and didn't understand everything going on, and there was hardly any innuendo at all, only some jokes about the woman disguised as a man, and it has only three regulars, all male, where are Hattie Jacques, Barbara Windsor and Joans Sims when you want them?
A wonderful Carry On film with only a couple regulars.
They get Bernanrd Cribbins, Juliet Mills and Charles Hawtrey.
Juliet Mills takes Cribbins name so she can go to Spain and find the man she loves.
Kenneth Williams gives his second best performance on the entire collection of Carry On films in this film.
Cribbins, Mills and Williams make this film so enjoyable.
This Carry On film features surprisingly few of the regulars; Bernard Cribbins plays Midshipman Albert Poop-Decker; a naval officer who hasn't passed his training despite being at it for eight years.
Once aboard he tries to explain the situation but comes up against First Officer Howett, an officer who is not impressed with him claiming to be Midshipman Albert Poop-Decker when he is already aboard
of course he is Sally but nobody seems to notice despite the fact that she doesn't look at all masculine!
The ship is commanded by the cowardly Captain Fearless who wishes all his crew to be happy; and to that end avoids any conflict with the Spaniards.
The best performance came from Donald Houston as by the book Howett who believes in strict discipline and is willing to take the fight to the enemy; he played the part fairly straight while those around him provided the gags.
Kenneth Williams was suitably cowardly and incompetent as the captain and Juliet Mills was fine as the beautiful Sally.
With so few of the Carry On regulars in main roles this could almost have been a comedy that just happened to feature a few of the team; it had some good moments though and as it contained less innuendo than most Carry On films can be enjoyed by children with out parents worrying they will be asked to explain some double entendre. |
tt0119239 | Gupt: The Hidden Truth | Governor Jaisingh Sinha (Raj Babbar) is a prominent political figure, who is known as an upright person. Sinha presides over a meeting attended by influential industrialist Meghnad Chaudhry (Dalip Tahil), Vilas Rao (Sharat Saxena) and minister Mantriji (Prem Chopra), among others.
Sahil Sinha (Bobby Deol) is step son of sinha , sahil'sl mother Sharda (Priya Tendulkar) began to live with Sinha after the death of her husband. Sahil is an unattached and easy-going young man, who resents Sinha, Sinha has a younger son named Harsh. Ishwar Dewan (Paresh Rawal) is Sinha's Personal Secretary, and his daughter Isha (Kajol) is Sahil's beloved. On the other hand, Sheetal (Manisha Koirala), the daughter of Meghnad Chaudhry, is also in love with Sahil, but is not reciprocated by him.
One evening, Sinha throws a party for Sahil's birthday and announces Sahil's engagement to Sheetal.upon which an argument breaks out. At one point sahil tries to stab his father but is stopped Sharda. The next day, Sahil gets heavily drunk at the house of Dr Gandhi (Kulbhushan Kharbanda), Sinha's family doctor, who advises Sahil to accept Sheetal as his wife and that Sahil will lead a happier life with her. A drunk Sahil returns home and finds to his shock that someone has stabbed Sinha. Before Sinha can tell the name of the murderer he dies, while Sharda arrives and finds Sahil near his dead step-father holding a knife. Sahil is accused and taken to court, where many of his acquaintances and Sharda testify against him. Sahil is found guilty and sentenced to 14 years in prison. Just before Sahil is transported to jail, he hands over a necklace to Sheetal, implying that it was left behind at the scene by the killer.
In jail, Sahil relates his story to an old prisoner, who believes him to be innocent. The prisoner tells Sahil that the jail only has one escape route - a sewage gutter pipe that can be accessed from a flush toilet located in an unused chamber of the jail. Sahil creates a problem with other prisoners, causing the jailor (Tej Sapru) to confine him and two prisoners in the chamber. The three succeed in escaping the jail by sea, with a boat arranged by Sheetal,
Police Commissioner Patwardhan (Anjan Srivastav) assigns an unbending police officer Udham Singh (Om Puri) to handle the case of Sahil's re-apprehension. Sahil secretly meets Isha at her home, where he calls Dr Gandhi for advice, and Dr Gandhi invites Sahil to his home . Sahil reaches the doctors residence and is shocked to find that somebody has stabbed Dr Gandhi . Dr Gandhi’s servant finds Sahil near the dead doctor and shrieks, causing him to run away. Dr Gandhi’s servant reports Sahil to the police.
Udham Singh interrogates Sheetal, with whom Sahil still maintains a good relationship., Sheetal confesses to having spent the previous night with Sahil and also helping him escape jail. Singh does not arrest Sheetal for these wrongdoings,
Sahil,,to prove his innocence resolves to find the real murderer. He suspects Thanawala , because Thanawala had a very good chance of obtaining Sinha’s property upon his death, provided Sahil is out of the picture. He questions Thanawala and figures the he is not the murderer.. Sahil now suspects Chaudhry or his brother because of Chaudhry's involvement in business fraud. After interrogating him, Sahil realises that Chaudhry is innocent as well. The next is Vilas Rao, the corrupt Union leader, who points the finger at Mantriji, saying that Sinha's murder was a political assassination. Sahil and Sheetal trick Mantriji into attending a ceremony and kidnap him. Udham Singh is also present there and realizes that Sahil is not the real murderer.
Udham Singh finds out that the murders have been committed with two knives of exactly the same build and shape, that could belong to a set.,He finds the set of knives at Ishwar Dewan’s house and arrests Dewan who confesses to killing of Sinha and Dr Gandhi. Dewan divulges to have murdered Sinha because, he did not accept Isha as his daughter-in-law; and killed Dr Gandhi to cover up the first crime. At the same time, Sahil was interrogating Mantriji but. Sheetal arrives and tells him that the murderer,is Ishwar Dewan, making Sahil release Mantriji.
Harsh, Sinha's son, is seen playing with the necklace which Sahil had found at the crime scene. He opens the necklace locket to find a picture of Isha inside. He figures that Isha is involved in the whole situation. Harsh goes to visit Ishwar, who reveals that Isha had committed the crimes but he doesn't want her to go to jail, therefore, he falsely confessed. Isha has been stalking Sheetal, and finally attacks her, but Sheetal is saved by Sahil. Enraged by Sahil's concern for Sheetal, Isha begins to attack them but is shot by Udham Singh. Sahil embraces Isha, and he asks her why she committed the murders, as he was with her all along .. Isha replies that she did not have faith in her destiny, and embraces Sahil one last time as she dies in his arms. | insanity, romantic, murder | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0826031 | Arang | A veteran detective So-young and her rookie partner Hyun-ki come across an incendiary homicide case. They discover that the present case is related to the mysterious death of a girl ten years prior. So-young becomes plagued with nightmares in which the girl appears, and the killings continue.
The girl is actually Min-jeong, Hyun-ki's first love. Those who died are killed by Hyun-ki by giving them a cigarette that is inlaid with a gas which causes a simulated heart attack. Those who have the cigarette raped Min-jeong 10 years ago in an abandoned salt house. Hyun-ki was forced to tape the incident as he was emotionally wounded when he saw Min-jeong and her lover making out in the salt house at graduation day. Hurt, he agrees to tape the incident when the group who plans to rape Min-jeong persuaded him. Min-jeong's lover, who came by to save her, was killed by one of the group members. Min-jeong was said to have gone mad and disappeared after that incident, but in fact she was pregnant and buried under a mound of salt after one of the police officers who handled the rape incident tricked her into the salt house and locked her inside, burying her along with her unborn child.
Hyun-ki threatens the police officer to go to the salt house and dig out Min-jeong. So-young catches upon both of them and also threatens Hyun-ki to put down his gun. Hyun-ki pleads with So-young to kill him, but So-young refuses, saying that she will let him live in regret and make him watch his children suffer after him, whispering in his ear when he's dying and says that his life is no better than a stray dog. Hyun-ki states that he can't bear it, and afraid to live that kind of life, ends his life by committing suicide.
The water that rains down on that day washes away the salt that buried Min-jeong, and slowly, Min-jeong's body is revealed along with her dead baby between her legs. Her corpse is not rotten, thanks to the salt that preserved her body. The forensic doctor states that when a pregnant woman dies, gas formed inside the body. The gas pushes the baby out even after the mother is dead.
So-young was once violated by an unknown man with a scar on his right hand when she was young. She stated that the reason she became a police officer was to find that man and kill him. After the incident, the man who once violated her, now a father and a successful businessman, mysteriously dies in a hotel room. It is said that the night before the man died, So-young dreamed about the girl wearing a white dress, smiling and laughing together in the salt house. She concluded that the dream she had signified that Min-jeong had helped her take her revenge by killing the man, and after that So-young writes a novel and gets it published.
At the end of the film, there's a myth said to relate to the movie. The Legend of Arang 400 years ago states that there's a village full of new magistrates that are killed mysteriously. That is why no new magistrate dares to go to the village to be appointed. However, there's a new magistrate willing to go to the village. He found out that the spirit of Arang is full of hatred and revenge because she was raped and killed. After that, he helped the spirit to catch the culprit who raped and killed her, sending the culprit to justice. He found Arang's corpse and buried her. It was said that because of her hatred, her corpse did not rot when it is found after so many years. | suspenseful, murder, horror, haunting, flashback, tragedy, revenge | train | wikipedia | Arang is a copycat, but it's different enough to be entertaining.
So-Young is a seasoned female detective who is investigated a series of brutal and unexplainable deaths.
Assigned a new partner to take on the case, So-Young unleashes terrifying secrets from the past, which involve a mysterious salt house, and a stereotypical long-haired ghost, which looks as if it might have just walked off the set of The Shutter.
Anyway, the deeper So-Young digs for the truth, the more she realizes everyone involved might be a lot more connected that they think.Arang is one of a long line of Asian horror films that borrow from past successes, in terms of the scares, it's nothing you haven't seen already.
This isn't to say the film isn't suspenseful, but it is indicative of most K-Horror, in that it utilizes atmospherics and scary sounds to build tension.
There are a few genuinely scary parts (under the desk) but for the most part it's your standard K-horror fare.But, where Arang differs from past Asian horror is the way the film focuses more on the Detectives working the case than on lives of the actual murder victims.
In fact, the victims receive very little screen time and because of this the film resembles a detective story more than a horror story.
Asian Horror hounds may find this a little disappointing, but this is the main reason why I liked Arang so much.
Because while the horror elements are re-treads of familiar territory, the detective element is engaging and fun.Another reason to like Arang would be the amazing score, featuring mournful sounding piano, creepy atmospheric synths, and the creepiest ring-tone since One Missed Call, Jung Dong In's score was a highlight of the film (Someone seriously needs to start producing these soundtracks) and makes the film a much more enjoyable watch.The cinematography was also excellent, and I was blown away by some of the shots in the film, especially those including the beach and a lighthouse.
There is also a shot done with CGI towards the end of the film that is outright beautiful.
In my book, the film deserves a viewing for that scene alone.All in all, Arang is a very entertaining piece, while it is bogged down in the typical K-Horror clichés, it's detective story, score, and creative plot twist (Not contrived) helps raise the film above the level of other K-horror copycats, and makes it a fun film.
Also considering that it's Ahn Sang Hoon's debut film, I will definitely keep an eye out for his work in the future.My Rating 7 out of 10: While Arang is a copycat, it's different enough to be entertaining..
Copycat K-horror with a welcome twist.
An ex-convict fresh out of prison, devoid of any means of financing his livelihood, situates himself in an expensive apartment.
Not soon after a black-eyed ghost with long black hair (hey...
it's a K-horror, so what did you expect) appears and the man is soon found dead burnt to a crisp and strangled.
Within days two of his former friends die in similar circumstances, whilst the fourth starts having similar deadly visions.
Can two detectives Dong-min (Jong Su-Lee) and Hyun-ki (Dong-Wong Lee) solve this supernaturally flavoured series of murders?
The movie starts out very disappointingly, as we are privy to watch yet another Asian ghost story, that initially seems to reek of repetitiveness.
Additionally some of the initial acting, dialogue as well as pasting together of scenes seems amateurish and rashly done.
The movie does however start to unravel into interesting directions and the cast + crew somehow start getting their act together to dispose of faults apparent in the opening sequences.
The dialogue does seem unfinished and misused at times, but apart from that the story starts to involve.Thanks largely to two key twists in the movie.
One concerns the construction of the story, which intermingles your typical ghost story into a police procedural thriller.
An idea so obvious and simple, but somehow I fail to remember anyone to have attempted this in the past.
The second twist would unravel too many mysteries, so the less said the better.I was however severely disappointed with the end scene of the movie.
After starting to heap on the praise for the solid attempt at twisting expectations the movie falls down into its own trap and gives a very crappy, disappointing end scene, which really should be cut for the sake of the viewers.Nonetheless a much more engaging movie than I was expecting.
Maybe disappointingly repetitive in the horror itself, but finely makes up for it in the mystery/police department..
Arang try it best being different, alas still fence in the very same old formula.
Based on Korean folk tales, Arang is the latest variation in the tradition of long-haired-ghost that long plaguing Korean movies.
Add some detective routine, Arang try it best being different, alas still fence in the very same old formula.A veteran female detective with troubled past, So-young (Song Yoon-ah, Face), is investigating a series of homicide case.
Assisted by a rookie cop, Hyun-gi (Lee Dong-wook), they try their best to reveal the killer.
Soon they found that every victim is received email from the same sender before they died.
They track the email from a website called 'Min-jung's Salt Storehouse'.
As the plot progress and some appearing of a Kayako clone, the truth comes as over-the-top as a sappy Korean melodrama.Yes, the director Ahn Sang-hoon, try to differ his works from the others Korean Horror with an attempt with a-whodunit-mystery.
But, he seems neglecting to throw out the elements that now being the very lame formula for Asian horror.
So, even the investigation routine somewhat interesting, the keep appearing of the ghost is irritating.
He should try with more original effort or stick to the tale instead, rather than make Arang into another trashy horror movie.I would not say Arang doesn't entertaining, because it does.
But, it's not enough to be a fine watch, because it somewhat fail for satisfying either horror or thriller.
If only it restraint to one objective and had more proper set-up and decent ending, I believe Arang will delivers..
This movie deserves a much higher rating.
When I read about "Arang" I thought it was a thriller about two cops catching some serial killer.
To my surprise it turns out to be horror movie.
OK,I must admit that it is not entirely original in using a Asian long haired girl as a ghost.
To be fair it remains creepy.
Even if I have seen it a dozen times earlier in other Asian horror flicks.
The long black hair,the scary eyes,the pale face.
Can you honestly say that such a sight doesn't get to you.
As long as all the other elements of the movie go into another direction thus creating a different kind of experience I don't see the harm in using this ghost.
Most of the movie is quite fast paced and very slick.
The thing I liked about this movie was the fact that they play around with the different genres.
At one hand it seems to be a horror movie and on the other hand the supernatural elements easily can be dismissed when some evidence is given to explain the audience that what we have seen did not happen.
It does require some imagination and you have to be forgiving in order to accept all of this.
Not being sure if the ghost is real or not is part of the fun.
The twists and turns make sure of it that we keep guessing until the end.
Quite a lot of scares and tricks may have been borrowed from other movies.
But in combination with some clever plot twists and good acting "Arang" does offer an original and fun viewing experience!.
It'll be better to see a ghost than a pervert..
A Korean horror film from first-time (not counting a short) writer/director Sang-hoon Ahn. It is also a first film for TV actress So-yeong Choo, who plays a detective coming off suspension.First, you would think the writers didn't miss a flick: The Grudge, One Missed Call, Shutter, or CSI.
Min (So-yeong Choo) has a new partner straight from a year in Forensics.
Can a film that borrows from so many present anything original?
Several men die under mysterious circumstances after being visited by a long-haired ghost.
Sound familiar.
They are tied to a dead some 10 years ago.What is good about the film is the cinematography and the sound, and the fact that it focuses on the detectives rather than the ghost or the victims.
Min has a secret that probably drove her to become a detective.Her partner has a secret, too..
A capable and stylish, but not outstanding horror film.
Let me preface by saying that I'm not really familiar with the Asian horror genre, and I can't tell you if the long-haired-ghost routine is, by now, trite and derivative.
I can tell you Arang is a pretty movie with well done visuals.
It also had a number of solid "jump" moments-- a scene near the beginning where the ghost appears only on film during a wedding is memorable, as is a still image of the bride twisting into a wicked, inhuman grin.
I was amused by the visual imagery of each supernatural murder, if not genuinely frightened.The movie is interesting because it represents a fusion of two genres: cop drama and ghost-horror.
It seems like such a natural match, I was astonished that I hadn't seen it on film previously.
A ghost is killing people, the cops are trying to solve the murders, and in the process discovering the connection between the killings and the reasons the ghost cannot rest.
The two genres tie together with an amusing twist 3/4 of the way through that re-contextualizes the relationship between the two genres to each other.Arang is a competently executed piece of genre fiction; it isn't groundbreaking, but it is entertaining, and I'm glad to have seen it..
A few scares, but nothing more.
I've been hoping that this movie will bring something new to the South Korean horror industry, but I was wrong.
The plot is basically the same as in tons of other Asian movies, dealing with an old grudge, that seeks retribution.
I would say the best part of the movie is it's beginning, as later on almost every scene is so predictable it makes it hard to watch.
The ghost is depicted as in a dozen Asian movies, a female with long black hair falling over her face, with "spooky" eyes.
A strange mix of Ringu an Ju-on, to be polite and not say rip-off.
There are twists in the plot, but again, the twist is so predictable it makes you laugh.
Even though, this is a good movie, it will entertain you for 90 minutes, but that's all.
You won't be talking about it and hoping to see it again.
As I'm a fan of Asian horrors, I was glad to watch this, but after seeing it I can't say I'm delighted.
A few scares, predictable plot and twists, long haired ghosts with "funny" eyes..
good but could be better.
Arang is a reasonably good story that tries to tie in the police investigation type drama into an essentially horror movie.
In this attempt, it has some originality, and i applaud that.
Also the idea of involving both the two cops investigating these murder in the original situation that led to the series of revenge murders is quite interesting.
However i would have liked to see more of the investigation side of the drama rather than the horror side.
There is far too many graphic images of the same ghosts that just keep coming back again and again and i feel it doesn't add anything to the story but to scare the audience.
The movie is very ambiguous as to how the victims did actually die, whether it's supernatural or cases of poisoning.
I find myself baffled many times how different things relate to each other, and i feel that again the director tries to confuse the audience deliberately to add to the suspense or scariness of the movie.
It kind of put me off because the story seems less convincing because of all the unexplained elements.
In summary, if you like horror, it's a movie that's worth having a watch if you've got the time.
Nothing groundbreaking, and for me it's plainly too much blood and gore without the necessity for it. |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.