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
⌀ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
tt0234713 | Shenmue | In 1986 Yokosuka, Japan, teenage martial artist Ryo Hazuki returns to his family dojo to witness a confrontation between his father Iwao and a Chinese man, Lan Di. Ryo intervenes, but is easily incapacitated. Lan Di demands Iwao give him a mysterious stone artifact known as the dragon mirror. When he threatens to kill Ryo, Iwao tells him the mirror is buried under the cherry blossom tree outside. As his men recover the mirror, Lan Di mentions a man Iwao allegedly killed in China. He delivers a finishing blow and Iwao dies in Ryo's arms.
Ryo swears revenge on Lan Di. He begins his investigation by interviewing people about what they witnessed. Just as he is about to run out of leads, a letter addressed to Ryo's father arrives from a Chinese man named Zhu Yuanda suggesting he seek the aid of Master Chen, who works at Yokosuka Harbor. Through Chen and his son Guizhang, Ryo learns that the dragon mirror taken by Lan Di is one of two mirrors. He locates the second, the phoenix mirror, in a hidden basement beneath his father's dojo.
Chen reveals that Lan Di has left Japan for Hong Kong. Ryo borrows money to buy a plane ticket from a disreputable travel agency; when he goes to collect the ticket, he is ambushed by Chai, a member of Lan Di's criminal organization, the Chi You Men, who destroys his ticket. Ryo learns that the Chi You Men is connected to the local harbor gang, the Mad Angels, and takes a job at the harbor as a forklift driver to investigate. After he causes trouble, the Mad Angels kidnap his schoolfriend Nozomi. Ryo rescues her and makes a deal with the Mad Angels leader to beat up Guizhang in exchange for a meeting with Lan Di. Ryo realizes the deal is a trap and teams up with Guizhang to defeat the Mad Angels.
Ryo arranges to take a boat to Hong Kong with Guizhang. On the day of departure, they are attacked by Chai. Ryo defeats him, but Guizhang is injured in the fight and urges Ryo to go without him, saying he will meet him in China later. Chen advises Ryo to seek the help of a martial artist in Hong Kong named Lishao Tao. Ryo boards the boat and leaves for Hong Kong. | revenge, murder, romantic, flashback | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0062218 | Rough Night in Jericho | A stagecoach bound for the town of Jericho is ambushed by Alex Flood, a lawman gone bad. Sharpshooting from a safe distance, Flood wounds the coach's driver, Ben Hickman, who is brought to town by the only passenger, a gambler named Dolan.
Hickman is a former Santa Fe lawman and Dolan was once his deputy. They now are partners in the stage line with Molly Lang, whom they have come to Jericho to meet. She was once Flood's lover when he came to Jericho to restore law and order, but now she hates the man who has seized power in the town.
Flood forms a lynch mob that hangs a man who dared confront one of his gang, then burns down the home of another townsman who tried to organize a secret meeting. While the wounded Hickman recovers from the gunshot, Dolan takes a liking to Molly and decides to help her when Flood's men try to take over her stagecoach line. He gets into a violent fight with Yarbrough, one of Flood's men.
Dolan begins to create havoc in Flood's empire, stealing his cattle and causing explosions at Flood's ranch and gold mine. He is assisted by Hickman and by Jace, the town's former sheriff. Flood returns to Jericho seeking revenge. He shoots Hickman in the back, killing him. Dolan sets out after Flood for a final showdown in the hills. | violence | train | wikipedia | Passable Western about a rough confrontation with strong characterization.
Compelling tale of an ex-deputy and his nemesis who is hired by a widow to protect her from revenge-seeking outlaws .
In the Old west there are always the men who live breathe violence and the women who hold their breath .
A ¨town tamer¨ , ex-sheriff and now professional gambler named Dolan (George Peppard) along with his old pal (John McIntire) come hired by Molly Lang (Jean Simmons) who owns the stagecoach line to rid the baron land named Alex Flood (Dean Martin)and his hoodlums (Slim Pickens , Steve Sandor) .
Dolan as ex-lawman brings peace for the townspeople , meanwhile Alex takes the justice on his own hands , hanging enemies and appointing marshals and orders warnings , as wearing of guns or other weapons in town is banned .
Flood is a whole villain determined to kill Dolan , he owns the Palace Casino, Saloon , General Store and lands .
But the town council afraid the raw methods carried out by Flood and reunite , when Alex aware he orders to burn the place .
At the end the kingpin landowner appears and attempts to murder Dolan with his own means .This is a tremendously exciting story of an ex-deputy-for-hire who had only one more killing to go.
It begins as a sluggish , slow-moving Western but follows to surprise us with dark , rudimentary characters and solid plot .
The tale is almost grim though full of clichés, a pacifier and his old partner come to a town just in time to make sure its citizenry but later the events get worse .
The action is brutishly cruel as when Dean Martin slaps and hits Jean Simmons.
The highlights of the film are the facing off between Peppard and Slim Pickens and the climatic showdown on the ending at the saloon and the town.
Phenomenal and great role for Dean Martin as bad guy , he's the whole show.
Vivid and lively musical score by Don Costa and atmospheric cinematography by Russell Metty.
Watchable results for this offbeat Western.The motion picture is professionally directed by Arnold Laven .
Laven formed a production company along with Jules Levy and Arthur Gardner.
The first Levy-Gardner-Laven movie was 1952's "Without Warning"'; in the decades since, they have produced and directed dozens of additional features .
He's an expert on Western genre as cinema as television as he produced and directed several TV series including "The Rifleman," "Law of the Plainsman," , "The Big Valley" .
And directed acceptable Western films as ¨The glory guys¨, ¨Geronimo¨and ¨Sam Whiskey¨..
Acceptable time-filler.
Dean Martin plays the villain for the first time, but doesn't add any dimension to his role.
George Peppard steals the movie as a gambler who doesn't want any trouble until situation becomes impossible.
Jean Simmons is adorable as usual.The plots are quite routine, the action scenes passable.
It's a bit unreasonable that Simmons would let Peppard, a stranger who rides to town on her stagecoach, stay in her house.
Although such arrangement is made by the writers, it's a shame that their relationship is not fully developed.Fortunately we see some familiar supporting actors, including Don Galloway (of TV series IRONSIDE), John McIntire (of WAGON TRAIN), and it's interesting to watch comic actor Slim Pickens as mean, sadistic character again after his wonderful performance in ONE-EYED JACKS (1961)..
good performances in this adult oater!.
Off beat casting of Dean Martin as the town tyrant who, among other things wants the stagecoach line that his former lover, Jean Simmons, currently owns.
In steps George Peppard, playing a former deputy, who comes to town and eventually gets caught up in things when his better sense tells him that he shouldn't stay.
Simmons plays a hand in this.
Slim Pickens, who usually played good guys, played one of Matin's henchmen.
The film gets rather violent--especially the fight scene between Peppard and Pickens-which begins with Pickens using a whip.
Acting was quite good.
I liked Don Galloway and John McIntyre in supporting roles.
It was a bit of a stretch to believe Martin as a total villain--but he pulled it off quite well.
Films like this helped kill the western.
Normally I love westerns, and I am willing to accept some flaws in them, but I found this particular western a chore to sit through.
The lead performances, for one thing, hurt the movie.
Now, I am not saying that Peppard and Martin were miscast, but they were not directed well here.
Peppard seems out of place, while Martin does not come across as ruthless enough to be believable as a villain.But what really hurts the movie is the script.
The mix between comic sequences and brutal action do not fit together very well.
Also, the first half of the movie is almost all talk talk talk, and not very interesting talk.
And Peppard's character doesn't do anything in that first half to try and change the desperate situation.
Things do pick up somewhat in the last part of the second half, but it's too little too late.By the way, Leonard Maltin's video guide branded this movie as "gory", but by today's standards it's not very bloody..
Watchable flick with some strengths.
Martin and Peppard are not my idea of great actors, nor Englishwoman Jean Simmons of the Western female (true, she played opposite Greg Peck in BIG COUNTRY, but in that film she was a sophisticated outsider) but it is an interesting cast all the same, plus Slim Pickens in fine form.
The plot has holes, direction, too, and yet something keeps you interested in watching this movie.
Martin plays the villain, against type; he commands a troop of convincing heavies; Peppard comes into town, the silent fellow who ends up restoring order.
ROUGH NIGHT is pleasant enough, with some quirky touches, like Martin telling Peppard to bury one of his henchmen, the poker game between the two, and a whipping of Peppard that brings to mind Marlon Brando's in ONE-EYED JACKS..
Worth to see just for Peppard and few scenes!!!.
Dean Martin as producer offered wisely to George Peppard a good guy's role to catch him to the picture, still stay with Jean Simmons as romantic pair, but put all this on the table is quite clear that the whole thing survives for few good scenes only, like the whip fight between Peppard and Pickens was bloody and impressive, another is when they playing poker, it's seems that Martin was loosing on purpose to Peppard leaves the town and at last the final showdown at the desert when Dino tried to ambush him, with those shaped blondie hair on the front face as long trademark, Simmons didn't added too much, Mcintire was average appearance, l'd to watch it twice to reach a final conclusion over it, watch out when Dino was involved in something, he can try to sing along in kitsch way...avoid!!!Resume:First watch: 2011 / How many: 2 / Source: DVD / Rating: 7.
It was real rough for Slim Pickens.
Dean Martin for the first and only time in his career played a villain, a town boss named Alex Flood who still hasn't gotten control of the stagecoach line Jean Simmons runs.
She's sold it to George Peppard and John McIntire.
McIntire is wounded on the way into town and he and Peppard are put up by Simmons.
This doesn't sit well with Dino, he and Simmons have had their moments in the past.It's a good adult western with lots of action to satisfy everyone.
One of the most brutal fight scenes in cinema history takes place between Peppard and Slim Pickens who's Martin's chief henchman.
More brutal than the one between Humphrey Bogart and Tim Holt against Barton MacLane in Treasure of the Sierra Made.
More brutal because Pickens meets his demise.
The rest of the film is Peppard rallying forces to take the town away from Martin's control.
Of course having Jean Simmons to come home to is enough to inspire anyone.Simmons is no longer playing the young girls she played in the 1950s, but she gives a good account of herself as the stageline widow.
She's always good, one of the most under-appreciated actresses in movie history.Good adult western, worth a view.
And if you want to see a modern remake, catch the Patrick Swayze film Road House..
"My only bad luck is you're not dead yet.".
It's a bit unusual seeing Dean Martin play the part of a villain, especially having been a regular viewer of his variety show back in the 1960's.
I couldn't help thinking that any minute he would enter the Ace Deuce, hop up on a piano and start belting out 'That's Amore'.
There was at least one similarity to Martin's weekly show with the presence of a gorgeous blonde babe hanging around.
No, not Jean Simmons, but that saloon girl Claire (Carol Andreson), who if I had to bet, would probably have shown up on one of his shows as well.Actually, Martin handled the role of a heavy pretty well, but I kept wondering if the movie might have been better served with Dino and George Peppard switching roles.
The casting of Slim Pickens as Alex Flood's (Martin) top henchman also seemed to go against the grain.
I mean, can you picture Andy Devine as a bad guy, or Smiley Burnette, or Chill Wills, or ..., well you get the idea.
But at least Pickens took the role and ran with it, nasty bull whip and all.As for Peppard, he becomes the reluctant hero after Flood pushes all the right buttons, and especially when he makes the move on Molly Lang's (Simmons) stagecoach business.
Martin's character makes it a point to own fifty one percent of every enterprise in Jericho, but you know, I kept wondering why he allowed the 4 Aces Saloon to operate in town; it didn't seem like Jericho was all that big.Hey, can you beat those medical fees back in the 1800's?
For fixing up a gunshot wound in old Ben Hickman (John McIntire) the Doc charges just a dollar!
Kind of makes you wonder how much it cost to go to med school.
Too bad Hickman didn't make it to the end of the picture, I kind of liked his deliberate, methodical style.Of course the ending is never in question, the fun is in watching how the good guy plan separates Flood's gang of outlaws so they can narrow the odds.
The one thing I would have allowed for earlier in the story would be showing Peppard's character and his prowess with a knife.
As it is, the way Dolan took out Flood made me sit up and ask, 'where did that come from'?.
EXCITING, IF NOT PARTICULARLY MEMORABLE, WESTERN.
Dean Martin plays the corrupt sheriff, who has controlling interest in virtually every enterprise in the small town of Jericho.
Virtually every enterprise except the stagecoach service owned by Jean Simmons.
Martin wants to control ALL of Simmons' property.
In rides George Peppard, a former "town tamer" and his partner, John McIntire, a former lawman.
Peppard had planned to be a driver for Simmons, but wants no part of taking on Martin and his men, including Slim Pickens.
When Pickens arrives at Simmons ranch to damage her stagecoach, Simmons resists him, and is struck by Pickens.
What follows is one of the most violent fights in the history of the western.
Peppard finally shows the townspeople how to defeat Martin and his men.
Martin beats Simmons savagely, and Peppard pursues Martin to the final showdown.
Unlike most westerns the showdown takes place in the woods, and it is not altogether clear that either man survives.Martin makes a charming, if vicious, villain.
Peppard brings more emotion than one usually expects to his western hero.
Simmons, as always, is radiant.
There are worse ways to spend 90 minutes..
George Peppard.
George Peppard is very wonderful in this movie.
His acting is very well done.
His character in this movie reminds me of the character he will later play on the A-Team.
(Plot Spoilers) His character rides into town and saves the day.
He even sets up a trap to catch the bad guys like he did at the end of every episode of the A-Team.
(Plot Spoilers)Dean Martin plays a very good villain in this movie.
Dean Martin plays a bad guy that is almost nice until you get on his bad side.
Sim Pickens who played bad guys before in movies like Blazing Saddles, One Eyed Jacks, and a few others.
Top all other bad guys he played before in this movie.
John McIntire was a lovable, kindhearted and tough lawman.Jean Simmons plays a head strong woman that has a independent spirit.
This has got to be one of my favorite George Peppard movies..
even pan and scan can't ruin George and Dino.
5 USA showed "Rough night in Jericho"yesterday evening in pan and scan that is generally the kiss of death to any movie and certainly the big fight between Mr Peppard and Mr Pickens loses much of its impact,but generally the whole piece held up reasonably well.
Good old pros in front of and behind the camera do their stuff very professionally and Mr McIntyre is particularly good as a retired sheriff turned stage driver.
Mr D.Martin plays Flood as "Dude" in "Rio Bravo" might have turned out if MrJ.Wayne had ridden away and left him after the closing titles.
He has the veneer of charm and bonhomie but it is stretched pretty thin by Mr G Peppard as a former deputy who involves himself in what Flood considers to be his town and with Miss J.Simmons who he considers to be his woman.
"Rough night in Jericho" would have been a very good TV Western but doesn't quite reach the heights on the big screen.
Nonetheless it is pleasing enough and well cast enough to be worth your time. |
tt0187173 | Iolanthe | Act I
Twenty-five years before the beginning of the opera, the fairy Iolanthe committed the capital crime (under fairy law) of marrying a mortal human. The Queen of the fairies commuted Iolanthe's sentence of death to banishment for life on the condition that Iolanthe left her husband and never communicated with him again. After the passage of 25 years, the fairies, still missing Iolanthe deeply, plead with their Queen to pardon Iolanthe and to restore her place in fairyland ("Tripping hither, tripping thither").
Summoned by the Fairy Queen ("Iolanthe! From thy dark exile thou art summoned"), Iolanthe rises from the frog-infested stream that has been her home in exile. The Queen, unable to bear punishing her any longer, pardons Iolanthe, who is warmly greeted by the other fairies. Iolanthe tells her sisters that she has a son, Strephon, noting that he's a fairy down to the waist, but his legs are mortal. The fairies laugh that Iolanthe appears too young to have a grown son, as one of the advantages of a fairy's immortality is that they never grow old. Strephon, a handsome Arcadian shepherd, arrives and meets his aunts ("Good-morrow, good mother"). He tells Iolanthe of his love for the Lord Chancellor's ward of court, the beautiful Phyllis, who does not know of Strephon's mixed origin. Strephon is despondent, however, as the Lord Chancellor has forbidden them to marry, partly because he feels that a shepherd is unsuitable for Phyllis, but partly because the Lord Chancellor wishes to marry Phyllis himself. In fact, so do half the members of Britain's House of Lords. The Fairy Queen promises her assistance ("Fare thee well, attractive stranger"). Soon Phyllis arrives, and she and Strephon share a moment of tenderness as they plan their future and possible elopement ("Good-morrow, good lover"; "None shall part us from each other").
A cadre of the peers of the realm arrive in noisy splendour ("Loudly let the trumpet bray" and "The law is the true embodiment"). They are all smitten with Phyllis, and they have appealed to the Lord Chancellor to decide who will have her hand. The Lord Chancellor hesitates to act upon his own regard for Phyllis due to his position as her guardian. The Lords send for Phyllis to choose one of their number, but she will not marry any of them, as virtue is found only in a "lowly" cottage ("My well-loved Lord" and "Nay, tempt me not"). The peers beg her not to scorn them simply because of their "blue blood" ("Spurn not the nobly born" and "My lords, it may not be"). Strephon approaches the Lord Chancellor, pleading that Nature bids him marry Phyllis. But the Lord Chancellor wryly notes that Strephon has not presented sufficient evidence that Nature has interested herself in the matter. He refuses his consent to the marriage between Strephon and Phyllis ("When I went to the Bar").
Disappointed, Strephon calls on Iolanthe for help. She appears and promises to support her son. Spying on the two, the peers – led by the brainless and stuffy Earls Tolloller and Mountararat – together with Phyllis, see Iolanthe and Strephon in a warm embrace. All three jump to the obvious conclusion, since the centuries-old Iolanthe appears to be a girl of seventeen ("When darkly looms the day"). The peers scoff at the seemingly absurd claim that Iolanthe is Strephon's mother as Strephon pleads: "She is, has been, my mother from my birth!" Phyllis angrily rejects Strephon for his supposed infidelity and declares that she will marry either Lord Tolloller or Lord Mountararat ("...and I don't care which!"). Strephon then calls for help from the fairies, who appear but are mistaken by the peers for a girls' school on an outing. Offended, the Fairy Queen pronounces a magical "sentence" upon the peers: Strephon shall not only become a Member of Parliament, but will have the power to pass any bill he proposes ("With Strephon for your foe, no doubt").
Act II
Private Willis, on night guard duty, paces outside the Palace of Westminster and muses on political life ("When all night long a chap remains"). The fairies arrive and tease the peers about the success of MP Strephon, who is advancing a bill to open the peerage to competitive examination ("Strephon's a member of Parliament"). The peers ask the fairies to stop Strephon's mischief, stating that the House of Peers is not susceptible of any improvement ("When Britain really ruled the waves"). Although the fairies say that they cannot stop Strephon, they have become strongly attracted to the peers ("In vain to us you plead"). The fairy Queen is dismayed by this. Pointing to Private Willis of the First Grenadier Guards, who is still on duty, the Queen claims that she is able to subdue her response to the effects of his manly beauty ("Oh, foolish fay").
Phyllis cannot decide whether she ought to marry Tolloller or Mountararat, and so she leaves the choice up to them. Tolloller tells Mountararat that his family's tradition would require the two Earls to duel to the death if the latter were to claim Phyllis. The two decide that their friendship is more important than love and renounce their claims to her ("Though p'r'aps I may incur thy blame"). The Lord Chancellor arrives dressed for bed and describes a nightmare caused by his unrequited love for Phyllis ("Love, unrequited, robs me of my rest"). The two peers try to cheer him up and urge him to make another effort to persuade himself to award Phyllis to ... himself ("If you go in you're sure to win").
Strephon now leads both parties in Parliament, but he is miserable at losing Phyllis. He sees Phyllis and reveals to her that his mother is a fairy, which accounts for her apparent youth ("If we're weak enough to tarry"). Phyllis and Strephon ask Iolanthe to plead with the Lord Chancellor to allow their marriage, for "none can resist your fairy eloquence." This is impossible, she replies, for the Lord Chancellor is her husband. He believes Iolanthe to have died childless, and she is bound not to "undeceive" him, under penalty of death. However, to save Strephon from losing his love, Iolanthe resolves to present his case to the Lord Chancellor while veiled ("My lord, a suppliant at your feet").
Although the Lord Chancellor is moved by her appeal, which evokes the memory of his wife, he declares that he himself will marry Phyllis. Desperate, Iolanthe unveils, ignoring the warnings of the unseen Fairies, revealing that she is his long-lost wife, and Strephon is his son. The Lord Chancellor is amazed to see her alive, but Iolanthe has again broken fairy law, and the Fairy Queen is now left with no choice but to punish Iolanthe with death ("It may not be ... Once again thy vow is broken"). As she prepares to execute Iolanthe, the Queen learns that the rest of the fairies have chosen husbands from among the peers, thus also incurring death sentences – but the Queen blanches at the prospect of slaughtering all of them. The Lord Chancellor suggests a solution: change the law by inserting a single word: "every fairy shall die who doesn't marry a mortal." The Fairy Queen cheerfully agrees and, to save her life, the dutiful soldier, Private Willis, agrees to marry her. Seeing no reason to stay in the mortal realm if peers are to be recruited "from persons of intelligence", the peers join the fairy ranks and "away [they] go to fairyland" ("Soon as we may, off and away"). | fantasy | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0065950 | The Kremlin Letter | Late in 1969, a brilliant young United States Navy intelligence officer named Charles Rone (Patrick O'Neal) finds his commission revoked so that he can be recruited into an espionage mission. Rone is told that the mission is being undertaken independently of governmental intelligence agencies, as was commonplace prior to World War II, when espionage operations were handled by a small community of agents operating on a freelance basis.
Rone is told that the primary operator in that community, a "brutal, sadistic, conscienceless assassin" named Robert Stuydevant, did not adapt to the post-war shift to government intelligence agencies, along with the disbanding of the independent network of spies, with Stuydevant disappearing and reportedly later committing suicide. Now, the government has suffered a significant failure in an important intelligence operation and has turned back to the independent agents for help.
This time, "The Highwayman" (Dean Jagger), another member of the old group of independent spies is the man leading the effort to reassemble the network to take on this mission. Another member of the group has recently died, and Rone has been tabbed as his replacement, due to Rone's exceptional analytical skills, eidetic memory and ability to speak eight languages with a native accent.
Rone meets with The Highwayman and another group member named Ward (Richard Boone), the latter of whom takes on the role of Rone's primary tutor. They first task Rone with rounding up three other members of the group: Janis (Nigel Green), a drug dealer and panderer, "The Warlock" (George Sanders), a culturally sophisticated homosexual, and "The Erector Set" (Niall MacGinnis), a highly skilled thief and burglar.
Janis begs off of the mission, saying that he won't work for The Highwayman, but only for Stuydevant, whom he believes would never have killed himself. Rone finally bribes him into agreeing to participate. The Warlock joins the operation without hesitation, but The Erector Set's hands have become too arthritic to be of use. Instead, he sends his beautiful daughter B.A. (Barbara Parkins) in his place, as he has trained her to be as capable as is he.
The group's mission is the retrieval of a letter, written without proper authorization, that promises United States aid to the Soviet Union in destroying Chinese atomic weapons plants. The letter had been solicited on behalf of an unknown high-level Soviet official by Dmitri Polyakov, who had previously been selling Soviet secrets to the United States that he had obtained from that same Soviet official. Upon finding out about the letter, which was a de facto "declaration of war against China", U.S. and British authorities had contacted Polyakov and arranged to buy it back from him. However, Polyakov then committed suicide after being apprehended by Soviet counter-intelligence, under the direction of Colonel Yakov Kosnov (Max von Sydow).
The group blackmails Captain Potkin (Ronald Radd), the Soviet head of counter-intelligence in the U.S., threatening his family to force him to allow them the use of his usually-vacant apartment in Moscow. Once they arrive in the Soviet Union, the terminally ill Highwayman sacrifices his life, attempting to divert the attention of Soviet counter-intelligence away from the remainder of the team. Rone is assigned to remain at the apartment with Ward and accept reports verbally from other team members, Rone's memory allowing them to avoid the use of written records. Janis, The Warlock and B.A. then set out to establish themselves in various parts of Russian society as they try to ascertain the identity of Polyakov's contact.
Janis enters a partnership with a local brothel operator, who points him to a Chinese man known as "The Kitai" as a possible source for names of officials and others to whom he can sell heroin, with which Janis already plans to keep the prostitutes addicted. Janis later discerns that the Kitai is also a spy and further happens to spot Kosnov leaving a local night club with a woman whom he discovers was Polyakov's devoted wife, Erika Beck (Bibi Andersson). She is now married to Kosnov, so B.A. plants a listening device in their bedroom. After that, B.A. takes up with a local small-time thief and black market operator, though she finds herself terribly unhappy and wishes only to return home to her father. In the meantime, the Warlock integrates himself into the local community of intellectual homosexuals, starting an affair with a university professor. He then meets one of the professor's students who was Polyakov's former lover and who informs him that Polyakov had had a relationship with Vladimir Bresnavitch (Orson Welles) of the Soviet Central Committee.
Bresnavitch turns out to have an adversarial relationship with Kosnov, whose activities Bresnavitch oversees on behalf of the Committee. According to Kosnov, the animosity between the two men went back many years to when Bresnavitch sought to oust Kosnov from his job, in favor of Stuydevant. Prior to that time, Kosnov and Stuydevant had been friendly, with each one trusting the other to allow his agents to operate in the other's territory. However, with the pressure from Bresnavitch, Kosnov decided he had to do "something spectacular" to keep his job, so he betrayed Stuydevant's trust and captured his agents, employing a great deal of brutality and earning the lasting enmity of Stuydevant himself.
Upon deducing that Bresnavitch had used Polyakov to fence stolen art works in Paris, Ward decides to go there in search of any possible leads. On the day of his return, the group's mission is destroyed when Potkin returns to the Soviet Union and informs Bresnavitch about the operation. Janis, B.A. and Ward are apprehended, while The Warlock commits suicide just before capture and Rone narrowly escapes. Rone tries visiting the Kitai to arrange re-purchase of the letter, but the Kitai responds by trying to kill him and Rone determines that the Chinese have possession of the letter.
Rone then turns to Erika, with whom he has been having an affair while posing as a Russian gigolo named Yorgi. He hopes to get her to inquire with her husband about the condition of those captured. She informs him that Kosnov participated in no such capture, and Rone realizes that Bresnavitch quietly orchestrated the raid without the knowledge of Soviet counter-intelligence, a clear indicator that he was Polyakov's traitorous high-level Soviet official contact. Rone's questions reveal to Erika his true identity and he promises to help her escape to the West. She tells him she will try to ascertain the fates of the captured agents and later reports back that B.A. has taken poison and is expected to die, while one of the men is dead and the other has survived and is being held captive.
Rone threatens to expose Bresnavitch unless Ward, the surviving agent, is released. Bresnavitch agrees, and Rone and Ward then arrange to leave the next day. Disapproving of Rone's plans to aid Erika, Ward lures her into a trap and kills her. Kosnov believes that her lover Yorgi killed her and tracks down Rone, though unaware of Rone's true identity, in search of revenge. But Ward enters, leading Kosnov to observe that "I seem to know you." Ward says that the two men have "a lot of old corpses to dig up and talk about." He begins listing the names of the agents betrayed by Kosnov and says that the time has come for retribution, as he shoots Kosnov in the kneecap. Kosnov stares at Ward in disbelief, saying "No, it isn't. It can't be." Ward then closes on him off-camera and Kosnov begins screaming in torment.
As they head for a plane to leave the country, Rone shares with Ward his conclusions that Ward is in fact Stuydevant and intends to stay, having made a deal with Bresnavitch to take over as the head of Soviet counter-intelligence. Ward denies it, but only coyly, and then reveals that B.A. is not dead. He says that she will be held to ensure that Rone does not reveal the truth about him. Rone, very much in love with B.A., vows that he'll get her back somehow. Ward offers to release B.A. if Rone does "one last little thing", handing Rone an envelope as Rone boards the plane. After seating himself, Rone opens the envelope to find a note which reads, "Kill Potkin's wife and daughters or I kill the girl." | revenge, neo noir, murder, violence | train | wikipedia | It might not be a first but I haven't seen it in any film since.Finally I must add that there is not one likeable character in this movie...
It seems to me that this one point raised by almost all of the movie anthologies indicates that none have seen the film but only copied one person's comment.
The Kremlin Letter is the most intense spy drama, with the tightest script and the very best characterizations ever to appear in this peculiarly appealing genre.John Huston (who plays one scene himself, masterfully) somehow assembled the incredible cast, which reads like a who's who of its time.
This ain't James Bond Spoofs A Bad Guy!If you like a good story filled with intrigue, double-crossing, revenge, sudden deadly action, plot twists and just plain evil bad guys, watch The Kremlin Letter..
"The Kremlin Letter" is a Cold War spy film from director John Huston.
It focuses on the story of a young American agent and a team of spies that infiltrate the Soviet Union in an attempt to recover a letter compromising to the United States.Patrick O'Neal is effective as Charles Rone, who is accepted as a spy due to his photographic memory.
Also notable are Richard Boone as the genial mentor to Rone, Bibi Andersson as the desperate wife of a Soviet spy chief Kosnov and Barbara Parkins as an enchanting fellow agent.
Veteran actor Max von Sydow has a good turn as Colonel Kosnov, a determined man with a brutal record, who organizes a "third section" of Soviet agents.This is the seediest spy story I have seen to date.
The pace is slow, so this film is not recommend for those looking for a James Bond style spy thriller, but rather those looking for a John le Carré type spy story in the vein of "The Spy Who Came in from the Cold"..
I had been wanting to see it for some time out of curiosity: George Sanders appears in drag as a San Francisco gay bar pianist, and Barbara Parkins has a role, three years after "Valley of the Dolls." (I love Parkins not just for the "Valley" connection.
There's lots of verbal exposition in the movie, and at one point I think it's even implied that the Orson Welles character is a homosexual.The sexual politics of the film are outdated, perhaps.
She also complains about the look of the film, but I think the verite style was intentional.One tiny thing I thought I noticed, the old lady who is the mother of the Russian thief Barbara Parkins lives with seems to have too nice a manicure!
Average spy film about the Cold War with twists , turns and confused script.
The group is formed by a priest (Dean Jagger) , a beautiful girl (Barbara Parkins) with ability as safe-cracker , an unscrupulous man called ¨the Whore¨ (Nigel Green) , an uncanny and astute spy (Richard Boone) and even an old drag (George Sanders) .
They'll confront a cunning head of Soviet Politburó (Orson Welles) and an evil KGB agent (Max Von Sidow) whose wife (Bibbi Andersson) falls in love with the protagonist Ron .The film has suspense , tension , emotion , mystery and specially in its final a little bit of violence .
A number of characters in this movie are known by code-names , these include "The Highwayman" (Dean Jagger); "The Whore" (Nigel Green); "The Warlock" (George Sanders); "Erector Set" (Niall MacGinnis) ; "The Negress" (Vonetta McGee); "The Priest" (Marc Lawrence); "The Dentist" (Victor Beaumont) and "The Puppet Maker" (Raf Vallone) .
The plot is intricate with many twists which the excellent cast exploit for maximum impact.For those who did not live through the cold war, this film will be a real eye opener of the type of things that went on during this period.I only hope that it will become available on video for those of us who really like this movie..
"The Kremlin Letter" has a cast of Bergman stars (Bibbi Andersson and Max von Sydow) and an international cast of actors who were good elsewhere (Lila Kedrova is the biggest disappointment to me, but she is joined by Dean Jagger, Ralf Vallone, Orson Welles, et al.) but drained of emotion here or given no character with which to work.
Richard Boone makes an impression as the bullying mentor, and George Sanders amidst stereotypical homosexual circles, and von Sydow was a master of coldness, but everyone else seems stranded (as in lacking direction!)The movie has a very complicated plot (or set of plots), an international cast, some kinky sex, lots of brutality, drugs (but no rock'n roll), no visual merits and exceptionally poorly recorded sound for what must have been a big-budget production in the heyday of Cold War spy films.
Fine cast of actors playing their parts incredibly well, particularly Orson Welles and George Sanders as a drag queen/American agent.
However, I watched this film through once, then skim-watched it again a second time trying to ascertain the plot and some of the scenes relevancy, and I just couldn't thread it all together.
What is especially dismaying about The Kremlin Letter is that it features a cast to-die-for, and you come away from the film filled with bitter regret that such a great assembly of talent has amounted to so little.
He tracks down some of his old spy buddies to help him with the mission: the Whore (Nigel Green), the Erector Set (Niall MacGinnis), Warlock (George Sanders), and other imaginatively-named spies and assassins.
This deeply flawed, deeply uninteresting spy film really is one for John Huston completists only.
Director John Huston also co-penned this complicated adaptation of Noel Behn's acclaimed spy novel set in 1969, with a team of crack operatives skilled in counter-intelligence matters and burglary sent to Moscow to retrieve an unauthorized anti-Red Chinese letter promising US aid to Russia via the destruction of China's atomic weapons.
I caught this on one of the cable channels and was blown away by the cast lineup - Max von Sydow, Richard Boone, George Sanders, Dean Jagger, and - mirabile dictu - Orson Welles.
What could go wrong, says I, in a Cold War intrigue drama with such a lineup, and directed by John Huston (who puts in a cameo)?
If you're tired of the James Bond pictures and you want to try a more "adult" and mature spy film, check out "The Ipcress File", or even "The Naked Runner", with Frank Sinatra; they are far superior.
Mainly a TV star ("Have Gun, Will Travel"), and mainly a Western star in his movies, Richard Boone gives one of his rare contemporary film performances in "The Kremlin Letter" and just about saves the picture.
Director John Huston frames the shot to catch Boone's always expressive hand movements as Boone delivers a long speech with delightful vigor and spin.The movie is a disappointing Huston film and really pretty awful in general, but of some historic importance.
Message: spying is a dirty business, with no loyalties, and anything goes: prostitution, drug pushing, kidnapping of innocents, blackmail, torture, murder.Along with the great, underrated Boone, this was among the last films for the elegant George Sanders and the interesting Nigel Green.
Along with sweet-faced, mean-voiced Dean Jagger ("White Christmas"), these actors demonstrate just how deadly an "over-the-hill-gang" of old secret agents can be.Not a good movie, not a coherent movie, but worth seeing for: Boone, Sanders, Green, Jagger -- and Huston's desperate attempt to get sexually trendy as the New Hollywood of the 70's kicked in.
I can't believe anyone would not think this is a 4 star movie, great performances, complex plot and no "James Bond" gadgetry, this is really good stuff.
Similar in feel and texture to " The Spy Who Came in From The Cold " this movie offers some unique performances from some "big names" in unusual roles.
Directed by John Huston, with a mostly all-star cast, it's offbeat, grim, brutal, sexually frank (if far from PC these days)-- and rather bloody for its time.Patrick O'Neal seems at first glance a bit older than the Rone character should be, but a line of dialog indicates service in Korea.
The talents of all of them are needed for a high level intelligence operation so sensitive that no agency of the U.S. government can take responsibility to carry it out.This movie is brilliantly directed, acted and filmed.
Agents are sent from the west to retrieve "The Kremlin Letter" in this 1970 film directed by John Huston and starring Patrick O'Neal, Richard Boone, George Sanders, Orson Welles, Max von Sydow, Barbara Parkins, Dean Jagger, and Bibi Andersson.
This is an extremely cold and vicious look at the spy game - it's no fun caper film.
The last moment in the film will leave you breathless.With a cast like this, the acting should be uniformly excellent, and it is, with the not-so-talented but beautiful Parkins given a role where she doesn't have to do any scenery chewing.
He was very talented, and here plays the head man to perfection, blond hair, down-home accent and all.Very intriguing, done at a time when spy films were a dime a dozen.
The story begins in the United Staes in L.A. as I remember, they fly to SanFrancisco to pick up some drag queens, George Sanders does a great job, and they several other streams are sent to the U.S.S.R. to retrieve a letter that was supposed to have been sent about some American official who had sold out the USA.
After performing poorly at the box-office in 1970, John Huston's "The Kremlin Letter" had at least one network showing (on ABC in 1974), then disappeared without a trace.I haven't seen this John Huston directed thriller since the year of its release (I saw it at the drive-in where it played second fiddle to another obscure movie, "Barquero" with Lee Van Cleef).
The cast, including Patrick O' Neal in a rare leading role and "Peyton Place" veteran Barbara Parkins, is excellent, but it's the great Richard Boone who steals the show with a commanding performance.Is "The Kremlin Letter" as superb as I remember, or was I too young to recognize it as trash the first time I saw it?
Not terrible, this film has a number of twists, a complex plot and looks good even today.However, it is also burdened with a rather dull narrative of long in the tooth spies, doing things their way, in a free enterprise rootin tootin western in russia.
Just how seriously John Huston took any of this is hard to say but "The Kremlin Letter" is still one of his most entertaining pictures.
An all-star cast play various spies, both Russian and American, and they would all seem to be after the letter of the title; that much is clear...or is it!
The superb cast act with the straightest of faces, (there's a great cameo from Orson Welles while Max Von Sydow and Bibi Andersson as usual walk away with it).
Sold at the time as a serious antidote to the Bond movies the film wasn't a success but is now seen as a cult classic..
On this first showing I found the plot very difficult to follow and, because I lost interest,do not even know what happened to the damn letter which everyone was looking for.Perhaps it will all become clear if I watch it several times.
Also unlike some other spy movies I have seen, this film lacked tension and atmosphere.
This is a typical spy film, and very indicative of the sort of film that makes Orson Welles seem like a stuffed shirt.The plot is impossible to follow.
A letter must be found, but no one really seems to want to find it.The movie is more about actors relishing self indulgent roles.
Yup. I think my first comment is to those who viewed this and give it the tag "best spy film ever" surely need to sit down and watch all of Huston's work and then re-watch it.
To me the one character that epitomizes this film is the one played by Richard Boone.
Folks who like the movie claim it is an accurate portrayal of cold war espionage.
Majestically directed by Huston, stuffed with great performances including Richard Boon, John O'Shea, Nigel Green, and especially Max Von Sydow who is in compelling form.
Bibi Andersson is a revelation, so full of tenderness, anger and despair.Full of engaging characters, unexpected scenes, and plenty of twists this is a neglected classic of the genre.It needs a proper DVD release with plenty of extras, before all those involved pass away (Bibi Andersson and Barbara Parkins are the only principals still with us) Despite being central to the plot Orson Wells has little more than a cameo.
But somehow, Kremlin Letter (KL) started to make more sense, once I saw the spy intrigue as rather an excuse for parading a set of seedy, vicious characters,drifting on a sea of self-serving cynicism.
At least the writer is supposed to have interesting background, having worked for the Army's CIC.Comparing KL with movies like "Spy who came in from the cold" therefor may be somewhat odd.
However, it certainly is not a good sign however, if indeed Huston didn't comment a lot about this child of him...Anyway, if being intriguing, keeping us guessing was the real intention of the movie, it's clear it didn't succeed.
If it is not on video that is a shame given the general interest that any film written and directed by john huston should command..
We are dealing with a few sacred monsters, starting with director John Huston (who casted himself in a small role in the film), then Orson Welles and George Sanders.
Nigel Green, Richard Boone, Patrick O'Neal, are not sacred monsters, but they do their job well, are good actors.
It's extremely convoluted but still worthwhile, THE KREMLIN LETTER is John Huston's take on the cold war spy thriller.
Richard Boone and Patrick O'Neal are the head spooks and their team is an odd bunch including terminally ill Dean Jagger, safe-cracker Barbara Parkins, and Nigel Green (whose role is REALLY odd).
It provides a great surprise ending, and the only movie I know of that uses a double plot in that way.This is a John Huston film that deserves more attention than it has received..
You have to watch every second of this film to know what's going on and use your brain to keep pace of the plot twists and turns.
Richard Boone and Patrick O'Neil, two underrated actors who never gave a bad performance, are riveting and Barbara Parkins never looked more alluring.
And espionage as he finds is a business without ethics.This film could have been another The Spy Who Came In From The Cold, but falls way short of that classic.
The Kremlin Letter is a very intriguing and often overlooked film in the cold war spy thriller category.
Still, never before have I seen such a refreshingly unusual, unglamourized portrayal of international espionage where the spies are all shady characters and the difference in the methods of both US and Russian intelligence organizations as well as the loyalties of their agents are highly questionable.The ending is superbly disturbing and in the end, the plot of the film is one big mcguffin.Rating:7/10Ps.The opening titles are bound to make any Finn smile..
I never knew how you could take John Huston directing, acting, and more and make a forgotten film?
The list goes on and on.It is cold war spy stuff, but this kind of material is written better and acted better in many other films from this period.
because part of me wants desperately to think of John Huston's The Kremlin Letter as something like brilliant.The other part of me suffered through a long, overly-complicated, and tedious chunk of Le Carre-ish dullness that made two hours seem like twenty.I'd like to put the argument to rest.What I did take away from TKL is that spying is beyond nasty, it's downright loathsome.
****SPOILERS**** Confusing mess of as movie that centers around this letter that if its contents become know to the Communist Chinese Government it could very well spark a third world War between China and the US and USSR.
What the letter is all about is a promise from a top member,very probably the head man, of the CIA that the US will join the USSR in an attack on the Chinese Communist nuclear facilities in a joint military operation when the time is right.As the movie slumbers along the letter becomes less and less important to the plot with the guy put in charge of getting the letter US Government Super Secret Agent Charles Rone, Patrick O'Neal, finding better things to do like become a male hustler in Moscow and getting acquainted with the Soviet sadistic counter-intelligence head Col. Kosnov, Max Von Sydow, oversexed wife Erika, Bibi Anderson.
There's so many side plots in the film that at one point I thought that I was watching at least a half dozen different movies at the same time.
A hit job back in New York City that has nothing to do with what he thought he was in the movie for in the first place: "The Kremlin letter"!
Talking about changing horses in the middle or a race!P.S There's also a cameo appearance, like in an Alfred Hitchcock movie, in the film by it's director John Huston playing someone called the Admiral as well as Orson Wells as the guy who's really pulling the strings in the film as Soviet Central Committee honcho Bresnavitch.
This has to rate as one of the worst films ever despite an all-star cast.The plot is extremely muddled.
Given the character that Boone was, did he arrange for the murder of of O'Neal's family.The great John Huston directed this mess.
It's possible that unsophisticated 1970 audiences expecting another Jame Bond flick were unprepared for such a brilliant tour de force.The film is worth watching for the dynamic performance from Richard Boone alone. |
tt0038032 | Road to Utopia | Sal and Chester Hooton (Lamour and Hope), an old married couple, are visited by their equally old friend Duke Johnson (Crosby), and the three reminisce about their previous adventure in the Klondike. The film flashes back to the turn of the century. A man is murdered and two thugs, McGurk (Nestor Paiva) and Sperry (Robert Barrat), steal a map to a gold mine. The map and mine belonged to a man named Van Hoyden and the dying man tells Sal (Van Hoyden's daughter) the mine is in Alaska and to find a man named Ace Larson. Sal manages to get on the last boat to Alaska before McGurk and Sperry.
To evade the police, the thugs duck into a theater, where Duke and Chester are performing vaudeville. They proceed to work the crowd with a "ghost scam" into "gambling" their money in hope of doubling it. As the police find the thugs, they escape onstage and reveal Chester hiding under the table with the crowd's money. Duke and Chester are forced to flee the angry mob.
As Duke divides their money, Chester is fed up with having to jump from town to town. Duke convinces him to head north to Alaska to prospect for gold. Chester refuses on the grounds that every time Duke gets a "great idea", Chester is the one that gets the runaround. Chester then takes all the money and tells Duke to go on without him.
As McGurk and Sperry get on the boat bound for Alaska, Duke and Chester prepare to part ways. As they bid a solemn goodbye, and picking each other's pocket, Duke steals the money. Chester waves goodbye until he sees Duke counting the money and changes boats at the last moment. He is about to throttle Duke when he realizes the boat has left the dock for Alaska. In Duke's cabin, Chester takes the money back and puts it in a safe, which turns out to be a porthole. With no money to pay for passage, they are forced to scrub the deck and shovel coal.
Sal arrives in Alaska and meets with Ace Larson (Douglass Dumbrille), a saloon owner and friend of her father. Instead of going to the police, Larson assures Sal that he will take care of things. He gives her a job performing in his saloon, an act which infuriates Larson's girlfriend, Kate (Hillary Brooke). Larson tells Kate how he really plans to take Sal's gold mine for the two of them and passionately kisses her.
While doing housekeeping duties in a cabin, Chester finds the map to the gold mine. As the thugs enter behind them, Duke and Chester realize they have found the Van Hoyden map and the occupants are the killers. They overpower the thugs and take their place (and their beards) to get off the boat, only to find the entire town is terrified of the real thugs. Thinking they can get anything they want, Duke and Chester adopt the tough persona and head to the saloon. They argue over who gets to hold the map and decide to tear it in half and each man keep his for safe keeping.
While enjoying "free" champagne and lots of dancing girls, they see Sal's singing routine and are both instantly smitten. Sal plays up to both of them and sends a note to Chester. She doubts they are the real killers, but Ace's lackey, Lebec, reminds her to get the map at all costs.
Chester confides in Sal about the map, even telling her how Duke hid his half in his hat. Sal sends him away but tells him to return at midnight. Meanwhile, Duke receives a note from Sal, and thinking he's McGurk, Sal plays up to him, allowing Lebec to take his hat and the map. She also sends him away telling him to return at midnight. Duke and Chester are at first shocked to be on a date with the same woman, but the night is cut short when the real McGurk and Sperry burst into the hotel. As they make a hasty exit, Sal learns she gave half of the map to Ace. Duke and Chester manage to escape by dog sled.
Ace is furious to only have half a map, and sends Kate to the get the other half, with Lebec as a backup plan. Kate tries to pull the "stranded girl in the snow" routine to attract Duke and Chester, but is interrupted by Sal's arrival. The four of them head to a nearby cabin. Kate tells Sal that they need to get the other half or the men will be killed.
After a failed attempt to get the map, Sal gets "McGurk" (Duke) to reveal "Sperry" (Chester) has hidden his half in his undershirt. She plays to "McGurk" and tells him that "Sperry" wants to steal his half and they should run away together. Duke reveals his true identity and says he'll take care of "Sperry" as Kate walks in. Sal, now realizing how much she loves Duke, refuses to go along with the plan. But Kate warns her that only Ace can keep them from being killed and the only way to get to him is to give up the map. Sal reluctantly agrees to steal the map while the men sleep, and the two girls leave the next morning with Lebec.
Duke and Chester are confronted by the real McGurk and Sperry and they realize the girls had stolen the map. They still manage to escape and the after a merry chase through the mountains head back to town.
Sal tells Ace she'll only give up the map if he refuses to kill Duke and Chester, but instead he forms a posse to dispose of them. Somehow they managed to steal the map back, rescue Sal, scare away the mob and get rid of McGurk and Sperry. They escape by dog sled with the mob after them but the sled overturns. The ice splits, leaving Sal and Chester on one side, and Duke on the side of the mob. He throws the map, wishes them well and turns to face the mob.
The movie flashes back into the present with aged Duke telling Sal and Chester how he escaped the mob. He is then surprised to hear Chester and Sal have a son. They call for him, and ironically he bears a striking resemblance to Duke. Chester looks into the camera and says, "We adopted him." | murder, flashback | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0090915 | Dead End Drive-In | In the near future, the economy has collapsed and massive crime waves sweep the inner cities. The manufacturing industry has shrunk to the point where cars are a commodity and parts are fought over between salvage companies and roving gangs. In an attempt to control the crime-wave, a chain of drive-in theatres are turned into concentration camps for the undesirable and unemployed youth. The dirty, graffiti-laden drive-ins are surrounded by high fences, and the roads leading to them are Security Roads ("S-Roads") that do not allow walking under any circumstances. Police collaborate with the owner to sabotage cars of unsuspecting visitors; however, some who know the true nature of the drive-ins come voluntarily for the shelter and food. Broken cars are continuously collected at these facilities. The prisoners are allowed easy access to a wide variety of drugs, alcohol, junk food, exploitation films, and new wave music. This, coupled with the awful conditions on the outside, engineers an atmosphere of complacency and hopelessness so the inmates will accept their fate and not attempt escape.
Jimmy, a young health nut who is nicknamed Crabs, sneaks off with his brother's vintage 1956 Chevy to take his girlfriend, Carmen, to the local Star Drive-In. He tells the owner they are unemployed to get a discounted rate. While Crabs is intimate with Carmen, the back tires of his car are stolen, and Crabs soon discovers the police are responsible. Crabs complains to the owner, but he refuses to help until morning. The next morning, Crabs and Carmen are amazed at the number of cars still there, many of which have turned into hovels. The owner, Thompson, pretends to fill out a report and enters them both into the system. He lets them know they will be there for a while, as there are no buses or cabs, and gives them a stack of meal tickets to use at the run-down cafe. Time drags on, and Crabs makes several attempts at escape that are thwarted.
Foregoing an attempt to climb a fence he discovers is electrified, he locates the tires he needs but learns his gas has been drained. He steals gas from a police vehicle, but then finds his engine stripped. Suspecting that Thompson, who receives a stipend for each prisoner, is behind the sabotage, Crabs warns him not interfere again. Further complicating matters are the verbal and physical fights Crabs continues to have with one of the racist gangs. During this time, Carmen makes no attempt to avoid the unhealthy eating and drug culture at the camp. She becomes friends with several of the female inmates, who are successful at indoctrinating her to the encampment's bizarre racist mentality that Asians are to somehow blame for their problems, a situation exacerbated by the arrival of foreigners trucked into the camp. All attempts to talk sense into her fail, and Crabs soon realizes that she has succumbed to the hopelessness that pervades the encampment.
Crabs attempts one more spectacular effort at escape: while the majority of the encampment, including Carmen, attends a racist meeting, he hijacks a tow truck. He attempts to sneak out peacefully, but is recognized by Thompson. This leads to a car chase inside the encampment; the police fire automatic weapons at the tow truck, which frightens the prisoners who are hiding in the cafe. Eventually, Crabs crashes but manages to elude the police on foot. He finds Carmen and unsuccessfully attempts to reason with her; he kisses her and wishes her well. Crabs disarms Thompson and forces him to delete his profile, but his escape attempt ends in a violent confrontation with the police; Thompson is accidentally killed, and the remaining policeman hunts down Crabs. Using a ramp near the entrance, Crabs launches his tow truck over the fence and lands on the S-Road. | tragedy, cult, psychedelic, satire, violence | train | wikipedia | While his work may not be of high quality (his two "Leprechaun" films are a good example of this), they are always creative as his wild imagination seems to be set loose every time he sits at the director's chair.
"Dead-End Drive In", probably his best film, is a perfect example of this: writer Peter Carey constructs a very intelligent tale set in an apocalyptic wasteland, and Trenchard-Smith takes fully advantage of the plot to construct one of the best Australian b-movies.
A young man named Crabs (Ned Manning) is trapped in this way, but instead of becoming a conformist member of the nihilistic youth, he decides to fight back and escape no matter the cost.Hidden under this sci-fi/horror tale of an apocalyptic society is a very well-written plot with social commentary included.
Crabs is trapped in an apparent paradise where he can get all the fast food he wants and do nothing but live each day, but instead he chooses to fight back and try to escape from the Drive-In and to return to his family.
It is not a horror movie in the sense of being scary, but it is haunting in the sense that even when it is a fictitious scenery, it is not hard to believe that humanity will behave the way the conformist teenager do in the film.Ned Manning is very good as Crabs, as he has the looks of a common young man trapped unfairly in a living tomb.
The movie still manages to be quite entertaining and some effects (like the use of explosives) still look great after 20 years."Dead-End Drive In" is a very interesting sci-fi movie from Australia that it's definitely worth a rent.
Despite the lack of budget for the movie, Brian Trenchard-Smith gives a real sense of lots of people suffering from the consequences of economic failure.The movie follows Crabs and his girlfriend Carmen, who end up stranded in an almost post-apocalyptic drive-in cinema after their tires are stolen by the police.
Crabs becomes even more likable because - like us - he sees the drive-in as a huge prison infested with unfair racial divisions.'Dead-End Drive In' is, naturally, a little rough around the edges.
In a futuristic 1990 the government is keeping the unemployed youth locked up in a drive-in and giving them snack bar food,drugs,beer,and all night movies for free.Where do I sign up?
Yes it's a bit silly at times,and the premise is unbelievable,but after all it's a "B" film.You just can't expect perfection in films like these,and I (for one) wouldn't have it any other way.There's nothing like stepping back to a simpler time and place.This fine little independent film from Down Under is just like taking a mini vacation in the way back machine.Pop this one in the DVD break out the popcorn and a cold Fosters and enjoy this blast from the past....8)8/10 on the Drive-in-Freak-O-Meter...ya just gotta check this out!.
This is a sci-fi film with great looking sets, decent acting and an illogical story line.
Put it all together and add a few explosions and you have a fantastic ride.The film tells the story of Crabs a young man who borrows his brother's car and goes to the drive in with a date.
Overall, the film is fun and is really good for anyone who likes futuristic, tongue in cheek sci-fi flicks..
(I'm French excuse my bad English) Dead end drive in is a very good film.
Look at the plot of Dead End Drive-In you pretty much know what you got into is a 80s dystopian movie but to my surprise the movie actually far more deep and somehow go beyond than just a cheesy b-movie.The characters is your typical cliché rebel teenagers so the dialogue not that easy to hear(no offense to Aussie people btw) or interesting but what catch my eyes the most is the world around them and how it work is fascinating to me.It may come out a little bit boring to watch cause the majority of the runtime there nothing really happens so I only recommend this movie to hardcore b-movie fan.
One night Jimmy takes his girlfriend Carmen (Natalie McCurry) to the Star Drive-In, but while they're making out, his car's wheels are nicked.
The drive-in is in fact a huge concentration camp for controlling feral teens, who are systematically trapped there and fed on a diet of bad food and bad movies.
Arriving at the fag-end of the Australian New Wave, Brian "BMX Bandits" Trenchard-Smith's 1986 post-apocalypse teen flick strongly echoes the Mad Max series as well as cult classics like Night of the Comet and Repo Man, using the 80s consumerist boom as the basis for its social commentary.
Carmen is given less to do, ultimately serving a cautionary function: she represents the path of least resistance.If you can get beyond the ridiculous premise and you run with the barebones plot, there's much fun to be had with Dead-End Drive-In. It doesn't quite have the discipline and craft to bring it to the standard of the aforementioned cult favourites, but it's no shame to be one notch down..
Some fans dislike slashers, but I adore them.)Director Brian Trenchard-Smith has said, "The Drive-In is, of course, an allegory for the junk values of the eighties, which our hero sees as a prison." I am not sure how clear this is.
We have a brand new 2K restoration from original film materials (which looks pretty good despite the low quality it likely started as).
After their tyres are stolen while making out at a drive-in theatre, two Sydney youths find themselves trapped in the drive-in theatre, unable to phone for help, along with several social misfits in this absurdist thriller from 'Turkey Shoot' director Brian Trenchard-Smith.
As the protagonist's girlfriend quickly grows to like the place too, the film offers a satire of relationship commitment as he soon finds himself forced to live with a woman who he saw as no more than a 'squeeze' day-in, day-out.
Brian Trenchard-Smith's "Dead-End Drive In" combines practically all the greatest elements of the 80's decade in one giant derivative yet surprisingly refreshing and entertaining film.
The grim plot and disturbing undertones are more than obviously inspired by "Escape from New York" as well as that other Aussie cult landmark "Mad Max", but at the same time there's also a lot of light-headed comedy and cheesy 80's tunes in the film.
In the year 1990, when the entire world is rotten and there ain't much left resembling law and order in the streets, Jimmy or "Crabs" like the friends tend to call him - invites his funky voluptuous girlfriend for a night at the Star drive-in theater.
Crabs refuses to accept his situation and plans and escape, but all the other prisoners including his girlfriend seem to like the place because they have easy access to fast food and plenty of free movie.
"Dead-End Drive In" is a vastly amusing and often wittily scripted cult gem that is ripe for rediscovery by fans of Sci-Fi and action cinema all around the globe.
Although I disagree, I can easily understand why some people think "Dead-End Drive In" is disappointing and even a bit boring.
DEAD END DRIVE IN is set in a sort of post-apocalyptic 1990.
A great car jump saves the day though and takes you home, and you realize that even though you could've lived without DEAD END DRIVE IN, you really enjoyed the heck out of it.
Look for the director's own ESCAPE 2000/TURKEY SHOOT playing on the drive-in screen during the film.
After the global success of low-budget exploitation flick Mad Max, the Australian film industry underwent a revolution, built mainly around fast cars, a rebellious attitude, and a satirical look at the 'dangerous' youth of the day, all within a post-apocalyptic, near-future setting.
The director referred to his best work, Dead End Drive-In, as a mixture of Mad Max and Luis Bunuel's The Exterminating Angel, and although he was clearly over-reaching by comparing his film to two established classics, there's much more going on here than punk teenagers, souped-up classic cars and boobs.
Yes, Dead End Drive-In is just as concerned with social and economic commentary as it is with loud music, B-movies and vehicles smashing into each other.In the near-future, society has crumbled amidst economic collapse, and small gangs of mohawked ne'er-do-wells scour the cities for car parts.
Workout junkie Crabs (Ned Manning) has little trouble getting his hands on an impressive ride - his burly older brother possesses a 1956 Chevy - and he manages to persuade his sibling to loan him the chick-magnet for a date with his girlfriend Carmen (Natalie McCurry).
Dead End Drive-In doesn't litter the story with action scenes, and although it is book-ended by some impressive stunt-work, the film takes it down a gear during the middle section to explore the madness of Crabs' situation.
While the dip in pacing may infuriate exploitation fans hoping to see leather-clad warriors of the apocalypse battling it out on jacked-up vehicles, it only increased my curiosity, and while Trenchard-Smith doesn't explore its themes with enough care to make the film truly resonate, Dead End Drive-In is one of the more thought-provoking and off-kilter efforts from the age of Ozploitation..
Many low-budget movie productions also have nice ideas but not always a budget that can realize them.Well, in Dead End's case it's pretty clear that the producer didn't know what to do with his idea, although he must have had a fair budget since it doesn't look especially cheap.
Things like this just make me angry and annoyed, when the director thinks that the audience are dead-panned idiots who can't think for themselves.I know this movie is meant to be somewhat satirical and that these kind of movies shouldn't be taken too seriously, but honestly, it's not even so bad it's funny and that makes this movie a real bummer.
Yes this movie stinks with 80s pompous acting and tackiness, yet from another perspective it becomes an interesting time-capsule into the resent past, and for someone who did not experience the 80s I watched the film with an anthropological curiosity.
The story involves a guy who takes his date to a drive-in movie.
Drive out of this original flick, with a dead end plot.
In drives our hero Crabsee, (Manning) and his hot date Carmen (McCurry) who tries to defy the odds, and the other youth who've much accepted their fate, for rotting away in this dive of takeaway of crummy movies, courtesy of some of the director's other flicks.
Every place looks like downtown L.A. One day a guy goes with his girlfriend to a drive-in theater and while they're having sex in the car, the wheels get stolen.
Dead End Drive-In is one of those films that could only have hailed from the '80s, a neon-drenched dose of new-wave nonsense from down under, a cult oddity that dabbles in social commentary (junk culture and racism), but which works best as pure B-movie fodder, director Brian Trenchard-Smith delivering crazy characters, car crashes, shootouts, drugs, sex and rock 'n' roll aplenty.Ned Manning stars as Jimmy "Crabs" Rossinni, who takes his girlfriend Carmen (Natalie McCurry) to the Star drive-in, unaware that the place is being used as a detention centre for the nation's disaffected youth.
Trapped by a tall wall topped with electrified wire, the prisoners are fed a diet of drugs, junk food and trashy movies (including a couple of Trenchard-Smith's earlier efforts), but unlike Carmen, Jimmy isn't about to sit back and accept his situation and plans to escape by whatever means necessary, with or without his girlfriend (personally, I would have stayed: McCurry, who would go on to be crowned Miss Australia 1989, is a total babe).With a neat set-up, the scene is set for lots of trashy fun, and for a while it all works very nicely, but Trenchard-Smith struggles to keep the momentum going, his script offering very little of interest once Jimmy realises the gravity of his predicament, the lad spending most of his time hunting for new wheels for his car (boring) when he could be seeing to his knockout girlfriend (not boring).Things eventually pick up for the entertaining finale, in which Jimmy makes a bid for freedom that results in lots of vehicular stunts and exchange of gunfire with the cops, although the ending does leave a rather awkward question unanswered: is Jimmy now a fugitive, wanted for the killing of a cop?
A young jogger named Crabs takes his girlfriend to a drive in cinema.This is where the movie takes a crazy turn.
Dead-End Drive In (1986) ** (out of 4) Australian cult film takes place in the (then) future as crime, unemployment and various other issues have taken over everywhere.
A variety of punks, criminals and lowlifes end up pulling into a drive in to enjoy a movie but little do they know that they'll be trapped there due to it being turned into what's basically a prison camp.
DEAD-END DRIVE IN comes with a great title, an interesting concept and a likable lead but unfortunately there's very little else working in the picture.
As it stands, the film is simply interesting on a few levels but not enough to make it a complete winner or really worth watching unless you're a fan of Australian cinema.
The main plot deals with a couple (Ned Manning, Natalie McCurry) entering the drive-in and getting trapped.
The drive-in that serves for the post apocalyptic like setting for most of the film is very well established and there are some fantastic shots of punk like posers amidst a ruin of busted cars and sunbathers..
Jimmy finds out that the authoritarian police are rounding up wild-assed punk kids and dumping them into sprawling concentration camp-like drive-ins which pacify its inhabitants with a mentally stultifying diet of greasy diner food, cheap beer, raucous rock music, and cheesy low-grade exploitation movies (any similarity between this plot synopsis and my real lifestyle is purely coincidental).
Jimmy, not one for being submissive to any uptight restrictive establishment, plots to escape from the drive-in's repressive confines so he can live his life the way he wants to again.Smoothly directed by Aussie B-pic specialist Brian Trenchard-Smith (who also did the grim futuristic "The Most Dangerous Game" variant "Turkey Shoot," a clip of which can be glimpsed playing on a drive-in screen), this bang-up little beaut bubbles, burns and blazes brilliantly with a brash, cheeky, waggishly irreverent tone, handsome, dexterous, sun-bleached, neon-hazed cinematography by Paul Murphy, a fantastically catchy and thrashin' New Wave rock'n'roll soundtrack, fresh, dynamic acting from an exuberant no-name cast, a top-drawer lowdown bluesy score by Frank Strangio, a very cool funky-punky look and feel, and several extremely visceral, muscular, gut-rippingly thrilling knock-you-flat-on-your-bum dazzling action sequences (an appropriately brutal hand-to-hand fight scene, a few incendiary shoot-outs, and a couple of explosively frenzied sparks a flyin' and autos going' BOOM!
The 80s had a penchant for McGyvering something into a film and 'Dead End Drive-In' is absolutely no exception.
Let's just say the environment is "Mad Max-like." A young man named Jimmy, who has no particular goal or interest, definitely has a drive (no pun intended) and wants some purpose in life.
Jimmy is intent on becoming physically strong and has a steadfast attitude at that.One night, Jimmy and his girlfriend Carmen end up taking Jimmy's brother's 56 Chevy to a drive-in movie theater.
One night he borrows his brother's car and takes his best girl Carmen (Natalie McCurry) for a night at the drive-in.Things seem to be going smoothly, the couple find themselves going at it only to later realize that the tires from the car have been stolen.
One way or another Crabs and Carmen must find a way to escape and return to the real world.Director Brian Trenchard-Smith has said that the film was "an allegory for the junk values of the eighties" and it shows.
Trenchard-Smith has a firm hand on the directing of the film, a true feat since he was brought in after the initial director left.Fans of the film discovered this not in theaters or in drive-ins across the world.
The government has created a chain of drive-in movie theaters that are to serve as a sort of concentration camp for the young, reckless youth of society — surrounded by tall, electrified fences and only accessible by security roads (or "s-roads") that under no circumstances allow walking.
Crabs (Ned Manning) and his girlfriend, Carmen (Natalie McCurry) wind up there on a date night and soon realize they aren't leaving any time soon.The whole atmosphere of the movie is amazing.
All of the other prisoners are happy to exist as they are — the whole movie really is a sad "allegory for the junk values of the eighties, which our hero sees as a prison", as director Brian Trenchard-Smith refers to it.
Dead-End Drive-In. Crabs and Carmen(Ned Manning and Natalie McCurry)decide to take big bro's fancy Chevy for a little spin and stop at the Star Drive-In. What they don't expect is that the cops steal two wheels from the car and there is no way out.
As they come to understand, this place is a concentration camp for punkers, junk-food lovers, and drive-in movie addicts.
Crabs is dead-set against remaining in the slums of this prison(which might actually be a dream for those who wish to party endlessly the day and night away, eat burgers, drink down strawberry shakes, and do drugs without a hassle)& will seek a way out while his girlfriend, Carmen, loves her new home and wishes to remain.Set in a economically unstable Australia, undesirables or those deemed as "wastes" of the society have their own place to live with minor allowances and make their place of rest inside their tire-less vehicles. |
tt0124312 | Cenizas del paraíso | The film opens with the fall of the respected judge Costa Makantasis (Héctor Alterio) from the Federal Courthouse. Next, his oldest son Pablo (Leonardo Sbaraglia) is seen dragging the body of young and beautiful Ana Muro (Leticia Brédice) through the house in which he lives with his two younger brothers.
Two different judges begin to investigate the two deaths. It is soon assumed that Costa Makantasis committed suicide. The case of Ana Muro, however, investigated by Beatriz Teller (Cecilia Roth), is complicated by the fact that all three sons confess the murder, each claiming that he acted alone and that the other two are innocent; and really some evidence speaks against each one of them. In addition, they urge Teller to believe that their father was murdered and that his case also requires investigation. Teller, on the other hand, is pressured by her superiors to hand over the case of the three brothers to the judge assigned to Costa Makantasis' apparent suicide. Fearing that a dirty truth behind the supposed suicide shall be covered up, she risks her career by rejecting to give up her case.
Combining cutbacks with segments of the investigations and hearings, the film sets to unravelling the story leading up to the deaths. The remaining film is divided into four unequal parts, each dedicated to one of the sons and Ana Muro. In each part, fragments of the story are shown from the perspective of the respective character, combining to the complete picture only at the end of the film.
It becomes apparent that Costa Makantasis had investigated Ana Muro's father, the powerful businessman Francisco Muro (Jorge Marrale), suspecting him to be involved in corruption and even murder. Unbeknown to the two, Makantasis' youngest son, Alejandro (Nicolás Abeles), and Ana Muro fell in love with each other, and Ana Muro moved in with Alejandro and his brothers. When Costa Makantasis found out that Ana was Francisco Muro's daughter, he was concerned, but believed that their private and his professional affairs with the Muro family should and could remain separate. For a short time, everything seemed perfect: Alejandro and Ana were a happy couple, and the Makantasis family celebrated the father's anniversary with a frolicsome party.
Soon, however, tensions arose both from inside and outside of the family. Second-oldest son Nicolás (Daniel Kuzniecka) cheated with Ana on his brother, and later, Ana also tried to flirt with oldest brother Pablo; Pablo, who had in the past snatched some of Nicolás' girl-friends, resisted Ana's charm and instead found out about her infidelity with Nicolás.
Francisco Muro, on the other hand, found out about the relationship between his daughter and the son of his political opponent, assumed foul-play and came close to threatening Costa Makantasis to keep his son away from Ana. The conflict between the judge and the businessman generally increased, and Costa Makantasis suspected that Muro tapped his house. So, when Costa Makantatis saw that Ana Muro let employees of her father into his house, he and his oldest son told her to stop that and explained it with the suspicions against her father. Believing in a misconception, Ana took secret documents of her father to Costa Makantasis' office to prove her father's innocence. There, however, she had a closer look at the documents, realized that at least some of the suspicions were well-founded, and flew the office.
Just after she departed, two of Muro's employees arrived and killed Makantasis by pushing him from the roof of the building. Ana Muro had just left the building, whereas the three Makantasis brothers were just arriving at the Courthouse to take their father to lunch. At the moment of the murder, Ana Muro looked up to the roof and saw that the judge was being pushed; Pablo watched Ana Muro look up and, mistaking her troubled look, believed her to be involved in what he instantly understands to be his father's murder. So, when Ana leaves the scene, he shouts to his brothers that she had killed their father; when Alejandro objects, Pablo reveals that Ana had cheated on him with Nicolás. Then Pablo followed Ana, who raced to her father, threw the secret documents back at him and called him a murderer in public. Pablo, watching the scene, realized that Ana had not been part of the crime.
Alejandro, however, had now heard Pablo's accusations and seen Nicolás' guilty face. He turned home where he tore down and cut off the decorations that Ana and he had set up in his room. When Ana came home to him, he affronted her, telling her she cheated on him and killed his father. Ana, almost in tears, affirmed both, but added that she loved him. When Alejandro continued to offend her, she thrust herself into a knife that Alejandro still held in his hand from destroying the decorations.
The film ends with a confrontation of the three brothers in the office of investigating judge Teller. It remains unclear whether Teller eventually learns the truth or whether the story told in the cutbacks remains unknown to her. After she has sent the three brothers back to their prison cells, she comments that justice may not be possible to achieve. The film finishes with the three brothers sent further and further down in an escalator to where are presumably their prison cells. | revenge, intrigue, murder, flashback | train | wikipedia | Top notch criminal who-done-it.
This a top of the line police thriller, crossed with sibling/father rivalry drama, criminal who-done-it, and psychological character study.
Quite unique really, the film is worthy of its impressive Argentine pedigree: directed by one of the country's greatest, and starring an ensemble of its best players.
They range from its eldest living legend in the father/dead judge role to its most promising and popular young ones as the three sons.
In between, the talent is just as impressive.
This includes returning native Cecilia Roth, and talented local actors, mostly seen on TV.
A very entertaining and intelligent film worth a watch..
Confessing to a crime no one committed.
This Marcelo Pineyro's 1997 directorial effort, shows a man that understands how to involve his viewers into a story that is not only pleasant to look at, but with a message.
Working with Aida Bortnik, they have created a film that will surprise a lot of people, fortunate enough to watch it.The film involves the family of a judge in Buenos Aires and his three sons.
Costa Makantasis is an honest man surrounded by corruption in higher places.
He is trying to uncover the machinations of Francisco Muro, a powerful man that is involved in many dirty business in Argentina.
As luck should have it, his younger son meets Muro's beautiful daughter, Ana. The young woman practically moves into the Makantasis household as she and Nicolas are enjoying their time together.Nicolas, the older Makantasis son, falls under the spell of Ana, as well.
And we also have seen how Pablo, the middle sibling stares at the sexy woman.
We realize there is going to be a reckoning because the way Ana is the object of love of two of the brothers who feel passionate about her.The film begins with events that are the conclusion of the events that culminate in horrible deaths for two key figures in the story.
In flashbacks, as a special judge, Beatriz Teller, examines the facts surrounding the mysterious circumstances in the two deaths, we are given the details in order to absorb what really happened.Mr. Pineyro gets excellent performances of his cast.
Hector Alterio, is seen as the head of the Makantasis family.
He is a good man who is pursuing a cause that means a danger for himself.
The wonderful Cecilia Roth plays the investigating judge Teller with a fury that shows her determination and resolve.
Leonardo Sbaraglia, one of the best actors from Argentina, is seen as Pablo, the middle brother.
Daniel Kuzniecka makes Nicolas, the older brother, come alive.
Leticia Bredice is amazing as Ana, the woman who awakens passion in all the brothers.The film will satisfy the viewers because of the rich web spun by Marcelo Pineyro to ensnare us into this interesting tale of passion and crime..
By Far the Best Argentinian Movie Ever Made.
I've seen this movie at least eight times, and I never get tired of watching it.
Among the good reasons to afirm this is that is one of the very few Argie films that tells a story, instead of using film as a political weapon.But in the other hand is his bright and excelently written screenplay (by director Marcelo Piñeyro and known argentinian screenwriter Aida Bortnik), its smart, precise and sharp directing and the gifted performances of all actors in it.On the scale of 1 to 10, I'll give this masterpiece a 10, because it really deserves it..
Ranks with best crime movies.
Viewed this movie once, liked it so much I turned around and viewed it again.
I would rate it on equal terms with LA Confidential and The Usual Suspects as one of the best modern crime movies.
It is edited in style similar to Memento, looking backward while advancing toward the ending, and this worked to make it unpredictable and entertaining throughout.
The movie was very well cast.
Letitia Bredice in particular gave an outstanding performance as a highly sexy young woman, yet intelligent and deserving of sympathy in a Marilyn Monroe kind of role.
Two other fine performances at the center of the story came from Cecilia Roth as a magistrate trying to work her way through a baffling crime and political interference, and Hector Alterio, also a magistrate, caught between his sense of duty and a situation increasingly threatening to his beloved sons.
Highly recommended for lovers of crime movies..
Lust and politics.
"Ashes from Paradise" is a great, passionate movie, partly a murder mystery and partly a complex drama about lust and politics.
It's refreshing to see a film with a crisply written script, sharply drawn characters and the depth.
The director, Mr.Pineyro chose an exceptional cast of brave,talented actors.
There are two murders in first few minutes of the movie and it would be so easy to stop at a straight police procedure.
But the director goes much further.
He tells us a story about power and corruption, about obsession and innocence, about loss and heartbreak.
Acting is exceptional, raw and passionate.Great movie from Argentina..
Beautifully acted crime-thriller with plenty of surprises.
Cenizas del Paraiso is an aptly-named crime-thriller with just the right amount of intrigue, romance, action and pathos.
Besides the compelling direction and excellent acting, I was especially impressed by how the story insinuated certain disturbing circumstances without being soap-opera vulgar about them.
The story and direction suggest an even more intriguing backstory than is overtly presented.
Hector Alterio is an amazingly versatile and charismatic actor and I would see any film of his.Regarding the previous reviewer's comment on Argentine cinema being used primarily as a political tool, among the Argentine films I've seen, many have little or no political themes.
Cenizas del Paraiso does indeed involve economic and political corruption and how it can infect other institutions.
In any case, one would hope that any country with a history of horrendous political and human rights abuses would evolve to the point where the arts and press are free enough to expose and alert the people to the dangers of such abuses.
American cinema produces and exports films about corruption in America; it is a testimony to the existence of democracy in Argentina that it is able to do so about Argentina.
That said, this film is primarily a psychological crime drama with a subplot which includes corruption..
About family.
This is basically a movie about family relations: brother with brother, father with son.Judge Makantasis and his three sons get along so well you can almost feel it as the movie goes on.
The scene where all the four dance in the Greek way shows us how well based are the love and caring from one to the others.Loyalty among brothers, because of a girl.
Loyalty with their father, and how their world goes upside down when he dies.I think is genial the way the director shows the story in a non-chronological order, dividing it in as many parts as brothers.
It makes you understand each one's motivation.A movie about family, fathers, sons, brothers, love, loyalty, sacrifice..
Thanks for the update.
I've seen this movie from Argentina, and I think my opinion can be divided in two parts: the script and way the director guides us through it.The script is an excellent thriller, with all the characters very well designed.
The three brothers and their getting along with the father...
you can feel their pain for his death.
I think the scene where all they four dance that Greek music is breath-taking.And the way the director puts us in the plot, with all the flashbacks.
You never get lost.
Separating the story in parts, it makes all much more clear.Finally, thanks a lot for the update.
I was sure Francisco Muro was not a judge..
Mystery fills the story with suspense.
Three Argentine brothers fall into the hands of a female judge, each individually claiming to be guilty of the murder of a powerful man's daughter.
Having these three men in custody, the body of the dead girl, and the news that the brothers' father, who is also a judge, was also killed, Judge Teller finds herself in trying to unravel the complex mystery.
The mystery which is presented with great passion and chaos from the very start of the film, is slowly unraveled by showing the main characters' individual perspectives of the previous week or so, one at a time.
By showing one piece of the puzzle at a time, Marcelo Piñeyro builds up much suspense and pushes the audience to try to guess what the missing pieces will be.
The story demonstrates what could happen to extremely close-knit families, such as the three men and their father, when certain destructive circumstances or people make their way into their lives.
Although certain family bonds may be bent and weakened through such circumstances, these bonds are by no means easily broken..
Not as good as I'd hoped.
I did not really get the point of "Cenizas Del Paraíso".
The movie starts off in full swing and if the viewer doesn't pay very close attention throughout the beginning he or she is in trouble.
I had to rewind the tape after about 15 minutes because I was so confused with all the details, names and events.
And movies that have so much information, especially in the very beginning, usually have a story to tell, right.
Well, the director did a great job at gluing the pieces together.
Even with all the flashbacks I knew exactly what happened when and where and I was really dying to see what had really happened and who murdered the girl, and why.
In the end I was not surprised at all, it was rather an anticlimax and I don't know what makes this movie better than an average "Matlock" episode.
Sure, the acting is good (I really felt the immense love between father and sons during the dancing scene) and the plot is quite intriguing, but it's not executed in the best way.
I wasn't expecting another "Usual Suspects" or something, but the movie made such a fuss about the murder I wasn't expecting predictability either.
Oh, and what's up with the final scene with the brothers in the elevator.
Maybe I'm complicating but is there a hidden message somewhere in there or is it just a final artistic moment.
Worth for the performances, not the thrill. |
tt0092944 | Eat the Rich | The film begins in a high-class London restaurant named 'Bastards', staffed by the protagonist, waiter Alex (Alan Pellay). Alex is subject to the daily contempt and disgust of the upper-class customers, and is eventually fired for being obnoxious and rude to the clientele. After witnessing an act of terrorism on an embassy, he robs a benefits office and goes on the run with his new friend. Meanwhile, Nosher Powell plays the Home Secretary, a menacing, beer-swilling, fornicating, lovable lout who has his own no-nonsense way of dealing with trouble, usually with his fists. He's the darling of the voters, the press and the gorgeous Fiona (Fiona Richmond), a glamorous KGB agent. He was also the one who ended the terrorist situation that Alex witnessed earlier in the movie. However, Nosher has enemies, including the sinister Commander Fortune (Ronald Allen), who plots a people's revolution with a difference, and General Karprov (Dave Beard) and Spider (Ian Kilmister), who plot to derail the Home Secretary's campaign of becoming Prime Minister.
After assembling a four-person team of would-be anarchists, Alex returns to 'Bastards' and lays waste to the clientele and staff. He begins serving them up to other rich people in their new restaurant, 'Eat the Rich'. When Commander Fortune and Spider find out about these changes to the menu, they formulate a plot to get rid of the conservative Home Secretary for good. | comedy | train | wikipedia | Underrated, Well worth many viewings.
Dark, dark stuff from the British 'Comic Strip' school of movie/TV comedy making.
Robin Hood meets Motorhead.
And, yes indeed, 80's Yuppies are served meals of dead 80's Yuppies in a vile 80's Yuppie restaurant.This is a love/hate movie.
Most people will be offended.Oh, by the way, great sound track Overall - 7.5/10.
Seriously warped, sick & fun.
You'll need to be in the right mood (something like "the entire world is on my last nerve") to fully appreciate this one.
Better than most John Waters' films; same genre, if it is a genre.
Capitalists may not get it, but for the rest of us it's a rare treat..
New meaning to Dinner and a Movie.....
Set in fascist London, a group of non-relative, broken yet hopeful vagabonds find each other and attempt to restructure society into a single humane unit.
When that fails they shoot people full of arrows and cause a smart and accurate assault on the posh structures of politics and upper class snobbery.There are many parallels to Robin Hood and layers of Political strife that almost get buried under snide John Waters-esque humor and fantastic visual imagery not unlike Sid and Nancy or The Young Ones.
The characters are well developed and provide a full range of personalities to keep the film moving and entertaining.
It could use a minor editing job to remove some excess footage that slows down the first 1/2hour, other than that this should be an 80's cult classic for alternative humor.
For those that liked "the Cook/thief/wife/lover"---this is better and doesn't seep in frivolity..
I am the one,Orgasmatron.
This is one of the most wittiest films made that covers everything ,eg: Religion ,Politics ,Social Classes etc, and the best part ITS A COMEDY.
With just about every decent British comedian present,Too many to mention and the soundtrack is by MOTORHEAD.
This film takes the p*** out of almost everything, so if your offended by unpolitically correct comments, don't watch this.If you not offended by the words (Poof,Black B**tard or F***king then you will love it..
Definitely not for everyone....
OK, real quick, a correction of someone else's review: 1.
Brian Johnson of AC/DC is NOT in this movie.2.
The song in the employment office scene is 'Nothing Up My Sleeves', not 'Ace of Spades.' Having said that...The film is definitely not for everyone, but for being a small film with a small budget and mostly television actors, its really not bad.
The humor is often subtle and easy to miss if you don't pay attention.
There's a lot of cameos ranging from 3 of the 4 'Young Ones' stars to Sir Paul McCartney, which just makes the movie weirder, like 'What the %%%% is HE doing in THIS??' Overall its not a bad movie, just don't rent it expecting 'Gone With the Wind.'.
Oh man, This has to be seen to be (almost) believed!.
An indictment on everything wrong with the thatcherite thinking of the day, this film explores the deepest recesses of the mind - probing into areas previously thought taboo by mainstream cinema.Hilarious & sad - Ugly & Bad.You have go to see this!(even if just for the Motorhead soundtrack).
A Blast and a Half.
I remember seeing a trailer for this film back up in Buffalo, NY, and then never seeing it come to a theater.
At the time my first two thoughts were, "What the Hell is this?" and then, "This looks like something to watch!" Three years later, I stumbled across a VHS copy of it in a bargain bin of Record Theater, and snapped it up for $2.
Being cheap, it's one of those rare occasions where I figured that I got more than my money's worth.
This film is truly different.
It constantly flips between well constructed and paced scenes, to a variety of cheap countryside scenes that connected a lot of the main characters.
It feels like they ran short of money and spent a day filming a lot of quick scenes to try and make the movie fit together.
Now don't let that stop you from watching it, and many of the scenes are unforgettable, but the film does slow down every time the action shifts out of London.
If you can get through that, and Jimmy's annoying jokes, then you'll see a film that really is unlike any other I've come across..
A must see for Comic Strip fans..
While not technically a Comic Strip Presents movie,this was written by Peter Richardson and Pete Richens(who wrote the majority of the episodes) and "guest stars" The Comic Strip.
While these guys are well known for their left leaning comedy,this movie pushes it to extremes,while still managing to poke fun at themselves.A brilliant balance.
Although most of the satire is rooted in 80's British politics,you will laugh even if you don't get that.
I'd say this is second to Churchill: The Hollywood Years but ahead of The Supergrass.If you are even a small fan of these guys you need to see this.Another Richardson and Richens comedy classic..
Has to been to be believed.
This is not a good movie in the strictest sense of that term, but ...
I don't know what it is.
The only thing that I can safely say, it certainly isn't bad; it's very strange and has a lot of things going for it.
A very waifish Lemmy (from Motörhead), for example, and everyone who was going to amount to anything in acting in the next years, and their mums.
And the Beatles.
The only thing I'd like to know is how they got this drug-addled phantasmagoria of a movie financed.
The movie doesn't really follow a plot but plays along the lines of "I wonder what comes next".
And especially along the lines of "I wonder where my next square meal will come from".
Like they had shot the scenes during the day and written the script for the next day at night.Don't get me wrong.
This movie was meant to have a better script, and they obviously fubbed it up.
Don't tell me that they were well capable of telling an intriguing and coherent story but opted for cinematic surrealism instead.
I've made movies myself, and I know fully well how they got to be so intriguingly offbeat and charmingly eccentric.
But fortunately this movie here has many other things going for it.I'd like to big one up for the little people now: Kevin Allen (I think that's him) as "revolutionary gay waiter #1" and Nosher Powell as "Nosher" both give excellent dramatic performances.
If you're after an evening of mutually assured distraction, then stay well clear.
If you harbour an interest for the bizarre, then buy the golden bleeding collector's box..
"You're all eating the prime mister"..
"The Comic Strip Presents..." a lively, rowdy and bawdy cult black comedy gourmet with a novel one-joke premise like something John Watter's would churn out.
Even that of Alex Cox's chaotic "Straight to Hell" shot to mind.
This amusing oddball independent British feature kicks you in the guts with its heavy-handed approach from its acting to its dialogues and prominent surrealistic visual styling.
No one is safe from the insults.
It's sick and twisted with real ugly streak, but quite enjoyable as its anarchic messages are just so knee-jerk, the clever humour can be sneaky in its jabs and its episodically loose writing is just so random with its comic shocks.
Interesting to see some familiar faces (Angie Bowie, Bill Wyman, Miranda Richardson and Paul McCartney) popping up with the likes of "The Comic Strip" being involved along with Motorhead contributing to the frenetic rock soundtrack.
Even the bassist / singer Lemmy gets a part in the film.
Al Pillay and Nosher Powell (looking great in green business suits) are the two who steal the limelight with their electric performances, one deadpan while the other maniac in delivery.
Bombastic fun!"Here have a toffee"..
I originally thought Lanah Pellay was a woman....
...after all, who wouldn't with that high, squeaky voice and that plump, rounded body?
If you think the confusion about this movie stops there, then you're going to be in for a nasty surprise.
Everything from unemployment and terrorism to the callousness of the English upper class is satarised here with as much subtlety as a sledgehammer.
Numerous cameos are made by members of the hard rock community (Brian Johnson of AC/DC fame being my personal favourite), while one of the hardest rockers of them all, Motörhead bassist/vocalist Lemmy Kilmister, has a starring role.My favourite moments in the film?
(Some plot spoilers ahead.) Well, the robbery of the DHSS office to the beat of Ace Of Spades is a great one, as is the sequence where Spider and his boss cycle through the countryside while Orgasmatron plays in the background.
I find it so amusing that radio stations here claim to know what driving music is when Motörhead has never made it into their playlists.
Then again, you sort of expect this kind of stupidity from radio stations these days.
Another favourite of mine is the dinner party, where we get to see all of Motörhead as they play Doctor Rock.
Check out Rik Mayall dancing in the crowd, it's a riot.Main star Lanah Pellay takes ham-fisted acting to a whole new level when he/she/it and friends take over the restaurant, subtly known as B***ards before the gang change the name to Eat The Rich.
"B***ards, can I help you?" is now my favourite way to answer a phone.
There has never been a funnier way to answer the phone, in fact.
If you ever go to a restaurant where one of the main menu items is Manager With Chips, whatever you do, don't order that one.
All in all, I give Eat The Rich six out of ten.
It is crude, it is crass, it is exceptionally vulgar, but it's the funniest thing I've seen about fine dining..
Disappointing and far beneath the talents of all involved.
I've waited over ten years since hearing about this film to get around to finally watching it.
I grew up as a fan of Bottom and The Young Ones and the occasional Comic Strip Presents, then dived headlong into The Dangerous Brothers, Kevin Turvey and then the complete Comic Strip box set, so I had high hopes despite the tepid reviews for Eat the Rich.
It was God-awful.
What was presumably devised as a satire of Thatcherite Britiain could almost have been a satire of 80s alternative comedy, it was that reliant on lazy tropes and shots at easy targets.
It was as if written by schoolboys.
None of the characters are fleshed out enough to be anything more than stereotypes of the sorts of characters that litter the Comic Strip - which isn't such a bad thing for the generic yuppies, but the lead protagonists had nothing going for them.
The plot was flimsy and fumbled with very strange pacing and the whole thing felt like it was going nowhere.
For reasons unknown most of the Comic Strip regulars only appear in fleeting cameos, and whilst fun to see, make little impact having no real material to work with.
None of the leads are well known for being comic actors, and handled their roles pretty poorly, unable to wring any laughs from the weak script.It felt like the writers came up with the idea of yuppies eating themselves (again, not a particularly innovative allegory for the 80s, since we saw it in 'The Cook, the Thief...' and the cannibalism angle also in 'Consuming Passions') and then put the absolute minimum effort into crafting a plot around that conceit.
To cap it off the whole thing looked dirt cheap.It gets 2 stars for the enjoyable array of cameos and the Motorhead soundtrack.Do yourself a favour and watch some of Peter Richardson's better Comic Strip films.
There's a reason this has languished in obscurity for so long... |
tt1228953 | Big Fan | Paul Aufiero (Patton Oswalt) is a parking garage attendant who lives with his mother (Marcia Jean Kurtz) in Staten Island, New York. He relentlessly follows the New York Giants football team. He and his friend Sal (Kevin Corrigan) faithfully attend each Giants game; however, as they can't afford tickets, they must content themselves with watching the games on a battery-powered TV in the stadium parking lot. Paul is also a regular caller to the Sports Dogg's (Scott Ferrall) radio talk show, where he refers to himself as "Paul from Staten Island," rants in support of the Giants, and berates his mysterious on-air rival, Philadelphia Eagles fanatic "Philadelphia Phil" (Michael Rapaport). Paul's family criticizes him for doing nothing with his life. He disregards their scorn and happily devotes himself to his beloved team.
One day Paul and Sal spot Giants star and Paul's favorite player Quantrell Bishop (Jonathan Hamm) and his entourage in Staten Island. They follow Bishop to a drug deal in Stapleton. Though the pair see Bishop buying something, they naively fail to recognize the transaction. They then follow him into a strip club in Manhattan. Mustering their courage, Paul and Sal introduce themselves to Bishop. All goes well until the two fans innocently mention that they saw Bishop in Stapleton. The intoxicated Bishop becomes enraged and brutally beats Paul, who is hospitalized for his injuries.
Following the incident, Bishop is suspended from the team. Paul's personal-injury lawyer brother Jeff (Gino Cafarelli) and NYPD Detective Velardi (Matt Servitto) pressure Paul to bring charges against Bishop, but Paul refuses, worried about the effect on the Giants' performance if they permanently lose their star linebacker. The charges against Bishop are eventually dropped and he returns to the team.
Jeff then files a $77 million civil lawsuit against Bishop "on Paul's behalf," claiming Paul is mentally incompetent to bring the lawsuit himself. When a reporter phones Paul to ask him "about the lawsuit," Paul becomes livid. He drives to Jeff's house, storms into Jeff's bathroom, and confronts him as he sits on the toilet.
Philadelphia Phil researches Paul on the Internet and reveals on Sports Dogg's show that the victim of the Quantrell Bishop beating is in fact "Paul from Staten Island", humiliating him. Paul heads for Philadelphia to confront Phil. Disguised as an Eagles fanatic, Paul identifies Phil in a local bar and gains his trust as they watch the Giants and Eagles play the season's pivotal final game. As the Eagles dominate the Giants, the crowd in the bar begins to deride the Giants in increasingly enthusiastic fashion, much to Paul's consternation. When time runs out and the Eagles fanatics celebrate their victory, Paul follows Phil into the men's room and pulls a gun on him, shooting Phil multiple times. Phil, lying shocked on the men's room floor, stares at his hands, which are now covered in red and blue, the Giants' colors. The gun is then revealed to be a paintball gun. Paul utters "Eagles suck!" and flees from the bar.
Paul is arrested and imprisoned for the assault. Sal visits Paul in jail and reveals to him the Giants' schedule for the following season. A key game coincides with the week Paul is scheduled to be released—Paul is overjoyed and says "It's going to be a great year". | revenge, psychedelic | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0093831 | Red Riding Hood | Valerie is a young woman who lives in the village of Daggerhorn, on the edge of a forest plagued by a werewolf, with her parents, Cesaire and Suzette, and older sister Lucie. She is in love with the town woodcutter Peter, but her parents have arranged for her to marry Henry Lazar, son of the wealthy blacksmith Adrien Lazar. Valerie and Peter plan to run away together, only to learn that the Wolf has broken its truce not to prey on the townspeople in exchange for cattle stock sacrifices and has murdered Lucie, who is revealed to have had a crush on Henry Lazar.
Suzette learns of Peter and Valerie's love, telling Valerie she too did not love her husband at first, but learned to love him – that she had loved another. Father August, the local preacher, calls for the famous witch hunter, Father Solomon, to help them but the townspeople decide to venture into the Wolf's lair to destroy it. They divide into groups, with one consisting of Peter, Henry, and Adrien. Peter separates from them moments before the Wolf attacks and murders Adrien. The Wolf is cornered by the men and killed. Valerie finds Suzette mourning Adrien and figures out that he was her love. She also realizes that Lucie, being the older daughter, should've been the first to wed and should have been engaged to Henry, but could not as she was the illegitimate daughter of Adrien, making her Henry's half-sister.
The following day, as the people celebrate, Father Solomon arrives and reveals that, had they killed the Wolf, it would have returned to its human form as it is a werewolf, but what they slew was a common grey wolf. He also reveals that they've entered the Blood Moon Week, an event that happens every thirteen years, in which whoever is bitten by the Wolf is cursed to become one as well. Father Solomon's men, led by The Captain (Adrian Holmes), isolate Daggerhorn and begin to investigate its people in search of the Wolf. That night, the Wolf attacks and, while the townspeople rush to the Church (as the Wolf is unable to step onto holy ground), Valerie and her friend Roxanne venture into the village to search for Roxanne's autistic brother, Claude. They are cornered by the creature and Valerie discovers that she is able to understand the Wolf's sounds. It threatens to kill Roxanne and destroy the village if Valerie doesn't leave with it. The Wolf then escapes, vowing to return to learn Valerie's decision.
The following day, Claude is captured by Father Solomon's men. Having witnessed Claude performing a card trick earlier, Father Solomon claims he's a student of the dark arts and attempts to force the frightened Claude to reveal the Wolf's identity. When Claude is unable to do so, Father Solomon locks him up in a large iron elephant brazen bull. In exchange for Claude's release, Roxanne reveals that Valerie is able to communicate with the Wolf but Claude is already dead by the time the Captain opens the elephant. Believing Valerie to be a witch, Father Solomon has her captured and displayed at the town's square in order to lure the Wolf out so he can kill it. Henry and Peter join forces and help Valerie to escape. Peter is captured by the Captain and thrown into the elephant, while Father Solomon orders Henry to be killed for helping Valerie. Father Auguste saves Henry and is then killed by Father Solomon.
Henry takes Valerie to the church, but they are attacked by the Wolf, who bites off Father Solomon's hand, which contains silver-coated fingernails. The townspeople shield Valerie from the Wolf, who is once again forced to flee, but not before burning a paw by touching holy land. Valerie dreams that the Wolf is her grandmother, who lives in a cabin in the nearby woods, so she goes to check on her. Father Solomon, having been cursed, is killed by the Captain.
After retrieving Father Solomon's hand, Valerie rushes to her grandmother's cabin, but is confronted on the way by Peter. She then notices that he is wearing a glove on his right hand, the same paw that the Wolf burned trying to enter the church, Valerie assumes Peter is the Wolf and stabs him. Arriving at Grandmother's house, Valerie is horrified to find her dead, and learns that the Wolf is her father, Cesaire. He reveals that the curse was passed to him by his own father, and he intended to leave the village but wanted to take his children with him. He sent a note to Lucie pretending to be Henry to meet him at night so he could ask her to accept her "gift". However, when he confronted her, she couldn't understand him. Realizing Lucie was not his daughter, he murdered her in a fit of rage. He then took revenge against Adrien, his wife's lover, and now wants Valerie to accept the curse.
Valerie refuses, just as Peter appears and confronts Cesaire, who bites Peter (thus giving him the curse) and tosses him aside. Peter is able to throw an axe into Cesaire's back, distracting him. Valerie stabs Cesaire to death with Father Solomon's hand. Valerie and Peter fill Cesaire's body with rocks so he can never be found and dump the body in the lake. Peter departs in order to learn how to control his curse, vowing to return only when he's able to ensure Valerie's safety. Valerie narrates that Henry found his courage and joins the ranks of the Captain's monster hunters. Valerie's mother finally accepts that her husband will never come home, and the village continues to live in fear even though the wolf never returned. She then moves to her grandmother's house, leaving her old life behind as she can't go back to the village because she is married to the wolf (Peter) and wants to keep that a secret.
The last scene shows Valerie outside the cabin on a full moon. She hears a slight growl, turns around and sees Peter in wolf form as she begins to smile. In an alternate ending, Valerie is seen holding a baby, which is her baby with Peter. | psychedelic | train | wikipedia | null |
tt2929690 | Margarita with a Straw | Laila (Kalki Koechelin) is a teenager with cerebral palsy who uses a wheelchair. She is a student at Delhi University and an aspiring writer who writes lyrics and creates electronic sounds for an indie band at the university. Laila falls for the lead singer of the college band and is heartbroken when she is rejected.
She soon overcomes this phase, when she gets a scholarship for a semester at New York University and moves there with her traditional Maharashtrian mother Shubhangini(Revathi). Living in Manhattan, she meets an attractive young man named Jared (William Moseley) in her creative writing class, who is assigned to help her in typing. She also meets the fiery young activist Khanum (Sayani Gupta), a blind girl of a Pakistani Bangladeshi descent, whom she later falls in love with. As she embarks on a journey of sexual discovery, she figures out she is bisexual, as she feels attracted to men like Jared while also being with Khanum. She has sex with Jared and she doesn't tell Khanum. Laila's mother, believing the two are like best friends and oblivious to the fact that Khanum is her daughter's lover, invites her to Delhi to spend the winter break with the family. It is during that time that Laila finds the courage to tell her mother about her sexuality and her relationship with Khanum, which her mother initially disapproves. She also tells Khanum that she had sex with Jared and asks her to forgive her. Khanum thinks that she was being used by Laila and leaves her.
After a short while Laila's mother falls sick and she learns that her mother had fourth stage colon cancer which has fallen into relapse after previous treatments. Later Laila and her mother patch up and come to terms with each other. After her mother dies Laila plays a recorded speech at her mother's funeral telling how much she loved her and how she was the only one who ever understood her.
The story ends with Laila going on a date, with herself, signifying that she now has taken control of her life and doesn't need anyone else to love and care for her. The movie revolves around very delicate aspects of this modern life and teaching society how its better to adhere and accept the changing rituals. | romantic | train | wikipedia | Demonstrating Kalki's extraordinary acting ability.The story was very precious and demonstrated how somebody with the lead characters challenges still strives to have a normal life.
And id doing so it became apparent that even with her physical disability she is able to lead a normal and filling life.Possibly even more so then people who are able bodied.It we actually a very beautiful film.
I will definitely see another Kalki Koechlin film and I can only hope that it is as good as Margarita with a Straw..
'Chune Chali Aasma' singing in my mind, with a subtle smile on my face; gratified and moved, I walk down the stairs of the multiplex.A fantastic story, elegantly told, powerfully acted and excellently directed is something, I would refer to as VARANASI (a dialog in the film), which is lot of noise but in peace, if nothing else.This Margarita is spilt all over me; and is definitely intoxicating.
MargaritaWithAStraw In a society where disability has always been invisible and unable to provide for differently-abled people, MWAS is refreshing movie that throws light on the very fact that they are there to be found, normal like us.Many pluses to the film; exceptional heart wrecking story, which is at the same time elevating, keeps you smiling all the time.
There is some very modern and captivating music, beautiful lyrics, aptly lensed and direction is splendid.There is a scene in the movie where the band performs "Dusokute" (which means in her eyes in Assamese - a rock piece by joi barua) which Laila writes & composes, wins an inter collage competition.
While they announce the trophy with a special reference to the disability but for ability of Laila, the expression Kalki delivers and that rage in her action, made me shed my first tear.Where our writers sometimes fail to execute one just challenge or difficulty to the protagonist effectively, Margarita's script writer and director have convincingly put in multiple challenges.
A teenager, Laila (Kalki Koechin) on wheelchair with cerebral palsy, aspiring writer and musician, a normal middle class family, studies abroad, a blind pakistani gay girlfriend (foreign balamwa), mother's cancer, her raging hormones and zeel for life and the count goes on.....whuff !!!
Well balanced characters with their unique sketches, interestingly woven and patterned.Alongside, Kalki, the film puts the spotlight on, Sayani Gupta, who plays Khanum, her blind lover from Pakistan with whom Laila embarks on an intriguing journey of sexual discovery.
There are interesting intimate scenes in the movie, which have been edited without any background score (very unlikely approach), are bang on.Laila's mother (Revathi), reflecting the undying attitude of a mother towards her child, is a cancer patient.
In one of the scenes Laika speaks -Everyone has mother, but she has an aadat ...and that made me drop a tear, yet again .The protagonist 'Kalki' is absolutely brilliant as Laila; convincingly powerful and award worthy.
Margarita's on-screen depiction of homosexuality, or of disabled people having sex for that matter, in Indian cinema is very brave.
A big movie ,especially , for the ones with human rights and gay and lesbian genre.I am, kind of ,short of praises for such a bold, proactive film about disability and of course coming out, which is an integral part of this story.
Imagine the joy when you surmount a big challenge, see a majestic bird soar into the heavens or see someone living big despite a lot of odds!I was frankly delightfully numbed by the overall story of this movie, the authentic act by the overall cast, especially Kalki.
The subtle-yet-bold performance from Kalki & her journey of discovering her sexual choices is substantial & heart-warming at the same time.
This film teaches us that irrespective of whatever condition you are born with- being blind or having cerebral palsy or whatever event happens in your life which changes your life's circumstance, you should attempt to not be low on self confidence and self esteem and you have every right to command respect as an individual in your own right, have fun in your own way ie whatever your natural self desires to do and have a positive attitude to everything in life.
The film specifically reveals the reality of natural sexual desire which is there in all human beings but that desire can be anything and being a homosexual, lesbian or bisexual isn't really a crime as many think of it but is an individual preference.
There is nothing wrong in that as thats probably wired into our brains but on thinking we should be able to accept what is not normal as well and let individuals just BE!Overall good acting by Kalki and a good watch..
After watching this movie, I am seriously having a hard time believing that Kalki DOES NOT HAVE cerebral palsy in real life.
20 minutes in, I completely forgot that I was watching a movie and not a real life portrayal of a person.
Margarita, with a Straw (2014) is an Indian film written and directed by Shonali Bose and Nilesh Maniyar.
Kalki Koechlin plays Laila, an intelligent young woman who is gifted in many ways.
She's fiercely independent, but her cerebral palsy keeps getting in the way of her life.Ultimately, Laila moves to NYC, to go to college.
My compliments to her on her great performance!We saw this movie on the large screen as part of ImageOut, the superb Rochester LGBT Film Festival.
#MargaritaWithAStraw : A Sonali Bose film, starring Kalki Koechlin, Revathi & Sayani Gupta.
The film describes an abnormal person's life, her relationship with her mom, her boyfriend, her normal friends, her foreign tour, her classmate, her gay partner, & at last with her, too.
It's been a long time I didn't follow the update of Bollywood movies since the era of Kuch Kuch Hota Hai. So yeah, it's no wonder I've never heard of Kalki Koechlin and any other casts, except maybe the one who played as Laila's mother.
I hope I can watch it soon enough.This movie doesn't only cover about the everyday life of a person with a cerebral palsy, but also about her sexual life.
Having read through the reviews at this movie I am amazed that some people felt the lead character was a nasty/selfish person.
Those people who wrote these reviews seemed to think badly of Kalki's character simply because of some of the ways she behaved - as though 'disabled' people are supposed to behave by some kind of superior set of values.
To those people I suggest you watch it again and see her as a human being and realize she IS more than her disabilities.Personally, I found it to be a superb movie.
There were some seriously strong performances and not just from Kalki Koechlin who, quite frankly, deserves an Oscar for her performance.There's so much to like about this film and so little to dislike and it is very thought-provoking, which has to be a good thing.
A truly brave and brilliant story to explore and overcome different situation of life especially when the world does not consider as 'normal'.
The plot of movie revolves around an Indian girl with cerebral palsy comes to US for her studies and tries to find way to lead her life.
It shows how situation acts differently on a mind of self- fighting disabled person who strives for a normal life.
A beautifully written movie with powerful story line and brilliant cast (Kalki, No one can do this better than you!!) which make us think about the difficulty of lives and delicate emotions of a significant part of population.
when the whole world goes out for several campaigns to support people who are bisexual, homosexual, this movie speaks out beautiful about just being who you are and to be happy just the way you are.
And Kalki's National-Award Winning Performance, Inspires.'Margarita, with a Straw' Synopsis: A rebellious young woman with cerebral palsy leaves her home in India to study in New York, unexpectedly falls in love, and embarks on an exhilarating journey of self-discovery.'Margarita, with a Straw' is about Laila, rebellious young woman, who lives her life with courage & bluntness.
As Laila, Kalki is courageous, fierce & affecting, delivering an inspiring performance from start to end.
Probable Repercussions in India: We are already aware of the atrocities that go on in asylums or in clinics/ homes where physically disabled children and adults live – like their parents or relatives arrange to keep them in an environment where similar people live and they can befriend each other and spend time.I have read in many magazines as to how the poor girls & boys (mentally challenged, genetically handicapped etc.) are molested/ raped by the care-takers themselves (some care takers not all of course)!
Praising the big progressive leap taken by Hindi Cinema with MARGARITA WITH A STRAW, we first need to thank the entire talented team behind its making and then the Censor Board too for being understanding & kind enough to allow such honest depiction on screen, that is certainly bold enough for a Hindi film made on the life events of a differently abled young girl ready to discover herself.Elaborating on the theme further, there have been few Hindi films in the past based on related subjects like BARFI, PAA, TAARE ZAMEEN PAR, LAFANGE PARINDEY, MY NAME IS KHAN, EESHWAR, SADMA and more.
But there never has been a film dealing with the emotional and sexual desires of a confident, young, college going girl suffering from 'Cerebral palsy', featuring few amazingly truthful intimate scenes shot sincerely.In more appreciative words, MARGARITA WITH A STRAW is one of those rarest Hindi films (probably the only one), that effectively portrays the passionate (sexual) conflicts faced by its lead (differently abled) female character with a remarkable simplicity, at your face honesty and no hiding attitude at all, not looking for any kind of pity or sympathy from the audience.
The film is indeed a triumph achieved by Shonali Bose and her co-director Nilesh Maniyar, as another adorable project (post her AMU in 2005) for which she can truly feel proud along with her dear cousin, who happens to be the basic inspiration behind Laila.Revolving around Laila's courageous journey to know more about herself and her bisexual identity, the complex character has been perfectly lived by Kalki Koechlin on screen with an astonishing authenticity in her disability in speech, awkward hand movements and tilting of the head, easily slipping into the body of her given character so amazingly.
Particularly I loved watching her in the scene where she doesn't like the way lady attendant ties the hair of Kalki so casually and hence gets up and ties them again after properly combing as soon as the attendant moves out of the room.
Cinematography captures both the light and emotional moments of the script beautifully and thus is able to make an instant connection with the viewers through all its realistically chosen frames and soft lights.Tackling a 'never discussed before' kind of subject about the natural sexual desires in differently abled people, Shonali Bose once again forces us to think that why no one dared to bring out this theme from the closet till now?
However, that's what I exactly look upon as a flaw in its execution frankly, since the film doesn't have any place for sadness at all which actually makes it look more superficial or even unbelievable at times as per my personal opinion.Yes the writer-director does try to bring in those introspective moments in the concluding half an hour with a tragedy happening all of a sudden resulting in a deafening silence all around.
But then again soon returns to the same lively mood in the climax, ending it all on an extremely positive note with the cheerful Laila holding her margarita with a straw.Summing it all, I did love the film a lot from heart for all its delightful moments focusing on the ever smiling Laila.
But perhaps since I sincerely wished to cry with the lady too feeling her inner conflicts fighting with the able world around, I found that much needed sorrow simply missing in the daringly made film putting it honestly.Anyway, ignoring this personal opinion of mine, do watch and enjoy the lively world of LAILA becoming a part of this new-age cinematic revolution tried by the exceptional creators.
I personally understood a few things better about cerebral palsy after I saw this film, and that has made an impression on me.
I wondered, too, why the main characters had to experience a full hand of exceptional circumstances—being affected by cerebral palsy, she is bisexual, her romantic partner is blind, and her mother is in a serious situation.
As for the acting, kudos to just about everyone.I was pleasantly surprised that the tiresome Hindi film style of portraying a person with disablities was entirely dropped, and the director wisely avoided histrionics.
For the first time in the history of Indian Films comes a movie that explores the desires, feelings and sexual expressions of people with disability, it speaks for how they think of themselves as no different or lesser beings, more so because they would have already overcome the disabilities that other hold on to.
This movie has nothing to offer other than about the selfishness of a disabled woman and how she treats other people like garbage.
Directors: Shonali Bose, Nilesh Maniyar Writers: Shonali Bose (story), Nilesh Maniyar, 1 more credit » Stars: Kalki Koechlin, Revathy, Sayani Gupta | See full cast and crew ».
This story is not about how a girl with palsy faces different situations of life ,we may find some parts relating to that ..but the main plot is all about the significance of sex in life..and the good thing is every character reacts very well to this taboo kind of thing...yes sex is taboo in India ...you agree or not..direction is inexplicably well...and in acting you see a line a boundary which will soon transcend the old fashioned Indian cinema...the mother in this movie whom you might find very understanding creates an atmosphere of learning for all those who have gone through this situation...Change always create some disturbance ..tolerance and patience is must required..
She is musically talented, as is her mother (Revathy) and falls for someone normally abled in her band, with an imminent heartbreak in sight.Discovering one's sexuality and identity in a teenage environment is itself an involving affair; add to it the the burden of social stigma that comes with such visible anomalies.Laila moves to US on a scholarship, along with her mother, where she meets Khanum (Sayani Gupta), a blind gay girl who has come out of the closet, and a cute writing assistant (William Moseley); and entangles herself between her relations with all of them.Whatever written up to here might suggest you a melodramatic, graphic, sad or too alienating an experience.
It might suggest you that it might be a movie for ones with the less digestible tastes in cinema.This, by all means is a celebration of life, and a story of acceptance of one's own identity, though presented through someone with more visible issues, but something that is a constant struggle of all of us.The scenes where she comes out to her mother, and the passive aggressive talks that ensue, the intimate scenes with Khanum, or when she approaches the shopkeeper for a sex toy, are subtle and brilliant.
Bathrooms and toilets play an important part in the narrative – revelations – personal and social come from situations in these places of privacy – acceptance of one's fate, discovering secrets, one's or others', and turning points in relationships, and building of a bond, of love, motherly or otherwise.It beautifully highlights how a different sexual orientation is nothing more than an anomaly for our Indian settings, much alike Cerebral Palsy.
And it surprised me; the metaphor in her choice may be unrealistic at first, and but she discovers her sanity in a world that keeps challenging her sanity.It's a blessing, this movie, though I am sad this shall get washed down among all the the other releases this week, when people shall get busier watching costume clad heroes fighting with the same one- liners, seen and discussed 100 of times on the net.In love with Kalki..
Journey of Laila, a girl with Cerebral Palsy trough obstacles in life, through different phases of love, different orientation of sexuality and music that encircles her life like a bunch of flower.Beautifully written and treated with tenderness, this film can give you the feeling of emancipation , an hour without the target pressure , maybe something more.
Amazing performances by Kalki Koechin,Sayani Gupta , Revathy which actually keep the pace of the film , or maybe the binding energy of it.
p.s.- Some people are saying that this movie is a slow pace and lagging most of the time .I must reply to them that all great arts in this earth are slow,tender and are told in a murmuring tone.Have a margarita with a straw.
The relationships throughout the film are well-defined, from the father who initially seems stubborn and a bit detached to the beautiful (inside and out) mother to the very modern younger brother to the boys who either love or break Kalki's heart.
The film tells a different story of a girl who has celebral palsy and later she comes to know that she is a transgender which is very unique for bollywood.
Kudos to the team who went deeply into the hearts of the physically and mentally disabled people for knowing their life.
Some people choose their life in their own way and some don't have choices Kalki a talented music composer is very confused in her relationship being a mentally challenged girl all she wants who should take proper care of her.
Kalki a brave character tells the world even a gay or a lesbian or a normal person carry emotions with them.
Matured acting , brilliant direction and superb star cast made the movie worth watching at the theatre. |
tt0462553 | Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith | Three years after the start of the Clone Wars between the Galactic Republic and the Confederacy of Independent Systems, war has gripped the galaxy. During a space battle over the planet Coruscant, Jedi Knights Obi-Wan Kenobi and Anakin Skywalker lead a mission to rescue the kidnapped Supreme Chancellor Palpatine from Separatist commander General Grievous. After infiltrating Grievous's flagship, the Jedi battle Count Dooku. Anakin subdues Dooku, and on Palpatine's urging, executes him. Grievous flees the battle-torn cruiser, which the Jedi crash-land on Coruscant. There, Anakin reunites with his wife, Padmé Amidala, who reveals she is pregnant. While initially excited, Anakin begins to have prophetic visions of Padmé dying in childbirth, and his worry steadily grows.
Palpatine appoints Anakin to the Jedi Council as his representative, but the Council declines to grant Anakin the rank of Jedi Master and orders him to spy on Palpatine, causing Anakin's faith in the Jedi to diminish significantly. Palpatine tantalizes Anakin with secret knowledge of the dark side of the Force, including the power to save his loved ones from dying. Meanwhile, Obi-Wan travels to the planet Utapau to deal with General Grievous, and Yoda travels to Kashyyyk to defend the planet from invasion. Tempting Anakin, Palpatine eventually reveals that he is the Sith Lord Darth Sidious, saying that only he has the knowledge to save Padmé from dying. Anakin reports Palpatine's treachery to Mace Windu, who confronts and subdues the Sith Lord, severely disfiguring him in the process. Fearing that he will lose Padmé, Anakin intervenes on Palpatine's behalf and severs Windu's hand, allowing Palpatine to throw him out of a window to his death. Anakin pledges himself to Palpatine, who dubs him Darth Vader. Palpatine issues an order for the clone troopers to kill their Jedi commanders and dispatches Vader along with a legion of clones to kill everyone in the Jedi Temple. Vader massacres the remaining Separatist leaders hiding on the volcanic planet Mustafar, while Palpatine addresses the Galactic Senate, transforming the Republic into the Galactic Empire and declaring himself Emperor. Having survived the chaos, Obi-Wan and Yoda return to Coruscant and learn of Anakin's treachery.
Unable to convince Padmé about Anakin's turn to the dark side, Obi-Wan stows aboard her ship. Padmé travels to Mustafar and begs Vader to leave the dark side. He refuses, and upon witnessing Obi-Wan, chokes Padmé into unconsciousness in a fit of rage. Obi-Wan duels and defeats Vader, severing most of his limbs and leaving him at the bank of a lava river where he is horribly burned. On Coruscant, Yoda battles Palpatine until their duel reaches a stalemate, and Yoda flees with Bail Organa. Palpatine, sensing that his apprentice is in danger, travels to Mustafar.
On the asteroid Polis Massa, Obi-Wan regroups with Yoda and Padmé gives birth to twins named Luke and Leia before dying shortly thereafter. A funeral is held for Padmé on Naboo. On Mustafar, Palpatine finds a severely burnt Vader still alive. After returning to Coruscant, Vader's mutilated body is treated and covered in a black armored suit. Palpatine explains to Vader that he killed Padmé in his anger. Meanwhile, Obi-Wan and Yoda decide to conceal the twins from the Sith, as they are the galaxy's only hope for freedom. Yoda exiles himself to the planet Dagobah, while Vader and the Emperor oversee the construction of a superstation, the Death Star. Bail Organa adopts Leia as his own daughter and takes her to Alderaan, while Obi-Wan delivers Luke to his step-family Owen and Beru Lars on Tatooine, where Obi-Wan intends to watch over Luke until the time is right to challenge the Empire. | violence | train | wikipedia | Great game!!.
Hi all, This game is by far one of the best of star wars, it is very playable to all ages, requires a lot of thought and is most of all a lot of fun!
The graphics are good, but the clips in between levels are awesome as they are a combination between actual movie footage and made up game footage.Anakin turns to the dark side perfect in this game with a rather difficult lightsabre fight with Mace Windu before the emperor blows him out the window and the fight against Grievous is probably more difficult the fighting Anakin.
Thanks all!.
Great Movie-Based Game.
I bought an XBox just so I could buy the game and play it.
When I did, I was very pleased.
I was online and I ran into a site about it that was so enticing, I had to get it.
The only thing was I played it so often when I first got it, I beat it in about 3 days.
I kind of miss playing it but now that everything's done, the incentive to do so is gone.
So if you're going to buy this game, I suggest that you try not to burn it out with your enthusiasm.There was something else that was a little disappointing about it.
I had expected at least Hayden Christensen's and Ewan McGregor's voices to be featured in the game as themselves.
Many of the LOTR cast did for "The Two Towers" and "The Return of the King" games I have for Gamecube.
However, the voices that were cast as them were convincing for a while.It's not as bad as I've read in other reviews.
If you want a game based on a movie, you want it as closely related to it as possible and this game's the closest you'll get to "Revenge of the Sith" before its DVD release..
Not bad , but if you really want to experience anakins switch to the darkside, stick to the movie.
Considering how plot driven and epic revenge of the sith was, you would think that the spin off game would be something a little more than just a straight forward hack and slash em up, but thats just what it is- a straight forward hack and slash em up.Its not a bad game , but its blandly linear level design and button bashing gameplay ensure that its not a great one- if your not an undemanding star wars fan , then you'll find this pretty average .
There are attempts to add depth to the game with the bonus missions and a fun two player mode , but ultimately what it all boils down to is hacking and slashing droids, walking a bit and hacking and slashing droids some more.Its Golden axe with light sabers if you will.Presentation wise the game is great, the film copies the look of the film well .
It copies the sounds brilliantly too- not just the iconic light saber noises among others but john williams masterful score thats so adventurous and epic that it makes the game seem ten times better than it actually is .Not bad but if you really want to experience anakins switch to the darkside, stick to the movie..
I didn't pay full price, but I still paid....
Well I bought this the day it came out, and knew of a little deal going where I could trade in a few games so I wouldn't pay the $90, i paid $60 instead, but that's not the point.So I bought it and was hyped as, cause I figured "Holy crap, I basically have the game, the movie possibly, in the palm of my hand before the movie came out" Obviously I was wrong, but yet again, I'm deviating.OK, I get the game, I play it, you see the opening scroll and get straight into the game as Anakin and Obi Wan aboard Seperatist Leader General Grevious' flagship.
You basically hack and slash your way through droids droids and more droids, enjoying clip scenes from the movie as you progress through levels, eventually coming to face Count Dooku.
Obviously I wont spoil anything, but you fight him etc.The rest of the game you alternate between Obi Wan and Anakin, fighting your way through levels from the movie, and levels excluded, watching scenes from the film again.Unfortunately, the game comes out as too easy, I breezed through it in 8 hours flat.
it is also too similar to the Lord of the Rings games in experience points gained go to unlocking different combo's which aren't really used very often.The only redeeming features would be unlocking movies (including an awesome alternate ending), concept art, bonus levels (one of which you play as YODA!) and multiplayer.Best that if you come across this game, please rent it, don't fork out your dollars/Euro/Yen etc.
on buying a game you'll play the whole way through only once, to occasionally multiplay again.6/10, nice game, worthwhile features to be unlocked, but too easy and perhaps repetitive..
Can't Be Better..
I have seen this game beaten over 6 times in about two weeks and I must say best game ever.You play as Anakin Skywalker and Obi-Wan Kenobi as you journey through the game in order to stop the clone wars and defeat great foes in fierce lightsaber combat.The fighting style is by far the best fighting style in any Star Wars game ever made.They even have an alternate ending where Anakin jumps over Obi-Wan and stabs him right through with his lightsaber.Mace dies in a different way, Dooku dies in a different way but I guess they didn't want to spoil much of the movie.For the last comment, they even have scenes from the movie where you can enjoy over 10 minutes of footage.Thank you for reading my submission and I rate this game a 10/10..
Awesome Star Wars game!.
This game is an good one but the life-span dies out after a while.
Based on the blockbuster movie this game has solid animation, in-fact it's one of the best i've seen in games.
The characters and weapons are very easy to control and the missions are very enjoyable.
But for some reason, i can't explain, i get bored with it after a while.
It really is the best star wars game that you can fight with lightsabers in, but once i'd been playing it for a while, i just wanted to do something else.
the various characters you can play as or against never ends and the multi-player mode is awesome.
But really, maybe it's just me that finds it boring after a while, i'm deffinatley not putting it down because it's a great game.
If you're a Star Wars fan or like action games then this is a deffinatley must have game..
It was fun to play.
but short though..
I bought this game back in August and I don't understand why people constantly thrash this game.
Sure the graphics are pretty outdated and not completely realistic, but you'll still be able to recognize Obi-wan and Anakin when you see them.
And the environments look real, too, so that's an accomplishment.The sound was good and the music is typical of any Star Wars game, but the voicing was something left to be desired.
I don't think the real actors put the voices in for the game, but they sound close enough.
When I hear Anakin's voice, it sounds like he's just woken up from a long nap.Gameplay is amazing, being able to cut up droids, the clones, fellow Jedi and whatnot, but it could've been longer.
I'd like to have seen a level where you can play as Yoda vs.
Emperor (though there is a bonus level where the short, green dude is playable) Overall its a good game and look past the graphics to get to the real core. |
tt0278723 | The Skulls II | Picking up several years after the first film, Ryan Sommers (Robin Dunne) is a student at an unnamed university, believed to be Yale University by the sports teams logo and various New Haven, Connecticut, imagery seen throughout the film. He and lacrosse teammate, Jeff, are tapped for the elite "Skulls" society. Despite his friend Jeff's zeal for being tapped, Ryan is ambivalent toward admission into the Skulls seeing it as a form of control from his older brother, Greg (who is a member), and its distraction from his beautiful, socialite girlfriend, Ali (Ashley Tesoro).
Soon after being tapped, Ryan (having received inside information from his older brother Greg) stages an accident during one of the Skulls' secret initiation rituals by faking that he has been accidentally stabbed, only to reveal that it was a sophomoric joke. Not amused, the senior leadership led by Parker Neal (Nathan West) decide to punish Ryan and Jeff by making them clean the attic of the Skulls tomb. While cleaning the attic that night, both Ryan and Jeff hear someone on the roof, only to discover it is fellow Skulls member, Matt "Hutch" Hutchison and field hockey team captain, Diana Rollins. While peeping on Hutchison and Rollins as she begins to disrobe, Ryan notices her drinking from a flask that Hutchison gave her. Soon thereafter, she starts to become dizzy and then falls off the roof of the Skulls tomb. Trying to alert the other members in the tomb, Ryan is told that nothing is wrong and he must have been seeing things.
Ryan later goes to his brother Greg about the incident, believing that the Skulls have covered up Diana Rollins' death. Greg agrees to give Ryan a key to the tomb, so that he can investigate further, but this later turns out to be a ploy in order to lure Ryan there. Ryan is told the supposed truth about what was really taking place. He is fed a story by Parker Neal that, due to Ryan's sophomoric joke during the initiation ritual, the Skulls staged Diana Rollins falling off the roof as they had staged (years earlier) the death of a former member's roommate when he too was not taking membership seriously. This was all a test to see if Ryan would remain loyal to the Order by not going to the authorities. The former member's roommate story is a direct reference to the first film and the death of Will Beckford, Lucas McNamara's roommate. Not convinced by this ruse, Ryan begins to do research, and later discovers from Beckford's parents that their son was killed by the Skulls for doing an expose on the secret society and breaking into the tomb; this was the storyline from the first film.
That evening, Ryan receives a phone call from his brother Greg that Diana Rollins was killed in a car accident while returning from a supposed ski trip in New Hampshire. At this point, Ryan knows the entire scandal has been a cover-up to protect Matt Hutchison and the Skulls from public humiliation. Due to his digging around, the Skulls turn Ryan's life into chaos. His brother Greg is fired from his high-level position as an attorney at Skull member Winston Taft's firm, Ryan's girlfriend Ali accuses him of assaulting her, and he is pursued by the Skulls at every avenue. Through his friendship with Ali's roommate, Kelly (Lindy Booth), he later discovers that his apartment is bugged, and the Skulls will stop at nothing to cover up Diana Rollins' accidental death, even attempting to run him and Kelly down in the streets of New Haven.
Ryan and Kelly believe that the only true way to expose the Skulls is by getting their hands on the coroner's report, showing that Diana Rollins did indeed have drugs and alcohol in her system, and that she had been dead for days, not hours. Ryan's brother, Greg, uses his acquaintance, county coroner Dr. Phillip Sprague, to gain inside information — Sprague was offered a prostitute by the Skulls to switch the coroner's reports. Later, breaking into Sprague's office, Ryan steals the real report and goes to the police. In the meantime, Jeff has already come forward stating the Skulls covered up Diana Rollins' death and that Matt Hutchison was responsible. Hutchison is taken into custody; Parker Neal narrowly escaping arrest himself.
Back at the Skulls tomb, Skulls chairman senator George Milford states that shame and disgrace has been brought to the Order by this scandal. Believing that Ryan will be expelled from the Order, Parker egotistically states that he believes casting out Ryan is a smart move, only to discover that he is the one being expelled. Parker is seized by members of the Order and his brand of membership is removed from his wrist as he screams out in pain. Ryan casts himself out of the Order. The final scene show he and Kelly kissing in her car as they begin a new life together. | murder | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0069282 | Slither | A meteorite housing a malevolent, sentient extraterrestrial parasite crashes into the town of Wheelsy, South Carolina. While frolicking in the woods with Brenda, local car dealer Grant finds the parasite and is infected by it. The parasite takes over his body and absorbs his consciousness and memories. With the alien now in control of his body, "Grant" begins to slowly change into a tentacled, slug-like monster.
Many pets soon disappear, but Grant is not suspected. However, his wife Starla begins to question his health; he explains the initial changes in his appearance as an allergic reaction to a bee sting, saying that a doctor has already given him something for it, but Starla soon learns this is a lie. Starla contacts the police chief Bill Pardy – her childhood crush – who attempts to reassure and comfort her while not acting on his feelings.
Grant infects the lonely and neglected Brenda with hundreds of his offspring. He hides her in an isolated barn where she becomes massively obese as baby alien slugs grow inside her. Bill leads a small group of officers on a hunt for Grant; they find Brenda in time to see her explode, releasing hundreds of the alien slugs. Most of Bill's group are infected by the slugs and become Grant's puppets, speaking as if they were Grant and obsessed with bringing Starla home and holding her to her wedding vows.
Everyone in town is quickly eaten by others infected with Grant's offspring, or absorbed into Grant's hive mind except Starla, Bill, mayor Jack MacReady, and a teenage girl, Kylie, who had escaped from her family that were also infected by the parasites. She tells them of how she saw the slug's memories; it moves from planet to planet, eating or absorbing all life it finds there. The parasite's consciousness, however, is influenced by the real Grant's memories and his love for his wife, Starla.
The survivors try to escape detection and kill Grant. The townspeople attack their vehicle, capturing Starla and Jack. Bill and Kylie track Starla to her home, and find that the infected are melding into one giant creature. They must risk their lives to stop the infestation from spreading any further. Jack awakens in the house's basement, where several of the infected are eating; he tries to escape but becomes infected by Grant as he reaches the top of the stairs and opens the door. Starla charms the monster by calling him "Grant" and telling him they can be together, but as they get close to each other, she pulls a hairbrush handle from her underwear and stabs him in the chest with the pointed handle. He slaps her with a tentacle and knocks her across the room.
Bill arrives; Jack begs to be killed, and Bill shoots him in the head. He tries to kill the monster with a grenade, but another tentacle knocks the grenade into the pool, where it detonates. The monster sends two tentacles to stab Bill and infect him the same way he infected Brenda; one is lodged in his abdomen, but Bill attaches the other to a small propane tank, filling Grant with gas, and Starla shoots the monster, causing it to explode, whereupon all the infected die. The three survivors walk away to find a hospital for Bill.
In a post-credits scene, a cat approaches to feed off Grant's remains and is infected. | violence, murder | train | wikipedia | null |
tt2071645 | The Following | A struggling, unemployed young writer (credited as "The Young Man") takes to following strangers around the streets of London, ostensibly to find inspiration for his first novel. Initially, he sets strict rules for himself regarding whom he should follow and for how long, but he soon discards them as he focuses on a well-groomed, handsome man in a dark suit. The man in the suit, having noticed he is being followed, quickly confronts the Young Man and introduces himself as "Cobb". Cobb reveals that he is a serial burglar and invites the Young Man (who tells Cobb his name is "Bill") to accompany him on various burglaries. The material gains from these crimes seem to be of secondary importance to Cobb. He takes pleasure in rifling through the personal items in his targets' flats and drinking their wine. He explains that his true passion is using the shock of robbery and violation of property to make his victims re-examine their lives. He sums up his attitude thus: "You take it away, and show them what they had."
The Young Man is thrilled by Cobb's lifestyle. He attempts break-ins of his own, as Cobb encourages and guides him. At Cobb's suggestion, he alters his appearance, cutting his hair short and wearing a dark suit. He assumes the name "Daniel Lloyd" based on the credit card Cobb gives to him and begins to pursue a relationship with a blonde woman whose flat he and Cobb burgled. The Blonde turns out to be the girlfriend of a small-time gangster (known only as the "Bald Guy") whom she broke up with after he murdered a man in her flat. Soon, the Blonde confides that the Bald Guy is blackmailing her with incriminating photographs. The Young Man breaks into the Bald Guy's safe, but is caught in the act by an unidentified man. He then bludgeons the man with a claw hammer and flees with the Bald Guy's money and photos. Upon returning to his flat, he finds that the photos are innocuous modeling shots.
Confronting the Blonde, the Young Man learns that she and Cobb have been working together to manipulate him into mimicking Cobb's burglary methods. She tells him that Cobb had recently discovered a murdered woman's body during one of his burglaries and is attempting to deflect suspicion from himself by making it appear as though multiple burglars share his MO.
The Young Man leaves to turn himself in to the police. The Blonde reports her success to Cobb, who then reveals that he actually works for the Bald Guy. The story about the murdered woman was part of a plot to deceive both the Blonde and the Young Man: The Blonde has been blackmailing the Bald Guy with evidence from the murder he committed in her flat, and he wants her murdered in such a way that it cannot be connected to him. Cobb bludgeons the Blonde to death with the same claw hammer that the Young Man used during the burglary of the Bald Guy's safe and leaves it at the scene. The police, checking out the Young Man's story, find the Blonde murdered and the claw hammer with his fingerprints on it. The Young Man is thus implicated for the murder of the blonde woman. Cobb, meanwhile, vanishes into a crowd. | violence, cult, murder, flashback | train | wikipedia | Unfortunately, this didn't last long and the plot turned out to be the main problem.As the first season unravels, the villains manage to outwit the FBI and the police on countless occasions.
Even the average viewer of TV shows would know some basic rules of police work: Secure the perimeter; Do not engage the fugitives when outnumbered and wait for support; Do not send the people to investigate the vaults without backup, especially when there's a possibility to encounter armed resistance etc.We could argue whether the villains are depicted as almighty and the police and FBI as too stupid, yet The Following is not the show i'd recommend..
I'll start by saying that the show had some good action to it, the actors are well developed and the overall theme to the show is great.Aside from that the show seriously lacks in the general intelligence and intuition of those playing law informant characters.
The F.B.I. are after a cult following a brilliant serial killer who is currently behind bars, the members of the cult are supposedly rather intelligent themselves and yet the F.B.I. and the police never seem to be prepared for the twists, never sending enough officers to do a job.
Really never take the time to write reviews but I felt I needed to say something about this show.First of all, its nice to see Kevin Bacon in a TV-series.
The writing was good creating tension and setting the scene for following episodes.
The play between Kevin Bacon's character as the flawed former FBI agent and James Purefoy as the serial killer is excellent.
It's certainly a great start - and I'm not talking just about the good, tragic, dramatic plot but the cast too.
We all know that having Kevin Bacon in a movie is a great plus but having James Purefoy as the charismatic serial killer is absolutely amazing.
The characters fit on Kevin and James like a glove and they, developing a "nemesis relation" really highlight one another.The start of the series was off the charts, it was action filled, in a word - extraordinary!
What started out as quite a promising series, with the decent-enough pilot episode, The Following has unfortunately taken a slow, but noticeable nose dive in quality, until it has reached a nadir in the latest episode (6, I think) where it has started to resemble a facsimile of the numerous other boring FBI/CSI/NYPD shows, only not as interesting, with clunky and unintentionally funny dialogue.
After watching the series premiere of "The Following", it left me with an impression that I simply couldn't find anywhere else as the story unfolded in such a terrifying way.
Kevin Bacon was simply incredible as the worn down FBI agent with a tragic past that has yet to be explored further as the show progresses, but James Purefoy is MARVELOUS as the twisted serial killer.
The writers have obviously been so drunk of the show's "success" that they are thinking it will run over 10 season, introducing new characters every single episode and making this possible.
Only thing saving this show is the good acting by Bacon and Purefoy.p.s. anyone who has ever seen a gun being shot, should no that 9mm pistols don't shoot fireworks, i mean, the amount of the sparks makes me think its 4th of July..
The criminally insane idea in this show is one held by ex-literature professor Joe Carroll (James Purefoy) that murder can be the most beautiful form of art and the ultimate form of tribute to his idol Edgar Alan Poe.Jailed for his crimes he becomes the most grisly form of cause celebre - a serial killer with an enraptured cult of determined wackos at his beck and call.
But that is when I realized that this show has been wildly misunderstood by SO many people.The first thing that makes this show so amazing is its cast; where I would think that Bacon would make a better villain than Purefoy, this show just pulls the rug from under you by making your favorite professor and dear father and husband, a manic serial killer with an Edgar Allan Poe obsession.
Other stunning performances include the Elektra-complexed Valorie Curry and the not-meant-to-be-a-follower Warren Kole.I have watched (not battled as some users have stated) and thoroughly enjoyed every realistic (yes, I think it is very believable) moment of this intensely complicated show.
Kevin Williamson, who also brought us The Vampire Diaries (which I don't think is believable, by the way), Scream and I Know What You Did Last Summer, to me, showed with this series his true talents as an immensely talented horror-writer capable of reaching places in the human psyche that is not very often reached in post-modern television.Bravo!
The Following is one of the best TV Series i saw, it cannot end right now.Such a great show.
For example, Bacon's character is supposed to be THE EXPERT on Joe Carol (the literature professor who became a serial killer when his novel got panned).
The following started off as an exciting and dramatic thriller but as time went on the series had me less enthralled by smart plot twists and simply upset by the poor writing.Through the progression of the series we see error after error from the FBI which only serves to lengthen the story and provide predictable thrills.
My new biggest fear in life is that the producers will drag this tired plot into a second season which I might feel compelled to watch (not for its content but simply for closure).
Joe Carroll (James Purefoy) is obsessed with the story he has plotted and cast Hardy in as the tragic hero.The Following is, really, a horror story.
I like James Purefoy.The Story has a lot of potential, but after a few episodes it is clear that the only way to drive the Story further is that the villain is not caught.
She is unlikeable and annoying and maybe it is meant to drive sympathy for her but the amount of stupidity she shows really doesn't help.why oh why dear writers, couldn't you have made a plot where the good guys actually amount to something and where the detection piece is a bit more prominent?
I must agree with many reviewers that say the series takes a suicidal nosedive early on...it started well but continues into an absurd collection of clichés and absurdities.I fail to understand how writers cannot see that people these days are far more knowledgeable and well-informed due to the age of the internet and free speech.
If you can suspend your disbelief far enough to accept that there is some modern day Svengali who can manipulate people like puppets from afar, by the sheer force of his (utterly repugnant) personality and his phony, ambiguous, quasi-British accent —largely through the Internet, no less—then I suppose you will suck down this swill the way Kevin Bacon's character sucks down his vodka, or gin, or whatever colorless alcohol he carries around in his water bottle.
It's unusual for me to like a procedural show, but The Following has a combination of things that makes it something that I look forward to watching each week.One of the best (if not the best) thing about the show is James Purefoy as Joe the villain.
He doesn't overplay the character, and he manages to be creepy and a bit charming all at the same time, making it hard to avoid the urge to root for him even as I wonder why he's not in a higher security facility (because he's clever and smart and deadly).Kevin Bacon was definitely the right choice for Ryan the hero.
I am a lover of serial killers, this series reminds me of a more well organized Manson Family, Joe Carrol manipulates people to kill for him while he hides away and never gets caught...pure genius!
Acting is very amateur & bad script writing,some of the scenes are cringing to watch,but once I've started watching something I have to see the end,I keep watching only in hope it gets better,but it just doesn't happen,each episode is worse then the previous one,It's full of bad FBI work,it's so unrealistic it's laughable, it's full of kidnap escape kidnap escape,goes to prison,oh guess what!??
I Loved this show, could not stop watching it from start to finish, am hoping there is another season yet to come, the story line is so real to life these days, so many cults out there so many people looking for answers to their problems and the torment that goes on in their heads, they want to blame everyone or everything for their lives so they seek revenge against anyone that they have seen as a threat to them especially to those that have been some sort of leader or mentor.
It's a weekly TV show its not some grand movie that is suppose to have a start and finish its a weekly TV show that's suppose to continue on and on and if you think about cults like Waco and militias like Ruby Ridge well Law enforcement isn't always the most competent and these cult leaders do set up camp right under our noses so its just not that far fetched, look how long Bundy killed before getting caught, but this is from someone who liked Criminal Minds I tend to like shows that get into the criminal psyche.
Kevin Bacon is superb and James Purefoy looks like he is having a great time playing this charismatic psychopathy.
Kevin Bacon puts a new twist on the classic "dark hero" and with an all-star cast of seasoned actors who blend beautifully, it's almost believable.
I was on the edge of my seat as I watched the first two episodes and I am looking forward to a wonderful series.
Yes, the series unravels somewhat as Kevin Bacon's character Ryan Hardy comes unglued.
Yeah, sometimes the bad guy gets away when the cop looks the wrong way, but I honestly think the FBI gets smarter as they learn the case.
the appeal of serial killers/followers/cults got a bit to much in the end...Then out of nowhere, Season 3 is here and with hesitation, i gave it another chance, hoping the writers would take it in another direction to freshen things up a bit....
no more 'followers' less screen time for Carroll who is about to face the lethal injection and finally a worthy killer who, compared to all have appeared on the show before him, cannot compare to how sick and twisted this guy is, and he also happens to be a hacker genius and is always 2 steps ahead of the police....
They tried to sell this as a serial-killer-of-the-week series but it's nothing of the sort.The first third of The Following is actually pretty interesting.
What Carroll is after is a reunion with his wife and son and to write his reality-based masterpiece.The FBI reluctantly recruits a reluctant disgraced former agent, Ryan Hardy, who was responsible for the investigation that put Carroll in jail in the first place- since Carroll was a serial killer himself.And at first things are interesting and mysterious.
Sure, the final outcome is unusual, but nothing to rave about.The Following should have been a strong series, it looks like it has a budget, cast, crew and some interesting ideas.
I guess Kevin Williamson never really outgrew the 90s.I finished watching this season just to see how it all turns out, not so much because I was compelled by its greatness.
Kevin Bacon, an amazing actor who embodies his characters with such depth you truly see him as the character he portrays - making his performance come alive.Second, the rest of the actors (James Purefoy, are first class and look forward to seeing the ensemble of characters ebb and flow as the series unfolds.
Had to turn it off as soon as Kevin Bacons character finds and sees the escaped serial killer, then yells out "There he is" as loud as he can, letting the guy know he's been seen so he is able to get away, and gut a few cops in the process.
I have watched every episode of the following so far, and I am about to abandon ship, mostly because of the writers.
other than main character u will not remember anyone or feel anything for them.Anybody can be psycho.After watching Sherlock, Luther and criminal minds, it feels like total waste of time.
It's not your run of the mill boring CSI, Criminal Minds, NCIS rehash where they have 3 shows in the franchise where all the shows are the exact same show just set in a different city.Kevin Bacon is a good choice to play the lead role of former FBI agent Ryan Hardy who's called back into action when the followers of the man he put away start killing in his name.
Now, I have never been a Kevin Bacon fan, and so far, I don't think much of his acting, but the story, and the main idea: "what if there were a bunch of serial killers on the loose and they were all connected to one big crazy dude" has a lot of potential.
The plot is excellent because it draws the viewer in although it is very dark.The violence maybe a bit strong but it also makes the show feel real and frightening.After watching the first episode I highly recommend that you watch the show.It is well worth the 60 minutes of your time.
The fact that there are people out there who think that this kind of vile, sickening, disgusting, sadistic trash actually belongs on television horrifies and saddens me.A network (Fox) that cancels high-quality shows like Fringe yet has room for this carnage is mostly to blame, but the "people" who will enjoy watching the most gory torture and bloodthirsty killing, and consider it "entertainment" are equally at fault.
I can't believe that Kevin Bacon is so hard up for money that he agreed to be seen in this, so what's his excuse?If you like this kind of television viewing, you are no better than a serial killer yourself, and you should probably be watching it safely locked away in an institution.
Like the overall story, don't like how the plots fail due stupid characters or cops/FBI.
I think the story has a lot of potential to be an excellent drama TV series, but the stupidity of the FBI characters and cops and even the main characters in each scene makes me wonder if my time is really worth watching it.I know it's not reality TV but it can't be fiction either.
Please, do NOT write a review after having watched just one episode of a series.
The only bright part are the skillful acting of the main protagonists James Purefoy and Kevin Bacon, the sad thing they have to follow the poor plot and story lines.
The pilot was prolly the best of the episodes but once all the cards were revealed, it just went on & on like a Road Runner cartoon marathon.It is an evil series, as it makes you want to watch it just to see how stupid the next escape and twist will be.
Other than that: the directing is bad, the acting is bad, the filming is bad, the plot is horrible and filled with holes that a 7year old can easily recognize, the characters are shallow and boring (except maybe for purefoy's) and the whole thing is wrapped with a very bad taste.And to the trix_r_kids who wrote here a manifesto of how stupid all of us viewers are for not understanding this moronic show: you really went out of your way to defend this crap just because you are probably the 0.001% who can actually give this preposterous show a perfect score.
I like Kevin Bacon and James Purefoy as actors, and Fox having a decent track record of making some good and edgy shows over the last 20 years gave me high expectations of a quality drama.
I watched the entire first season hoping against hope for an improvement in the story/writing but never got it.I could go on and on about many of the implausible scenes that almost seem like they were written for a grade schoolers comic book hobby, but I don't want to think about "The Following" anymore.
The moment the writers want to 'twist' story they turn someone you think is good to the dark side, the cult.
Yeah, that'll do." The two episodes I've seen so far haven't expressed any originality or creativity, and it seems like the violence is just being used to draw people in instead of supporting the plot and building character depth - it's just too blatant and meaningless.The narrative is also particularly annoying, mostly because Bacon reads every line like he's trying to win an award.Fox cancelled two solid, profitable shows last year, Alcatraz (which I'd rate a 6.5) and Terra Nova (I'd rate 7.0), which was disappointing.
Kevin Bacon is really a good actor.
7,6 on IMDb??Third season?And they cut a good series like Almost Human.Jesus!
usually the ratings makes sense but not this one.The script has unnumbered holes.I wont bother you with the plot because there isn't any!!And if anyone just saw the first episode and thought it's a good series, think again after a couple more.
Yeah you have great actors in there, but portraying a serial killer as an artist is beyond reprehensible.And people watch this garbage?
This isn't the bad guys winning, this is horrible, horrible script/plot with pretty damn good acting and a whole lot of empty holes and absolutely ridiculous twists and turns.
You will not feel like you wasted your time on this stupid show, instead u will wait for t next episode to come out as soon as possible.
So you know what, give it a watch and see for yourself, because no good crime drama starts with the police catching him episode 1 and keeping him locked up, that would be truly bad television. |
tt0278475 | Haunted Castle | The film opens with a large bat flying into a medieval castle. The bat circles the room, before suddenly changing into Mephistopheles, an incarnation of the Devil. Mephistopheles produces a cauldron and an assistant, who helps him conjure a woman from the cauldron.
The room is cleared shortly before two cavaliers enter. The devil's assistant pokes their backs before instantaneously transporting to different areas of the room, confusing the pair and causing one to flee. The second stays and has several other tricks played on him, such as furniture being moved around and the sudden appearance of a skeleton. The cavalier is unfazed, using a sword to attack the skeleton, which then turns into a bat, then into Mephistopheles, who conjures four spectres to subdue the man. Recovering from the spectres' attack, the man is visibly dazed and is brought the woman from the cauldron, who impresses him with her beauty. Mephistopheles then turns her into a withered old crone in front of the man's eyes, then again into the four spectres.
The second cavalier returns and after a brief show of bravery, flees again, this time by leaping over the balcony's edge. After the spectres disappear, the cavalier is confronted face-to-face by the Devil before reaching for and brandishing a large crucifix, which causes the devil to vanish. | haunting | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0289868 | Body & Soul | An escaped prisoner seeks refuge in the predominantly African-American town of Tatesville, Georgia, by passing himself off as the Rt. Reverend Isaiah T. Jenkins. He is joined in town by a fellow criminal, and the pair scheme to swindle the phony reverend's congregation of their offerings. Jenkins falls in love with a young member of his congregation, Isabelle Perkins, even though she is in love with a poor young man named Sylvester, who happens to be Jenkins’ long-estranged twin brother. Jenkins steals money from Martha Jane, Isabelle's mother and convinces the young woman to take the blame for his crime. She flees to Atlanta and dies just as her mother locates her. Before dying, Isabelle reveals to her mother that Jenkins raped her and that he is the one who took her mother's money. She explains that she did not speak up before because she knew her mother would not believe her. Returning to Tatesville, Martha Jane confronts Jenkins in front of the congregation. Jenkins flees and during a twilight struggle he kills a man who tries to bring him to justice. The following morning, Martha Jane awakens and realizes the episode with Jenkins was only a dream. She provides Isabelle (who is not dead) and Sylvester with the funds to start a married life together. | pornographic | train | wikipedia | Amateur therapists. Carrie (Catalina Larranaga) owner of a women's `health club/retreat/spa/psychological clinic' goes on a business trip and hires Drake (Jack Lincoln) as a house-sitter. His only responsibility while he is there is to fax Carrie's weekly column on women's issues to the newspaper office on Monday morning for publication. Problems start when he accidentally shreds the only copy of Carrie's article and faxes one of his own writing to the newspaper to cover his mistake. Drake's article becomes a hit with Carrie's readers and phone calls start pouring into the office for appointments. After being mistaken by Carrie's clients for `Erin/Aaron' her temporary replacement, Drake starts taking the appointments, himself. Will he ruin Carrie's practice or improve on it?. Great and steamy effort.. Good effort with a likable cast. This is the kind of soft core movie that everyone should watch when trying to please your sexual necessities.I mean, it's one of the best soft core efforts of the early 2000's. Features a creative plot, dynamic camera angles, cool soundtrack, and best of all, steamy sex scenes.The women are extremely hot!! You can't go wrong with such a strong cast. The scenes are explicit although not as "heavy" or almost hardcore like in other movies of the time, but still really good.Give it a chance! |
tt0270585 | The Prophecies of Nostradamus | In 1853, Genta Nishiyama begins preaching the prophecies of Michel de Nostradame using a copy of his book, "Centuries." When Nishiyama is executed by the Tokugawa Shogunate for supposed heresy (after discussing the arrival of "black ships" that will end Japan's long isolation), his wife and son flees with the book in hand, passing down the knowledge to future generations. At the onset of World War II, his descendant, Gengaku, is interrogated by an Imperial Japanese Army officer about the family's continued preaching of the prophecies, which predicted the rise of Nazism and the Axis defeat.
In the present day of 1999, biologist Dr. Ryogen Nishiyama is called in to analyze recent scientific phenomena, such as the appearance of giant mutant slugs, children wielding advanced abilities, and large ice packs just north of Hawaii. He is also a leading figure in the fight against environmental pollution, natural disasters, and the global arms race. The UN sends a research expedition to New Guinea to investigate a radioactive dust cloud that appeared over the island, but the team suddenly goes out of contact. Nishiyama joins a second team to find them and discover that the area around the team's last known position is now infested by mutant bats and leeches; one leech renders a team member unconscious and he later turns violently insane after the team sets up camp. He is sedated but is later feasted on by cannibals. The team fights off the cannibals and chases them to a cave where they find the remains of the original group, but are disheartened that some of them are barely alive; they are forced to kill and bury the survivors.
An SST explodes in the atmosphere over Japan, with the explosion puncturing the ozone layer and unleashing ultraviolet rays below. The polar icecaps melt, triggering massive floods in Japan. After more natural disasters hit the country, the civilian populace turns to looting as rationing takes effect. Society breaks down further, with several people committing suicide. The panic escalates until nuclear war breaks out and mutated survivors fight each other for food.
It is revealed that the nuclear war is one of many nightmare scenarios Nishiyama is explaining before the Japanese Cabinet. As the prime minister explains a resolve to find a solution, Nishiyama, his daughter Mariko, and her boyfriend Akira (a globetrotting photographer) leave the Diet complex. | paranormal | train | wikipedia | Accurate documenttary gives big picture of mysterious psychic Nostradamus.. French doctor's visio about wars and other big issues in the word has always seduced mystery seeking people. This documentary shows us how accurate and intelligent man saw the future 500 years ago. Some parts are quite scary and seems impossible that the story is truth. Even presidential election last year (2000) was correct... |
tt0305357 | Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle | After rescuing U.S. Marshal Ray Carter (Robert Patrick) in Mongolia, the Angels: Natalie Cook (Cameron Diaz), Dylan Sanders (Drew Barrymore), and Alex Munday (Lucy Liu), together with John Bosley's adoptive brother Jimmy Bosley (Bernie Mac), are sent to recover H.A.L.O. (Hidden Alias List Operation) titanium rings stolen from the United States Department of Justice which can display the people listed in the witness protection program. DOJ official William Rose Bailey (Bruce Willis) and a protected witness, Alan Caulfield (Eric Bogosian) are among those killed. At Caulfield's house in San Bernardino, the Angels track his assassin Randy Emmers (Rodrigo Santoro) to a beach where they meet with former Angel Madison Lee (Demi Moore). During the Coal Bowl motorcycle race, Emmers targets another witness named Max Petroni (Shia LaBeouf), but is killed by the Thin Man (Crispin Glover). Inside Emmers' pocket, the Angels discover the photos of Caulfield, Max, and, surprisingly, Dylan, under her birth name, Helen Zaas.
Dylan reveals that she is a protected witness after sending her former boyfriend, Irish mob leader Seamus O'Grady (Justin Theroux), to prison. O'Grady has since targeted those who wronged him, including Dylan and Max, whose parents O'Grady killed. Max is sent to the home of Bosley's mother (Ja'net Dubois) for his protection. At a monastery, the Angels learn about the Thin Man's past from the Mother Superior (Carrie Fisher). Afterward, the Angels track O'Grady's mob at San Pedro and manage to get the rings, but O'Grady threatens Dylan with the murder of everyone she loves. While Natalie attends her boyfriend, Peter Kominsky (Luke Wilson)'s high school reunion at Hermosa Beach and Alex returns home to find her action star boyfriend-under-timeout, Jason Gibbons (Matt LeBlanc) telling her awestruck father (John Cleese) about her exploits, Dylan leaves the Angels and heads to Mexico. She is, however, convinced to return after seeing an apparition of former Angel Kelly Garrett (Jaclyn Smith).
Natalie and Alex deduce that Carter is a part of O'Grady's scheme after seeing him return Bosley's keys. Following him, the two witness him being shot by Madison, the true mastermind behind all of this. Though Dylan arrives to back the group, the Angels are shot by Madison, who take the rings, though they survive by having worn Kevlar vests beforehand. The Angels realize that Madison, with the protection of O'Grady, is going to sell the rings to the Antonioni Crime Family, the Tanaka Yakuza, and the Diablo Cartel at the Hollywood Walk of Fame, where Jason's film's premiere is about to commence. The Angels set the three groups up to be arrested by the FBI instead, while they confront Madison and O'Grady. O'Grady kills the Thin Man, but Dylan manages to throw him down to his death. The Angels fight Madison all the way to an abandoned theater, where they kick her to a gas-filling chamber, with her dooming herself by shooting her bullets, exploding it.
The Angels attend the premiere where they learn that Mama Bosley is adopting Max. Peter postpones his engagement with Natalie by buying for them a puppy named Spike while Alex terminates her timeout with Jason. The Angels celebrate their victory together with Bosley. | murder, flashback | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0093818 | Radio Days | Joe (Woody Allen), the narrator, relates how two burglars got involved in a radio game after picking up the phone. He goes on to explain that he associates old radio songs with childhood memories.
During the late 1930s and early 1940s young Joe (Seth Green) lived in a modest Jewish-American family in Rockaway Beach. His mother (Julie Kavner) always listened to Breakfast with Irene and Roger. His father (Michael Tucker), who regularly gave him a beating, kept his occupation secret. Joe later found out that he was ashamed of being a taxi driver. Other family members were Uncle Abe and Aunt Ceil, grandpa and grandma, and Aunt Bea (Dianne Wiest). The latter was a serial dater, always on the lookout for a potential husband.
Joe's own favourite radio show was The Masked Avenger. It made him dream of buying a secret decoder ring. In Joe's fantasy the Masked Avenger looked like a hero, but in reality the voice actor (Wallace Shawn) was short and bald. Other radio memories are stories about sporting heroes, news bulletins about World War II, a report of an extraterrestrial invasion, and a live report of the search for a little girl who fell into a well.
With his friends from school Joe was searching for German aircraft, but instead they saw a woman undressing in her bedroom. She later turned out to be their substitute teacher. Alone on the coast Joe saw a German U-boat, but he decided not to tell anyone because they wouldn't believe him.
Joe was fascinated by the glitz and glamour of Manhattan, where the radio broadcasts were made. He visited the Radio City Music Hall, and described it as the most beautiful thing he ever saw.
Joe collected stories of radio stars, including that of Sally White (Mia Farrow), whose dreams of becoming famous were hampered by her bad voice and accent. Starting as a cigar salesgirl she got stuck on the roof of the radio building with Roger, who was cheating on Irene. After she witnessed a crime the gangster Rocco (Danny Aiello) wanted to kill her, but following his mother's advice he ended up using his connections to further her career. She finally became a reporter of celebrity gossip.
On New Year's Eve Joe was brought down from his room to celebrate the transition to 1944. Simultaneously the radio stars gathered on the roof of their building. The narrator concludes that he will never forget those radio voices, although with each passing of a New Year's Eve they seem to grow dimmer and dimmer. | boring, depressing, murder | train | wikipedia | Radio Days (1987)- written, directed, and narrated by Allen:What a beautiful, kind, gentle, ironic, warm, sentimental (in a very good way and yes, I am talking about Woody Allen's movie, that's right) yet perfectly balanced delight.
The film is a tribute to the magical radio days and the myths and legends about radio personalities, the memory of a grown man who never forgot where he came from, the love letter to his always fighting and arguing ("I mean, how many people argue over oceans?") but loving relatives and a very funny comedy (the way only Allen's comedy can be).
Also profiled in here are some of those radio performers.It does have laughs but not as many as the normal Allen movie because the idea of this is simply to be a nostalgic piece, mainly Allen's tribute to his own family days of growing up, what it was like around his house.It was interesting to see Seth Green playing Woody as a youngster with flaming red hair.
However, any time a genius like Woody Allen can create a film that not only makes me and my rowdy friends laugh, but gets guffaws from my dear old Mom as well, it deserves a little fanfare.I didn't even mention the solid gold music.See this film at once!.
RADIO DAYS is one of Woody Allen's most underrated comedies, a fond look back to the days of radio and its effects on his family.Set against long-forgotten radio programs, hit songs, and the coming of World War II, we get two narrative threads.
The interiors are beautifully done (Santo Loquasto), and very memorable is the awe-inspiring visit to Radio City Music Hall with its dimmed lights, lush carpets, and warm red-and-gold tones.There is also a parade oh hit songs of the day that include "September Song," "Tico Tico," "Mairzy Doats," "South American Way," "Pistol Packin' Mama," "If I Didn't Care," and so many others.A final word for the many actors and actresses in small parts who make this movie feel so right.
Woody Allen's turn in the films he's made lately (as of 2003) are, to me, pretty depressing and perverse, with none of the charm, life and humor that works like Radio Days symbolize, Sweet and Lowdown notwithstanding.
Since the man narrating the memories was only a boy then, it is altogether fitting and proper that he see things as a child; for as he states in one scene, "our conversation turned from Nazis to more important things,like girls." No movies, except this one, that I recall, are able to deal with this critical age in American history without conveying the tragic time that it was.I would like to think this family was really Woody Allen's, but it is probably a work of fiction, like his other pieces.
Radio Days reminds us that having someone to experience life with is a treasure and a blessing, despite whacks on the head, martians, and fish, "That man always brings home fish!" And oh, the music!This is Woody Allen's masterpiece..
This film shows it.Autobiographical -- or perhaps semi-autobiographical -- in nature, "Radio Days" evokes the time when people returned "to those thrilling days of yesteryear," and for whom, quite probably, it was equally thrilling to contemplate the magic of a box in their living room that could cause them to "watch" the stories unfold in their minds.
"Remotes," or on-the-spot broadcasts transported them to the scene of unfolding tragedies or triumphs in a way that newspapers never could (and which TV, for all its advantages, rarely matches).And yet the film, for all its authenticity in recreating studio practices (watch, for example, how the actors drop completed script pages onto the floorrather than turning them and risking a tell-tale rustle of paper), isn't really so much about radio itself as it is about the people who listened, as personified by one raucous, cantankerous and loving Brooklyn family.
Beautifully evoked, particularly by Julie Kavner (Mother), Michael Tucker (Father), and the incomparable Dianne Wiest (as the perenially lovelorn Aunt Bea), it is their reactions to what they hear on the radio -- whether listening breathlessly to the war news (at a time when the end result was anything but certain) or Bea's abandonment in the middle of nowhere by a panicked suitor as Orson Welles' "War of the Worlds" broadcast takes hold -- that bring to life the era and the power of that medium.Standouts?
Woody's best " memory" piece has great set designs, a sad and funny script and the usual great, well chosen cast, including a very young Seth Green playing Allen as a boy.
This is the only Allen movie that both Farrow and Diane Keaton appear in (she has a very brief cameo singing a song in a night club.) The final scene on top of the roof is almost bittersweet, altho it is nice to see a landscape filled with wide eyed people, before the world was dominated by television.
It also cements my conclusion that Woody Allen is the only director who "spoofs" great art films and artistic styles, confirmed by his tributes to Ingmar Bergman and German Expressionists.All that aside, "Radio Days" is, second of all, a look at Allen's childhood memories weaved together by radio.
In fact, that tender quibbling, love and loss and understanding is what makes Allen's characters come to life so successfully - no wonder he speaks of them with warmth.What "Radio Days" is about first of all and foremost, is nostalgia.
And it is he, not the characters in the film as much, who experiences the nostalgia, the central theme of "Radio Days."In narrating his memories, Allen is able to distance himself from them temporally.
It's an affectionate (and, for Allen, atypically nostalgic) period piece, sketching with disarming humor the memories, anecdotes, and fantasies of an East Coast childhood in the 1930s and 1940s, narrated by the director himself and set against a collection of once-popular radio songs and programs.
The film is a nostalgic look at the golden age of radio during Allen's childhood as he reflects on the impact it had on his young life.
The movie is short but is still a very good watch that provides a very unique and entertaining experience.As with most Woody Allen films, Radio Days is a one of a kind experience because of the way the story is told.
The film uniquely combines stories of fictional radio stars and fictional characters (which are obviously based heavily on Woody Allen's actual family) with actual stories of the time period.
It is a fascinating watch.Staying true to the Woody Allen experience, the dialouge in Radio Days is great.
He blends these moments seamlessly into the over-all fabric of the film and the viewer never feels emotionally manipulated, the emotions well up naturally, adding depth to what might otherwise have been more akin to the 'Big Broadcast' movies of the 30s.Woody Allen stretches his leading ladies, especially, to the limits, and they are great.
Together with Allen's witty, tender script, and a host of excellent performances, the film does a terrific job of creating an intentionally larger than life, and slightly surreal memory piece of short stories about growing up in an age when radio was still the king of entertainment.It's a small, sweet.
Woody Allen takes two stories, his childhood with his extended family and the heyday of radio, and wraps them together, showing how radio captured the attention of and helped shape America.The story is occasionally a bit disjointed, and while some critics harped on that, I found that it more fit the way nostalgia feel like...
I've spoken to people who grew up in New York City during the "Radio Days" and they say that Allen captures the era perfectly.I love this movie because Allen doesn't pretend that the past is perfect, but he loves it even with its flaws, and he presents it to us with the love that feels for this time gone by..
"Radio Days" is a series of vignettes centering around the popular radio shows and personalities of the early 1940s (just prior to the start of WWII and just after), and though writer-director-narrator Allen exposes a loving heart (and melancholy yearning) for this era, the film feels rather slight because Woody tends to cringe at the face of pure sentiment.
The Manhattanites and radio stars are far less amusing (or interesting) than Woody's family, but at least there we have frizzy-haired Mia Farrow as a nasal-voiced coat-check girl (she gets to sing a lovely solo for the USO, and has a funny scene pleading for her life after mobster Danny Aiello kidnaps her).
The common denominator in all the stories and in the overarching plot is the presence of the radio - it brought music, news, stories, escape and comfort, made stars of everyday people and was often the glue in families and relationships.A wonderfully sentimental, nostalgic and funny homage to radio from Woody Allen.
The supporting cast is huge, due to the many mini-stories within the movie, and includes many Woody Allen favorites: Mia Farrow, Diane Keaton, Dianne Wiest, Jeff Daniels, Danny Aiello, Tony Roberts.
However, this is a story about family and kinship and how radio particularly affected this family.Woody Allen directed a rather charming film that is narrated by Joe and he talks about how radio influenced his childhood and he talks about his memories of his family and how radio associated with them.
The movie is set during the "golden years of radio," when radio programs, listened to at home, were an important aspect of American entertainment.The film is narrated by Woody Allen, and is a nostalgic--and possibly autobiographical--look at the childhood of a young boy growing up in Rockaway, Queens.
There is no plot to speak of, more a series of anecdotes and episodes revolving around 10 year old Joe (played by Seth Green) and his large working-class Jewish-American family in 1940s New York City all linked by the ever-present voice of the radio.
Compared to the great Woody Allen films like "Manhattan" or "Hannah and Her Sisters", made the previous year, "Radio Days" is a slight work.
Woody cast a number of actors who had appeared in his earlier films, such as Mia Farrow as Sally, Dianne Wiest as Joe's Aunt Bea whose search for love is a running theme, Danny Aiello, Jeff Daniels, Diane Keaton and Wallace Shawn, and gets good performances out of all of them.
Pretty much everyone's childhood no doubt is bathed in a golden hue, including, almost literally, Woody Allen's in this cavalcade of pre-teen reminiscences to the backdrop of the music of popular radio.That nostalgic glow is everywhere, to the extent that there are no bad characters to cloud the atmosphere and the insertion of a blatantly sad story (a little girl dies off-screen down a well) seems unwelcome and indeed out of place.
Allen paints an attractively quirky set of characters, no doubt drawn from memory, of a hard-working extended Jewish family and contrasts this with the glamour and glitz of radio show performers with whose lives they occasionally interact and certainly aspire to.
That said, I much prefer Allen's films when he's not employing "flavour of the month" big names (who of course would all "just die" to be in a Woody film) and instead gets more out of lesser known but no less capable baggage-less actors like here - Tony Roberts even gets a look-in.The comedy is smile rather than laugh inducing and some of the scenes have been done before (Bill Forsyth for one, beat him to the punch in "Gregory's Girl" with the school-kids accidental viewing of their future teacher's nude dancing in her apartment), but the film's evocation of New York in the war years is beautifully managed and certainly draws comparison to Scorcese's earlier "New York New York".And that sure is a pretty shot at the end as the neon hat is doffed to us to send us on our way, no doubt with thoughts of our own hopefully happy childhoods, wherever they were..
Also, the very commotive Jewish family, characterizing Allen's own and including an impressive young Seth Green as the figure for young Woody, is portrayed with a loving naiveté, as is displayed so pricelessly in their shock that on Yom Kippur, the neighbors actually have the nerve to work on their house, and because they believe that they are communists and because they're making so much noise, the uncle works up the nerve to go next door and confront them, thus ushering in a shouting match with one of them, played by fellow Woody Allen's fellow Jewish comedian Larry David, who provides great enjoyment a la his perpetually conflicting character on Curb Your Enthusiasm.Allen's Radio Days is also a much more emotional experience than any Fellini film.
Also starring Tony Roberts, Danny Aiello (a riot as a soft-hearted hitman), Jeff Daniels, Josh Mostel and Diane Keaton (in a cameo as a nightclub chanteuse in her first Allen film since 1979's "Manhattan" ), "Radio Days" is a slice-of-life masterpiece not to be overlooked..
Some of them, told through the point of view of lower class people in the eyes of younger Woody Allen, Joe, played by a tiny little Seth Green.He goes on about how the songs played on the radio remind him of a particular event.
I truly don't think he has one particular story that he can remember in full, but these scattered memories pulled together to create the whole works well.Allen has a great eye for period detail, and I felt like I was taken into that time and place.
Woody Allen's Radio Days (1987) is a nostalgic look at those times.Mr Allen isn't seen in this movie, only heard.Seth Green plays in a way the young Woody Allen.Only that his name isn't Woody but Joe.This Jewish boy lives his life in New York under World War II.And listens to radio.The acting work is superb in this movie.Young Seth Green is excellent.Then there are names like Mike Starr (Burglar), Julie Kavner (Mother), Wallace Shawn (Masked Avenger), Dianne Wiest (Bea), Mia Farrow (Sally White), Larry David (Communist Neighbor), Danny Aiello (Rocco), Jeff Daniels (Biff Baxter), Mercedes Ruehl (Ad men), Diane Keaton (New Year's Singer) and William H.
Radio Days looks wonderful, with the smoky cinematography being some of the most beautiful of any Woody Allen film and the minute period detail is very evocative.
We see his family as they go on about their daily lives, but majority of the film is about the radio shows of the day and the people who made them.The movie is full of anecdotes of supposed radio stars and what they were doing behind the scenes.
There are stories to tell through the characters- the parents (Michael Tucker and Julie Kavner, both in some of their best work yet), the wanting-engagement aunt (Dianne Wiest, a narrow role to play but one done very sweetly and genuinely), the possibly fictional character of Sally White (Mia Farrow, often charming) who goes from chirpy cigarette girl to radio star, and the young protagonist himself (Seth Green, a surprise I'm sure) who lives in total fantasy- as kids should do- and gets into misadventures amid the stories around him.It's appropriate to hear other compare this to Fellini's Amarcord, but I think even if I hadn't seen Amarcord before I would've sensed right away the Fellini influence here.
The film tells little stories about the family(young Woody, his parents, cousin, aunts and uncles)and the radio stars("Roger and Irene", "The Masked Avenger").
However, through his character's simple narration, we come to understand Joe's fondness for the radio programmes, the stars and the stories surrounding them, with each recollection triggered by something as simple as hearing a classic song one more time.Though Woody Allen restricts himself to a role as narrator, his character's younger self is played by Seth Green, a wide-eyed young kid with flaming red hair and a huge grin.
It's narrated by Woody Allen, whose telling his story about growing up in a packed house in New York in the days of no TV and just a radio and it also follows the rise of Mia Farrow's character who starts out as a waitress and ends up a star.
The rest of the stories and characters feel like they're only in place for cynical one-liners or little gags.As in most Woody Allen movies, there's a large cast, so be on the lookout for Dianne Wiest, Jeff Daniels, William H.
Woody Allen's nostalgic look at the golden age of radio through concentration on one ordinary family and the variety of favorite shows among that household is both interesting and entertaining.
Each song Joe heard tied back to a memory from his childhood creating a perfect soundtrack to his life.Radio Days is clearly a personal film for Woody Allen.
Radio Days seems like it should be one of Woody Allen's best movies.
Radio Days (1987) *** (out of 4) Extremely well made film has Woody Allen narrating the story as he takes a look back to growing up in the late 30s and early 40s as the radio programs would have a major impact on his life.
Allen tells the story of his early days growing up in New York with his rather eccentric family and how certain radio programs stuck with him through life.
The young Allen is played by Seth Green and he does a very good job in his part as does Michael Tucker and Julie Kavner as his parents, Dianne Wiest as his aunt constantly looking for love and we get Mia Farrow playing a "radio voice" who's actually based on the career of Hedda Hopper.
The film intersperses sequences of Woody's, sorry, Joe's family life with scenes of the radio celebrities that they loved so much.
Radio Days 1987 Directed by Woody Allen Starring: Mia Farrow, Diane Wiest and Seth Green.10/10..
You can feel that Woody really liked the radio days and longs for the times. |
tt0052365 | The Vikings | The King of Northumbria is killed during a Viking raid led by the fearsome Ragnar (Ernest Borgnine). Because the king had died childless, his cousin Aella (Frank Thring) takes the throne. The king's widow, however, is pregnant with what she knows is Ragnar's child because he had raped her during that fateful raid, and to protect the infant from her cousin-in-law's ambitions, she sends him off to Italy. By a twist of fate, the ship is intercepted by the Vikings, who are unaware of the child's kinship, and enslave him.
The boy grows into a young man named Erik (Tony Curtis). His parentage is finally discovered by Lord Egbert (James Donald), a Northumbrian nobleman opposed to Aella. When Aella accuses him of treason, Egbert finds sanctuary with Ragnar in Norway. Egbert recognises the Northumbrian royal sword's pommel stone on an amulet around Erik's neck, placed there by Erik's mother when he was a child, but tells no one.
Erik incurs the wrath of his half-brother Einar (Kirk Douglas), Ragnar's legitimate son and heir, after the former orders his falcon to attack Einar, taking out one of his eyes. Erik is saved from immediate execution when the royal Court Völva Kitala (who loves Erik as a son) warns that Odin will curse whoever kills him. He is left in a tidal pool to drown with the rising tide by Ragnar's decree to avoid the curse, but after Kitala calls out to Odin making Erik himself to invoke his mercy, a strong wind shifts and forces the water away, saving him. Lord Egbert then claims him as his slave property to protect his rights, before Einar keenly aware of the weather shift can return and finish him. Egbert hopes to find an opportunity to take advantage of Erik's unknown claim to the Northumbrian kingdom.
The enmity between Erik and Einar is exacerbated when they both fall in love with the Christian Princess Morgana (Janet Leigh), who was to marry King Aella but is captured in a raid suggested by Egbert, to demand ransom and bring shame and political unpopularity pressure upon the Northumbrian monarch. During a drunken feast in the "great hall", Einar confesses his feelings to Ragnar, who tells Einar that women often need to be taken by force and grants his son to take the prisoner as his. Einar throws the guards off the ship Morgana is being held on, and begins to rape her — defying his expectations and hope for resistance, she offers none, denying him his wish to take her by aggressive force. Before things can go any further, Erik grabs Einar from behind and knocks him out easily as he was very drunk, then takes Morgana away on a small ship he had constructed for Egbert.
Erik and Morgana flee to England, along with Sandpiper (Erik's friend and fellow slave), Kitala and Morgana's maid Bridget (Dandy Nichols). Einar regains consciousness and gives the alarm, and several pursuing longships quickly gain on the fugitives. In thick fog, Ragnar's longship hits a rock and sinks, while Erik's boat is guided safely by a primitive compass, a piece of magnetite in the shape of a fish that Sandpiper obtained in a distant land. Einar, in another longship, believes Ragnar to be dead and grudgingly abandons the chase. Ragnar, however, is rescued by Erik and taken prisoner to Aella. Erik and Morgana become lovers during the trip, and she agrees to seek release from her pledge to marry Aella.
Aella orders the Viking leader bound and thrown into a pit filled with starved wolves. To give Ragnar a Viking's death (so that he can enter Valhalla), Erik, who is granted the honour of forcing him into the pit, cuts the prisoner's bonds and gives him his sword. Laughing, Ragnar jumps to his death. In response to Erik's "treason", Aella cuts off his left hand, puts him back on his ship and casts him adrift.
Erik returns to Einar's settlement, and tells his half-brother how his father died, and what had been Aella's reward for allowing Ragnar to die a Viking's death. With this revelation, and the promise that Erik will guide their ships through the fog (thus making a surprise attack possible), Einar is finally able to persuade the other Vikings to mount an invasion of Northumbria. Putting their mutual hatred aside for the moment, Einar and Erik sail for England.
The dragon longships land and the Vikings begin to move inland in force. The alarm is sounded and the terrified peasants abandon their fields and flocks and flee to take refuge within the castle. Soon the Vikings are arrayed in front of the fortress in full battle armour.
Shouting the name of "Odin!", the Vikings storm Aella's castle. In a bold move, Einar has several Vikings throw axes at the closed drawbridge that bars entrance to the castle's keep. Several of the axe-throwers are killed, but enough survive to throw their axes that a "ladder" is created for Einar to climb after he leaps across the moat to the drawbridge. He gains entry to the keep and lowers the drawbridge so that the other Vikings can overwhelm the outnumbered English. Erik and Einar both set off in search of Morgana. Erik encounters Aella instead and shoves him into the wolf pit.
Einar finds Morgana in the highest tower of the keep, he grabs and accosts her, telling her she will be his Queen. Morgana tells Einar she hates him, and loves Erik. Enraged, Einar drags her outside and calls Erik to their long-delayed battle. The two bitter rivals engage in a sword fight on top of the tower. Erik is defeated, his sword broken, but as Einar prepares to deliver the killing blow, he hesitates, having learned the truth from Morgana, and suddenly seeing Ragnar in Erik's defiant face. This gives Erik (who does not yet know they are brothers) the opportunity to fatally stab Einar with his sword's broken blade. Echoing the scene with Ragnar, Erik gives Einar a sword, so that he too can enter Valhalla. In the final scene, Einar is given a Viking funeral: his body is placed on a longship, which is set on fire by flaming arrows. | cult, action, murder, violence, historical fiction | train | wikipedia | Call me a fool, but I feel strongly that the Richard Fleischer/ Kirk Douglas 1958 film THE VIKINGS is a waiting-to-be-rediscovered masterpiece.Of the costume drama spectaculars of the 1950s-1960s, it has the most coherent script and theme.
I saw this film at the pictures a long, long time ago.I was a kid and was as wide eyeyed as any kid seeing a spectacular of comparable impact as Star Wars or Harry Paintpot or any derivative.How on earth could any little lad be less than profoundly moved by the images of of eyes being ripped out by a hawk, people being eaten by crabs, wild wolves eating people in a pit, hands being chopped of.This was a bloody massive movie and still is.I just bought it on VCR and feel like a kid again.I cannot imagine any modern kid being as equally moved but I'm sure they will come across it one day the same way I see impressive movies on TV made way before I was around.Trouble is, for some reason this film never seems to get shown on either satellite or terrestrial TV.
I highly recommend this film to those who enjoy watching Kirk Douglas, Tony Curtis, Ernest Borgnine and the others..
As the kingdom of Northumbria becomes ripe for the taking, both men, with a fancy for Princess Morganna, are heading for the revelation right in amongst their bitter rivalry.Kirk Douglas (Einar) and Tony Curtis (Eric) would both re-team for Spartacus two years after this sword and sandal swasher had hit the screens in 1958.
These Vikings may not totally convince as mead swigging, women chasing, pillagers of England, yet running along side Mario Nascimbene's terrific score and Jack Cardiff's excellent photography (the Norway location scenes are breath taking), it doesn't take much for the discerning genre fan to get swept away in it all.Douglas and Curtis give it a good blast, while Janet Leigh as Morganna perks her breasts out and actually becomes believable as a lady lusted after by two rough and ready ruffians.
Pic is often violent and features some genre moments never to be forgotten (Einar losing his eye, Ragnar and the Wolf Pit, The Running the Oars tradition), while it's also pleasing to find a director overseeing some attentive research that opens up the craftsman side of the Viking hoards.So all in all it's a fine and entertaining genre picture that's arguably more fun than dramatic gold, a film that was a fave of many who got lost in its charms all those years ago.
I hope I never get so old that I think like him and can't enjoy 'The Vikings'."It was the thrill of my brother's life as an adult to ask Kirk Douglas on a New York studio talk show, "Did you actually jump across the moat to grab onto the axes in the drawbridge door, or did a stunt man do that?"Kirk's answer was, "I wanted to do it but the insurance company wouldn't let me."Even now I love the film but two things about it bother me.
Edison Marshall's book "The Viking" on which the film is based portrays him by the name of Hastings more like the character of Barnes as played by Tom Berringer in "Platoon." In "The Vikings", Ragnar introduces his son Ainar as someone who is "so vain of his beauty, he scrapes his face like an Englishman." Hastings is not charming or vain but tough and so cruel and even sadistic that after Eric's hawk tears up his entire face (not just his eye), Hastings delights in the horrifying effect his facial scars has on the victims he kills and rapes.
But in the film, Ainar is just a good looking, charismatic, fun guy we actually pity when after crossing the poison sea, storming the castle, jumping over the moat, climbing the tower, and crashing through the stain glass window to get to the love of his life, Morgana tells him he isn't her type.The other thing that bothers me about "The Vikings" is the miscasting of blond, buxom Janet Leigh as the Welsh princess, Morgana.
This film actually holds up very well in today's show-too-much and CGI blanding effect environment.Douglas, Curtis and Borgnine run away with it all, and Janet Leigh is rather breathtaking.......Combat scenes are coarse and brutal, not "300" level, but tough nonetheless.
His son 'Ivar the Boneless' raised a Viking army, invaded Northumbria and killed Aelle.The film builds on this to include an illegitimate half-brother and rivalry over a beautiful Welsh princess to create a story of rousing, full-blooded action.The film has a great atmosphere which is hard to put into words.
But many other things happen in the meanwhile: pillaging, the boss and the prince's father (Ernest Borgnine) that dies with a sword in his hands and devoured by wolves, the Vikings go on a rampage in the castle and all the English are killed, and then the final showdown between Curtis and Douglas!
This classic ¨The Vikings (1958)¨ by Richard Fleischer packs a big name cast as Kirk Douglas , Janet Leigh and Tony Curtis .
Very well-done adventure movie following the exploits of a group of Vikings sailing on Dragon ships like serpents on the sea , the terrible Northmen led by Ragnar , Einar and Eric .
But then a slave (Tony Curtis) and a Viking prince (Kirk Douglas) fight for the love of a captive princess (Janet Leigh) and assault an impregnable fortress .
There's other more obvious and impersonal connections like they both star Kirk Douglas and Tony Curtis where a sword fight takes place between their characters , everyone seems to speak in either British or American accents no matter where their character is supposed to be from and there's a fight between the good guys and bad guys at the end Having said all that SPARTACUS is by far the better movie because it's got a better story , production values and cast .
Kirk Douglas plays Einar, son of the great Viking warrior Ragnar (Ernest Borgnine).
Big budget, starry-cast, historical, make that almost pre-historical, action movie where a one-eyed Kirk Douglas plays a rumbustious (that's putting it mildly) Viking prince and his unwitting half-brother Tony Curtis (the offspring of Douglas's dad, King Ragnar's, rape of the British queen on a previous raid, years before) a soon-to-be one-handed British slave who are both vying for the love of Welsh princess Janet Leigh, whilst Ernest Borgnine as Ragnar eggs his boy on from the sidelines.
There's also a minor sub-plot about the Vikings crossing the water to remove from power the new, cruel, usurping English king who's tricked Curtis's Eric out of his birthright to be king himself and who to seal the deal just happens to get himself betrothed to the young Leigh.The movie is beautifully shot in natural light in and around actual Norwegian fjords which look superb in big-screen colour and the recreation of the Viking long-boats by the film's carpenters is also remarkable, but if I'm starting a review by praising the backgrounds, it probably means there's a want in the foreground, and so it proves.Douglas's boorish Einar looks old enough to be Eric's half-father and his usually drunken behaviour hardly endears him to the viewer.
The object of their affections, Janet Leigh, appears able to bewitch these two the minute they clap eyes on her, which I suppose is fair enough as she does look lovely in her robes, but she's not really required to do much between simpering and occasionally seething.There are some odd scenes of I presume authentic old Viking customs, if you exclude feasting, drinking and womanising on a Henry VIII scale that is, like "walking the oars" and strangest of all the method of proving a wife's infidelity which involves putting her in a set of stocks, then nailing up her outstretched hair plaits and inviting her allegedly cuckolded husband to free her by throwing axes to sever her plaits.
In the genre of adventures, this is an excellent film, which has acting of good actors, such as Kirk Douglas, Tony Curtis together with the usual supporting work of Ernest Borgnine and then beautiful Janet Leigh.
There's also lots of action, a very well developed final sword duel in the towers of a castle and a romantic mix that has to do with the plot.Kirk Douglas (Einar) is perfect as the fearless and arrogant viking warrior that gets obsessed with a Welsh princess and will do anything to have her.
Frank Thring's vicious king of England (Aella) is perfect too (you can easily imagine where and how he will end and you look forward to it).If you like action and adventure epics this is one film you can't miss.
The rest of the movie is a struggle between the brothers as they fight for love of Janet Leigh, inheritance from Ernie, and other Viking-ish issues, like Valhalla, ships, war, and the treatment of prisoners.Personally, I liked Ulysses better, but if you want to see the husband and wife team act together, or if you particularly like Tony Curtis-I don't, really-you might make it through this one relatively unscathed.
Whether your gag reflex or giggle switch kicks in first with 1958's The Vikings, a thoroughly ridiculous, laughable, and nauseating plundering of Scandanavian history, is completely up to your taste in such moronic nonsense.Odin-and hopefully you-will cringe at the embarrassing spectacle of Kirk Douglas, Tony Curtis, and Janet Leigh (plus Ernest Borgnine) making complete fools of themselves in a tenth century love triangle.
this film is adapted from about 20% of Marshall's novel"The Viking".And ,like some many adaptations,looses a great deal in the translation.The original story involves brutality,lust,incest,murder,fratricide,regicide,infanticide,and parracide.(The only one it doesn't have is suicide.)If you anything about Freud's postulated "Oedipus Complex',you wouldn't have any trouble picking it up in that book;it practically jumps out and bites you on the nose.Most of this is left out(thank goodness)of the film.Most of the characters are much more wholesome than the originals,for which let us thank heaven.Borgnine,as Ragnar,is brutish and rough,but nowhere near as malevolent as his blueprint.Much the same can be said of Douglas,as Einar.And if you can accept Douglas and Curtis as Jewish vikings(Issur Danielovich and Bernie Schwartz,respectively)it goes a long way in accepting this film.Those points aside,it's really quite well done.The vikings act like a gang of bikers on Halloween(which is most likely the way they really lived),and Leigh is splendidly cast as the Princess.(Obviously based on her heroine in Prince Valiant).Thring,as Aella,however,is much more slimey and evil than was the novel's,and he drips venom in a performance that is a joy to watch.Not at all subtle,but he adds a new dimension to the term'"scenery-chewing".I wondered why,after Borgnine's jump into the wolfpit,Thring cuts off Curtis' hand.Maybe it's because Curtis gave Ernie the sword,and,as a consequence,several of the pet wolves were killed.Maybe Aella should have contacted the SPCA,and then sued him ,instead..
Kirk Douglas is my favorite living actor, and despite the fate of hischaracter in this film, "The Vikings" is one of my all-time favorites.Like many of the reviewers, I saw it when I was about 11.
This movie is guaranteed to set the pulses of any red blooded viewer racing.It pulsates with vibrant action and splendid period atmosphere; Kirk Douglas was born to play the role of Einar and he extracts every bit of menace and finally pathos as a warrior whose love for the wrong woman finally destroyed him.Tony Curtis shows restraint in his role and is free of the too eager to please grinning and mugging which marred his later performances.The action is the thing here,however,and what action it is;the final attack by the vikings on the English castle is a stupendous spectacle with swords,axes,grappling hooks used aplenty as a horde of expert stuntmen have the time of their lives whilst the truly magnificent score by Mario Nascimbene provides suitable accompaniment to their lusty adventures.With wonderful scenery,convincing performances and enough testosterone to launch a 100 longships,"THE VIKINGS" is a gloriously sadistic and savage experience that belies its 1958 vintage,disengage your brain and revel in this serio-comic romp which should be in the video collection of any true action fan..
Trust me, if you like adventure movies, especially historically rooted ones, you'll get a big thrill out of this flick.THE STORY: Einar (Kirk Douglas) and Eric (Tony Curtis) are -- unknowingly -- half-bothers, the sons of Ragnar (Earnest Borgnine), a Viking leader.
Although the Norman-style stone castle is anachronistic, as are the Brit defender's apparel & equipment, viewing "The Vikings" is the next best thing to going back in time and seeing real Vikings.Here are some miscellaneous thoughts on the picture: The film is very brutal: hands get chopped off, faces get mutilated, people are thrown into a pit of wolves, etc.I never knew how beautiful Janet Leigh was until I saw this movie (she doesn't appear very attractive, for instance, in "Psycho").Watch out for Kirk Douglas' "running of the oars" scene.
Tony Curtis has one of his finest dramatic roles in movies, and Kirk Douglas and Ernest Borgnine give first rate performances.
Orson Welles provides some opening narration about the 9th century Northumbria setting, but doesn't reveal much about the plot of "The Vikings" - it isn't easy, but we are supposed to gather enough information, early on, to figure out co-stars Kirk Douglas (as Einar) and Tony Curtis (as Eric) are half-brothers, due a Viking rape by bacchanalian Ernest Borgnine (as Ragnar).
Back then, "men were men, and women were women"; you tried to hold on to your life and body parts, but didn't fret about on losing either.****** The Vikings (6/11/58) Richard Fleischer ~ Kirk Douglas, Tony Curtis, Janet Leigh, Ernest Borgnine.
In Vikings, we see a group of those Norse explorers and warriors that worseship Odin and battle till the end.The king of Northumbria is killed during a Viking raid, led by Ragnar.The king died childless, therefore his cousin Aella takes the throne.But queen Enid bears a secret, she's carrying a child.But the child is not procreated by the king, but by Ragnar who raped her.She has to protect the child from her cousin-in-law, so she sends the child to Italy.But she puts a sword's pommel stone on an amulet around her son's neck.Twenty years later the son, Erik, is a Viking slave.He incurs the wrath of his half-brother Einar, after he orders his falcon to attack Einar, taking out one of his eyes.Both of the brothers also fall for the same woman, princess Morgana, who is supposed to marry King Aella.Einar captures the princess in a raid.The Vikings (1958), a great movie directed by Richard Fleischer.Some legendary names in this movie.Kirk Douglas plays Einar.Tony Curtis is Erik.
Too bad Janet Leigh isn't.Leigh, who was married to Curtis at the time, does a terrific job playing Morgana in the movie.This movie is loaded with big and massive moments.One of them is when Tony escapes with Janet on a boat and the ship of the vikings is wrecked.Or when they attack the king's castle with the rocks keep coming on them from the catapults.And when Kirk and Tony have their final battle with swords.This movie makes you feel like you are there, in the age of the Vikings..
Kirk Douglas, Tony Curtis, Ernest Borgnine, and Janet Leigh (along with a strong supporting cast) helped make this one of the best movies of its kind in the late fifties.
As others have pointed out, the role of bullying, aggressive Einar was tailor-made for a natural athlete like Kirk Douglas, while Ernest Borgnine does an equally convincing job as his ebullient, barbaric father, the Viking king, Ragnar.
The three leading roles are played by three of the most versatile actors of the day, namely Kirk Douglas who plays Einar, the boisterous elder son of Ragnar (Ernest Borgnine) the Chiefton of the Clan and Tony Curtis who is Eric, the illegitimate son from the same father.
There certainly was a sense of adventure and grand epic about the movie."The Vikings" had a pretty impressive cast, which included two of the biggest Hollywood stars of the day; that being Kirk Douglas and Tony Curtis, of course.
Little does he realise, but slave Eric (Tony Curtis) is not only illegitimate heir to the throne of Northumbria, but also half-brother to viking warrior Einar (Kirk Douglas), with whom he has a bitter feud.
When the Norsemen kidnap Welsh princess Morgana (Janet Leigh) and hold her for ransom, the unknowing half-brothers fight for her affection.In 1960, Stanley Kubrick directed celebrated historical classic Spartacus, starring Kirk Douglas and Tony Curtis; two years earlier, Douglas and Curtis had appeared together in another historical adventure, The Vikings, which, as far as I'm concerned, is the superior film—less epic, perhaps, but far more entertaining than Kubrick's movie.
It's got a testosterone-fuelled performance from Douglas, Curtis as the dashing hero, Ernest Borgnine as a lovable viking rogue, a marvellous villain (Frank Thring as loathsome King Aella), and Janet Leigh as a beautiful princess, as well as stunning locations, wonderful cinematography, great production values, and, best of all, a huge sense of fun, the action and adventure imbued with humour.Highlights include Kirk Douglas hopping across the oars of a viking long-ship, the use of throwing axes to prove the innocence of an unfaithful viking woman, Eric's daring escape by boat on a foggy fjord, and the rousing finale, in which Eric and Einar temporarily put their differences aside to storm King Aella's castle..
Douglas and Tony Curtis as Erik both make dashing heroes, and there are also good performances from Curtis's real-life wife Janet Leigh as the lovely Morgana, Ernest Borgnine as Ragnar and Frank Thring as the villainous Aella.
But his existing son Einar (Kirk Douglas) is unaware he has a half brother and grows to hate Eric especially after the Vikings attack an English ship and abduct the princess Morgana (Janet Leigh) whom both sons desire.
Kirk Douglas and Tony Curtis play half-brothers Einar and Eric, sons of Ragnar, portrayed with his usual flair by Ernest Borgnine. |
tt4077768 | Amor eterno | At age 10, Carlos fled the interior of Minas Gerais, tired of the abuse of his stepfather Virgílio. Carlos had the special ability to tame animals with a gesture or look, which Virgílio exploited to make money. After running away, alone and lost on the road, the boy met Xavier, a charitable truck driver who took him to the Island of Marajó, in Pará. Carlos became his adopted son.
Years passed. Carlos became an attractive man and competent buffalo herder. Known in the neighborhood by the nickname Barão (Baron), for his intelligence and skill, he catches the eye of Valeria, the daughter of local traders, who refuses to accept that he does not return her affections.
Carlos remains infatuated with the memory of a childhood sweetheart. Before he ran away from home, Carlos fell in love with his neighbor, Elisa. Playing together, they fell into an innocent childhood love and promised to love each other forever and get married one day, when they were grown. But when he ran away they were separated, and so many years passed that even if he were to meet Elisa again he would probably not recognize her.
In the city of Rio de Janeiro, meanwhile, Verbena Borges, a kindly millionaire and widow of one of the biggest businessmen in Rio, even ill and near death, searches for her only son, Rodrigo, who disappeared more than 20 years ago. Verbena never understood whether the boy was kidnapped or ran away, without even suspecting that her former husband, Virgílio, had anything to do with it.
Verbena's sister Melissa does not want Verbena to rediscover the child, for inheritance reasons. In the search for her heir, Verbena also has the help of the two daughters of her physician, Dr. Gabriel: Clara, a sensitive girl with telepathic powers, and Miriam, a beautiful journalist, who falls in love with Carlos without ever suspecting that he is in fact Rodrigo Borges, Verbena's missing son. | romantic, avant garde, queer | train | wikipedia | lugubrious student - teacher infatuation. This film from the director who made Animals (2012), replicates the same quietly brooding atmosphere as aforementioned film. A shy introvert teenage boy accidentally crosses paths with his teacher in a cruising area in the local woods, and thereafter attempts to strike up a love affair with him. The romance that ensues is of a tenebrous kind. Moreover, strange secondary characters and bizarre incidents foreshadow something gloomy to occur.There are two scenes in the film, that can be considered Indie music videos. These two featured songs make for nice little sidescapes from the main mood of the film, whilst suiting the narrative perfectly.. Meat Lovers Special. Summary: In a forest on the outskirts of Barcelona, couples (and groups) of various persuasions and inclinations meet for sexual congress. Also in this forest, there exists a group of broken-hearted cannibals who seek either revenge or eternal love (or perhaps both) by eating the lovers who jilted them. It is in this forest where our protagonists Carlos, a university instructor of Chinese, and Toni, one of his students and also a member of the group of jilted cannibals, meet, have a sexual liaison in the back of Carlos' car, and then part company. Carlos intends for this to be a one-time exchange. Toni, on the other hand, hopes for more. Neither Carlos' nor Toni's motivations are explored beyond the backseat of Carlos' car. Carlos somewhat coldly rebuffs Toni's further pursuit. Despite his sexual infatuation, Toni enlists the assistance of his group of heartbroken cannibal friends to do what they do. One night, Toni asks Carlos for a ride home from school. When Carlos' car won't start, three of Toni's cannibal friends happen by and offer to drive Carlos and Toni home. The quartet of horny cannibals taunt Carlos into inviting them in for a drink. Carlos, either not sensing danger, or perhaps drawn by it, agrees to bring the whole party home. After Toni and Carlos engage in one final sexual exchange (Spoiler: Carlos is versatile, in an equal-opportunity kind of way, i.e. he flips with gusto), the other cannibals come into the post-coital bedroom, Toni bonks Carlos on the head with a blunt object, Carlos regains consciousness only to find himself chained down, Toni stabs Carlos in the heart, then engages in an act of eternal love by eating Carlos' heart while the rest of the cannibals consume the rest of Carlos. They then leave Carlos' burned remains hanging in the forest to be found. The End. I experienced this delightfully uplifting film presented as part of the Newfest Queer Horror Night, though Mr.Forés appears to fancy it as more of a love story thana horror film. For me, this film failed on both counts. Forés' work suffers by projecting image and mood over coherent narrative. Where thebest horror films are grounded in some degree of plausible reality,Forés' work suffers by failing to develop a realistic context in whichthe acts of extreme horror occur. The forest seems like an unreal'otherworld' from the beginning. The film also fails to develop anyempathy for, or identification with, or understanding of the protagonists. They are little more than sex-driven zombies. Thus the viewer is left with unsympathetic characters in an implausible context, to be bombarded by the director's visual and aural whimsy. The sex is not sexy, the graphic is not particularly extreme, and the horror is mostly banal. In the after-film Q&A, Mr.Forés attempted to invoke Dalí's supposed quote that "Cannibalism is one of the surest signs of affection." as inspiration for this mercifully brief (69-minute...69 HA! I get it!) snuff film. Forés seems however to have divorced Dalí's metaphor for the Spanish Civil War from its context, and in Amor Eterno serves the notion raw and literal. Unfortunately, appropriating an outrageous verbal confection by Dalí is not nearly enough to elevate this failed video project into art.. There should be a "minus star" system for garbage like this. Middle age teacher falls for young student, ends up getting eaten by same, then burned and skeleton hanged from tree. Delightful. Sick minds making movies. |
tt0089991 | Sense and Sensibility | On his deathbed, Mr. Dashwood tells his son from his first marriage, John, to take care of his second wife and three daughters, Elinor, Marianne, and Margaret, since they will inherit nothing. John's greedy and snobbish wife Fanny convinces him to give his half sisters practically nothing financially; John and Fanny immediately install themselves in the large house, forcing the Dashwood ladies to look for a new home. Fanny invites her brother Edward Ferrars to stay with them. Elinor and Edward soon form a close friendship, but Fanny haughtily tells Mrs. Dashwood that Edward would be disinherited if he married someone of no importance with no money. Mrs. Dashwood understands her meaning completely.
Sir John Middleton, a cousin of the widowed Mrs. Dashwood, offers her a small cottage house on his estate, Barton Park in Devonshire. She and her daughters move in, and are frequent guests at Barton Park. The Dashwoods meet the older Colonel Brandon, who falls in love with Marianne at first sight. However, Marianne considers him an old bachelor, incapable of feeling love or inspiring it in another.
One afternoon, Marianne takes a walk with Margaret and slips and falls in the rain. She is carried home by the dashing John Willoughby, with whom Marianne falls in love. They spend a great deal of time together, but on the morning she expects him to propose marriage to her, he instead leaves hurriedly for London. Unbeknownst to the Dashwood family, Brandon's ward Beth, the illegitimate daughter of his former love Eliza, is pregnant with Willoughby's child. Willoughby's aunt Lady Allen disinherited him upon discovering this.
Sir John's mother-in-law, Mrs. Jennings, invites her daughter and son-in-law, Mr. and Mrs. Palmer, to visit. They bring with them the impoverished Lucy Steele. Lucy confides in Elinor that she and Edward have been engaged secretly for five years, dashing Elinor's hopes of a future with him. Mrs. Jennings takes Lucy, Elinor, and Marianne to London, where they meet Willoughby at a ball. He greets Marianne uncomfortably and barely acknowledges their acquaintance, and they soon learn he is engaged to the extremely wealthy Miss Grey. Marianne becomes inconsolable.
Lucy is invited to stay with John and Fanny, as a way for Fanny to avoid inviting the Dashwood sisters to visit them. Lucy, falsely believing that she has a friend in Fanny, confides her clandestine engagement to Edward and is thrown out of the house. Edward's mother demands that he break off the engagement. When he refuses, she arranges to have his fortune transferred to his younger brother, Robert. On hearing this, Colonel Brandon offers Edward the parish on his estate, feeling sympathy for the unfortunate but honorable Edward.
On their way home to Devonshire, Elinor and Marianne stop for the night at the country estate of the Palmers, who live five and a half miles away from Willoughby's estate. Marianne cannot resist going to see the estate; she becomes gravely ill trekking up a hill in a torrential rain. Colonel Brandon finds her in the rain and brings her home. Elinor stays at her side until she recovers, and the sisters return home. Colonel Brandon and Marianne begin spending time together, as Marianne has a new appreciation for him. She admits to Elinor that even if Willoughby had chosen her, she was no longer convinced that love would have been enough to make him happy.
The Dashwoods soon learn that Miss Steele has become Mrs. Ferrars and assume that she is married to Edward. Later when Edward visits their house, they learn that Miss Steele unexpectedly jilted him in favor of his brother Robert, and Edward is thus released from his engagement. Edward proposes to and marries Elinor. Edward becomes a vicar, under the patronage of Colonel Brandon, whom Marianne marries. Willoughby is seen watching their wedding from a distance, and then rides away. | romantic | train | wikipedia | This 3-hr miniseries seems to me much more faithful to the novel than the 1995 film by Ang Lee and Emma Thompson.
I find Edward a credible character and the love affair between him and Elinor skilfully and sensitively portrayed.
(They make a much more convincing couple than stuttering Hugh Grant and Miss Thompson...) Best of all, the relationship between the two sisters : their tenderness and love in spite of their very different temperaments is convincingly depicted.
I just felt the 1995 adaptation missed that aspect which made Elinor hysterics at ill Marianne's bedside all the more absurd and ill-timed.
In this miniseries, there are no such hysterical scenes during Marianne's illness, Mrs Jennings is there just as in the book.
The advantage this television version has over the later 1995 film version directed by Ang Lee is that due to its length it allows more important scenes to be shown.
This good BBC version keeps in the visit of Edward Ferrers to Barton Cottage and of Willoughby to see Marianne when she is ill.
It is important when doing Jane Austen not to over act, as suppression makes for tension, and in this the actors do a fine job.
The scenes between Elinor Dashwood and Lucy Steele are excellent, seething and polite at the same time.
Julia Chambers as Lucy Steele is excellent and equally as good as Imogen Stubbs in the 1995 film.The male actors are not all bland, Donald Douglas gives a jolly performance and Peter Gale is perfectly unctuous as John Dashwood, but also sympathetic, caught as he is between a domineering wife and mother in law.
Bosco Hogan and Robert Swann are a bit dull however.This is not a sumptuous Hollywood version but fine on its own terms..
Bosco Hogan did a very good job as the self-effacing Edward, and Douglas' portrayal of Sir John Middleton was so lively that as far as the interpretation of this character is concerned, the later S&S actor seems to have borrowed heavily from prior precedent.
This 1981 series is very good though, only let down in my opinion by an abrupt ending and Robert Swann's dull Colonel Brandon.
The script while not as witty as the Ang Lee film is still literate and true in spirit to Jane Austen's language, and the story while not quite exploring a couple of scenes as well as the 2008 series is still moving and not too rushed or leisurely, in fact it adopts a slow(but never laborious) pace that was perfect considering how the story of the book unfolds.
Of the two sisters Mariann and Elinor the Mariann of Tracey Childs I found better.
Irene Richard is excellent in her scenes between Julia Chambers' Lucy Steele, and is closer than age than Emma Thompson as well as spikier and more confrontational, an approach I liked.
Julia Chambers' Lucy is wonderfully catty, Donald Douglas gives a performance of jollity as Sir John, Peter Gale is a sympathetic John Dashwood and Bosco Hogan and Peter Woodward are a dashing Edward and Willoughby respectively.
All in all, I liked it very much, though of the three Sense and Sensibility adaptations I've seen thus far it is my least favourite.
There was a much more book and a more through representation of all the minor characters in this movie than in the 1995 Sense and Sensibility directed by Ang Lee and staring Kate Winslet, Emma Thompson.
However the 1981 BBC miniseries was seriously lacking in a couple vital points, the omission of the youngest Dashwood daughter, Margaret and this viewer found the leads of Marranne and Elinor to be so abysmally portrayed I really didn't care a bit about what happened to their characters.
Over all, for the Austen fan this is a must see movie, but only for the more complete story and representations.
An excellent adaptation of the Austen novel, though the production values can`t compare with the later film.
Having watched the 1995 movie for the first time a few days ago,I decided to watch this fine BBC production again,and found it the more satisfying of the two.The acting was of a good standard;Tracey Childs splendid as Marianne,and Bosco Hogan's interpretation of Edward Ferrers far exceeded Hugh Grant's peculiar effort in the Ang Lee film.The direction and location filming in Dorset/Somerset and the authentic early 1800's feel more than compensated for the budget constraints.Also,Willoughby's telling confession to Eleanor as Marianne lay seriously ill upstairs was,thankfully,retained,unlike the 1995 version.A good miniseries,more Jane Austen than it's "grander" successor!Nine out of ten!.
I really like Jane Austen and normally i like TV-series of her work more then a movie ( i think the 1971 TV-series of Emma is great).
Also there is no chemistry between Elinor and Edward.Irene Richards ( Elinor ) has not done much TV / film work after this series and that should come as no surprise.
I was not very fond of it originally but I found I actually liked it a lot more seeing it again so soon after the 1971 version.
I've been able to watch and enjoy the smaller, TV-mini-series versions of Austen's novels as much (or even more) than their big, film-versions, but this just didn't work.
Although it does follow austen's novel, the camera work is lousey, its as if you are watching a play, close ups are rare and when done, you find yourself half way up the actor's nose.
All in all, this movie is terrible and if you're trying to get a friend to fall in love with Austen DO NOT SHOW THEM THIS!
This movie will make even a hardcore lover of Austen to think twice about her work.
But in her version, Emma Thompson really saw potential in the character of Margaret to add some cute one-liners and bring some comic relief.
She expanded the character rather than deleting it, and it's easy to see which way worked better.There's no comic relief in this version at all.
This focuses too much on the Elinor/Edward factor and doesn't put any real energy in the Marianne/Willoughby/Brandon triangle - a real misfortune because I always found the latter plot line far more interesting.Irene Richard does turn in an acceptable performance as Elinor.
To Childs's defense, let's note that she had the most wooden and irritating actors playing her suitors, while Winslet had the incredibly handsome Alan Rickman and Greg Wise.All in all, this version just falls short in too many ways.
Excellent version of a great novel.
The Dashwood sisters are forced to leave their home because their elder half-brother inherits the estate after their father dies.Elinor Dashwood (played by Irene Richard) represents "sense." She is practical and pragmatic.
Marianne Dashwood (Tracey Childs) represents "sensibility." The meaning of this word has drifted over the years.
In Austen's time its meaning was closer to "sensitivity." Marianne is the romantic sister.
Three were made for television by the BBC, and the fourth was a theatrical film from 1995 directed by Ang Lee, and starring Emma Thompson as Elinor and Kate Winslet as Marianne.We have recently watched all four versions.
What the directors emphasize, and how the actors respond,gives each version different strengths and weaknesses.In my opinion, Irene Richard and Tracey Childs embody the characters that Austen created better than in any other version.
Peter Woodward makes the perfect John Willoughby, the romantic hero with whom Marianne is in love.
To me, this version looked and felt closer to Austen than any of the others.It's not clear to me why other IMDb members didn't appreciate this movie.
I loved it, and I recommend it as the Sense and Sensibility to watch if you're only going to watch one version.
Emma Thompson(Elinor) in the 1995 version scripts herself more time on screen compared to Kate Winslet(Marianne).This version focuses on BOTH of the sisters equally.
This version is far more faithful to the novel than the movie made in 1995.
This version of Austen's novel of love, romance, greed, and jealousy, stars Irene Richard as Elinor and Tracey Childs as Marianne.
It omits completely the youngest sister (which is a shame) but manages to make more of the characters of Edward Ferrars, Willoughby, and Lucy Steele than the more modern feel version written and featuring Emma Thompson a decade later.However, the first two or three episodes are dull rather than diverting, and only when Marianne needs help and a suitor most do things get interesting.
It may not have the high-profile romantic leads that the 1990s version did, but it manages to be touching and effective in the end episode.The episodic nature of this adaptation (7 parts of around 45 minutes each) doesn't really help and it leaves you thinking whether there is really enough to this tale to stretch through many episodes that don't say very much..
The acting is very dull, Marianne is a complete idiot and is very annoying, and Edward Ferrars is almost too awkward to watch.
However, following the piercing, hysterical shrieks of Fanny Dashwood after she is told of Lucy Steele's engagement - which seem to last for several minutes and was very effective in rousing our attention - the story suddenly becomes far more chaotic, but certainly not dull.
In the 1970s and 1980s, the BBC dramatised all Austen's six completed novels.
They reached a high note with Fay Weldon's definitive Pride and Prejudice, which is still the benchmark for screen adaptations of Austen (and far superior to the syrupy 1995 version).
In recent years it has also suffered by comparison with Emma Thompson's masterly movie adaptation.This version has the advantage of an extra hour in which to tell the story.
It can include characters that Thompson had to omit, such as Lucy's silly elder sister and Lady Middleton and her spoilt children and can include scenes that she had to cut (in particular the confrontations between Elinore and Lady Ferrars and Elinore and Willoughby).
Similarly, Thompson's Elinore and Rickman's Colonel Brandon are a dozen years older than Austen's characters.
Overall, it feels like a more faithful adaptation of the book.However, this is not necessarily important.
Because Emma Thompson knew she was going to have to condense the story she had to think much more carefully about what she wanted to get from the book.
She dramatises the process of Elinore and Edward falling in love (Austen simply tells us this has happened in the prologue).
In the book, Marianne and Willoughby fare better, but her eventual husband, Colonel Brandon, also disappears for long stretches and there is relatively little interplay between the two rivals.
Emma Thompson realised that the key relationship is actually that between the sisters and that is what she puts at the heart of the story.
Irene Richards (who was a superb Charlotte Lucas in P & P) plays Elinore as somewhat more spiky and confrontational than did Emma Thompson.
Tracy Childs is a good Marianne, but perhaps too much of a spoilt brat at times.
I have a lot of time for Bosco Hogan's Edward and Peter Woodward's Willoughby.
This is a question of fudging simple plot points, but far more inexplicable is the fact that when Willoughby turns up in the middle of the night to see Marianne he is apparently unaware that she is ill - that was the reason he came!Although I think this is probably the most disappointing of the six BBC Austens (Northanger Abbey is less satisfactory but more inventive), it is still a decent enough production and I am glad to have it in my collection.
I would recommend it to anyone that wants a more complete version of the book than Thompson and Ang Lee were able to give us.
The major strength of this production as compared to the 1995 version is the character of Marianne, which in turn changes and deepens the relationship of the two sisters, Marianne and Elinor.
Here, Marianne declines an improper gift from Willoughby (a horse) after Elinor explains its impropriety (this incident is not in the 1995 version), and overall, she does not let the fact that she is more passionate than Elinor lead her to be dismissive of Elinor.
Thus it is possible to see why these two might be close, even before Marianne discovers how much emotion Elinor has in fact been feeling since learning of Edward Ferrars' secret engagement.
And later, when their greedy brother asks them to cut-off all relations with Edward Ferrars (a scene not in the 1995 version), and Elinor springs up and refuses, Marianne also springs up and says "bravo" and then the two sisters walk out arm-in-arm.
I liked the portrayal of the Marianne character better in this version than in the 1995.
However, I have a particular fondness for the actress here who plays Elinor, Irene Richard, because she also plays Charlotte Lucas in the 1985 BBC Pride and Prejudice, one of my great favorite productions that I have seen many times.
While good sense is a hallmark of both characters, she portrays them differently; it is impossible to imagine her Elinor Dashwood marrying a buffoon as did her Charlotte Lucas marry Mr. Collins in P&P, or defer to such a one as Lady Catherine de Bourgh.
I particularly liked her in a scene not in the 1995 version, where Willoughby comes to the Palmer's house in the night, drunk and wanting to see Marianne (not knowing she is very ill) and Elinor treats him with the blunt coldness he so richly deserves.
An enjoyable faithful version that most Austen Fans would savor..
The exclusion of the youngest sister only bothered me for a bit and then I forgot about it.At one point Tracey Childs, as Marianne was supposed to be ill and characters kept commenting on her thinness.
Also I was often distracted by Irene Richard's (Elinor)makeup.She often looked like she was wearing a milk mustache and I kept wanting to fix her lipstick!!
Peter Woodward was a particularly attractive Willoghby and it was very believable that he would appeal to Marianne.However,Robert Swann as Colonel Brandon was also very attractive,more so than the book indicated.
I would recommend this to anyone who will watch anything Austen and those who enjoy older BBC productions..
I was looking forward to seeing another version of this, having just read the book again.
Overall, the acting seemed to me to be pale and rather lifeless, as though many characters simply read their lines with little true feeling at all.
The addition of Lucy Steele's older sister and Lady Middleton added nothing--in the book they were amusing in their way, but here, no; Miss Steele's goofiness was not really shown, which would be the only reason to include her.
Half the time Eleanor was dressed in the dull colors of a nun, and even many of Mary Ann's dresses looked ill-fitted and sloppily made, like something in a high school play!
Though Lucy was catty in her way, she lacked the force of character of the conniving bitch she was in the book--she was MUCH more interestingly played in Ang Lee's film!
OH so much more convincing than anything in this film's version of Brandon!As for the general direction, it was rather dull--at least in Ang Lee's film they did something besides sit around and sew!
Ang Lee's version, for all it's faults, has far better acting, a more lively cast, more interesting interplay between the characters, far better costumes, and honestly....I may have to watch it yet again, just to get the bland taste of this one out of my mind!.
I enjoyed the fact that many good moments of the novel are presented in this TV version that you cannot see in the movie, for lack of time.
For example, the scene at Mrs Ferrars' little party, which shows the Steeles trying to make themselves liked by the lady, or when Willoughby comes back for an explanation.
Whereas I can truly believe in Elinor's love for Edward in the 1995 movie version with Emma Thompson, while believing at the same time in the utmost importance of her attempts at keeping her true feelings secret, in this case, I thought Irene Richard was absolutely not able to convey neither one of these feelings.
Tracey Child in the role of Marianne has moments that are OK, but she overplays terribly most of the time, especially during her illness.
One of the actors I enjoyed more was Colonel Brandon, who was not hamming it up, and would let his love for Marianne shine through his facial expressions, his tone of voice.
The best scene with him is when he starts talking about poetry with Marianne, and she starts seeing him in a new light; you don't see this change of heart as much in the 1995 movie version.
Anyway, for a true Jane Austen lover, this version of Sense and Sensibility might be interesting for curiosity value and for the fact that it portrays a few scenes that you don't see elsewhere, but other than that, it's really not great at all..
I don't think this is the worst movie ever made by any means but I did not like it at all.
Sure, it tells the story well enough, but the acting really is atrocious.The Dashwood Ladies (the mom and Mrs. John Dashwood included) all did a decent job, as well as Edward, Willowby, and Colonel Brandon.
I would think, if your sister has fainted, you would feel like maybe you should move a little quicker.
Mrs. Jennings had good moments but I was totally thrown off by her closeup after Elinor tells her off; and she never came back from that for me.Basically, I would say go with the 1995 version, there is excellent acting, better looking people, better cinematography (it isn't really the movie's fault that it's so bad in that department since it was in 1981), the stuff that needs to be in there is, and they don't add anything too Hollywood to it. |
tt0212579 | Blackadder Back & Forth | The film opens at Blackadder Hall where the present day Lord Blackadder (Rowan Atkinson) is entertaining guests on New Year's Eve, 1999. As a scam, Blackadder informs them he has invented a working time machine and wagers £10,000 each that he can bring back anything they ask for. His guests – Archbishop Melchett (Stephen Fry), Archdeacon Kevin Darling (Tim McInnerny), Viscount George (Hugh Laurie) and Lady Elizabeth (Miranda Richardson) – announce that, if Blackadder is to win, he must bring back a genuine Roman centurion's helmet, the actual wellingtons worn by the Duke of Wellington on the day he won the Battle of Waterloo, and a really smelly pair of 200-year-old underpants. Blackadder intends to scam his guests by dredging the items from his personal store. However, he is stunned to discover that the time machine, built by Baldrick (Tony Robinson) after plans by Leonardo da Vinci, actually works.
The pair first land in the Cretaceous Period, where they are attacked by a massive Tyrannosaurus. Baldrick uses his underpants to beat back the dinosaur, who takes one sniff and falls over dead. Lord Blackadder muses, "Fascinating. One of history's great mysteries solved. The dinosaurs were, in fact, wiped out by your pants." When attempting to reset the dials to return to the present, Baldrick reveals that this is impossible, as he never got round to writing the dates on them (meaning their first destination is 2 watermelons and a bunch of cherries).
After configuring the dials on instinct, Blackadder and Baldrick land back at Blackadder Hall at the court of Queen Elizabeth I, with Nursie (Patsy Byrne) and Lord Melchett at her side (in homage to Blackadder II). The Queen, mistaking him for his ancestor, Lord Blackadder, decides that "Edmund" is not grovelling enough and orders his beheading, unless he has a present for her. Blackadder first offers a supermarket loyalty card, upon which the Queen screams, "Kill him!" He then offers her a Polo mint, which the Queen proclaims to be "the tastiest thing in the history of the world". She rewards him with her crown, then orders him away to bring back more mints on pain of having his head crushed "like an egg".
On his way back to the machine, Blackadder literally runs into William Shakespeare (Colin Firth). After giving the Bard a ballpoint pen and receiving his autograph, Blackadder punches him in the face, remarking, "That is for every schoolboy and schoolgirl for the next four hundred years!" Blackadder tells Shakespeare that his plays are nothing but people "in stupid tights... talking total crap," then kicks him in vengeance for Kenneth Branagh's "endless, uncut, four-hour version of Hamlet". Stunned, Shakespeare asks, "Who's Ken Branagh?" Blackadder smugly retorts, "I'll tell him you said that, and I think he'll be very hurt!"
Then, Blackadder returns to the machine and tries very hard to remember how the dials were set. He then sets the dials and is happy until the time machine materializes into a space battle. Blackadder quickly realizes that they may have gone too far and resets the dials again. After that, Blackadder and Baldrick land in Sherwood Forest and are captured by Robin Hood (Rik Mayall, in similar character to Lord Flashheart). However, Robin is horrified when Blackadder begins rattling off the flaws of his lifestyle. Blackadder smugly reminds the Merry Men that they face certain death if they're caught, live in total squalor in the forest with no toilet facilities, yet give all they steal to the poor, who do nothing but "sit on their backsides," waiting for the next cash installment. Enraged, the Merry Men promptly shoot Robin full of arrows. Then Maid Marian (Kate Moss), smitten by the "gorgeous" Blackadder, proceeds to have sex with him. Baldrick later comments that "poof in tights" Will Scarlet was equally friendly. Before leaving, Blackadder takes Robin's hat as a trophy.
A further attempt to reconfigure the dials results in the time machine landing at the 1815 Battle of Waterloo. After the machine squashes the Duke of Wellington (Fry) just before he reveals his plan for defeating a flamboyant Napoleon Bonaparte (Simon Russell Beale), Blackadder steps out just long enough to steal the Duke's boots to win his bet.
One last attempt to set the dials right lands them at Hadrian's Wall in Roman Britain. The wall is being guarded by Blackadder's centurion ancestor, with a Roman-era Baldrick as his shield-carrier (reminiscent of Blackadder Goes Forth). After stealing the helmet of a Roman-era George, Blackadder and Baldrick escape just ahead of a charging wall of Braveheart-style Scotsmen wearing woad.
Back in the time machine, Blackadder is becoming more discouraged about ever going home, but Baldrick comes up with "a cunning plan". Baldrick mentions that dying men have their lives flash before their eyes and that, if Blackadder was about to drown, he might remember how the dials were originally set. Blackadder agrees with this, but instead almost drowns Baldrick in the time machine toilet. As Baldrick's life flashes before his eyes, he remembers how to set the dials to return home.
Back in 1999, the party guests are very impressed by his trophies, but due to Blackadder's interference with history, Robin Hood is completely unheard of, William Shakespeare stopped writing plays and is instead credited as the inventor of the ballpoint pen, and Britain has been ruled by the French for two hundred years following Napoleon's victory at Waterloo. Horrified by the sight of a traditional garlic pudding and Archdeacon Darling wearing a tutu and ballet slippers, Blackadder leaps back into the time machine, screaming, "We've got to save Britain!"
This is accomplished by encouraging Shakespeare, flattering Robin Hood, and preventing the death of the Duke of Wellington (presumably, Baldrick has now labeled the dials, making the machine more controllable). They then return home to collect Blackadder's winnings from the amazed partygoers. After Melchett comments what damage an "unscrupulous" person could do with a time machine, Blackadder perks up. He tells his friends to go upstairs and watch the New Year's festivities on television, assuring them he'll soon return. He and Baldrick set off again in the machine to put his "very, very, very cunning plan" into action.
The four guests sit down to watch the broadcast of the royals and the prime minister arriving at the Millennium Dome. Blackadder – now the absolute monarch King Edmund III – steps from a limousine and is joined by Prime Minister Baldrick. The King is married to the beautiful Marian of Sherwood (Kate Moss). BBC correspondent Jennie Bond gushes about the King's 98% approval ratings, the success of Baldrick's cabinet, and the dissolution of Parliament. The film ends with the Blackadders having finally triumphed, with their descendants having become the rulers of Britain and millennia from now, the ruler of the entire universe. | cult, comedy, psychedelic, entertaining, historical | train | wikipedia | Old BBC shows are lovely, so low-budget and witty and strange.To a lover of literature and history like myself, Blackadder stands as possibly the funniest sitcom of all time.
Can you image Blackadder WITHOUT this line?).Like the recent big-budget Doctor Who and Asterix films, this was criticized by fans who were disappointed that it wasn't 4 stars all the way...but a general audience can forgive the odd flaw and accept this for what it is, a delightful reunion of great British comics for one last episode of a great show..
It isn;t as good as any of the series episodes of Blackadder (though it is better than the Christmas Carol special).However, by the average standard for comedy, this is still enjoyable.
I suppose I liked it for the most part for the nostalgia value - 10 years after the last official episode, we see my favorite British comedians reunited (worth the price alone): Rowan Atkinson, Rik Mayall, Stephen Fry, Hugh Laurie...
I was lucky enough to be in London during this show's run at the Millennium Dome, and now am proud to own it as part of the new DVD Blackadder set.There are some great gags, and (for fans of British comedy) some great appearances.
I think it's great to see Tim McInnerny as more than one role in the series: Darling and Percy (and Smedly), because he's such a terrific and underrated actor, but I loved him the most as Percy and I miss that character.
Blackadder and his faithful servant Baldrick build a fake time machine from original plans in order to fool their friends into thinking that they went back in time and collected artifacts, thus winning a big bet.
However they travel back in time and accidentally change history wiping out the very characters they claimed to have met.This special was made for show in the millennium dome, however it was also shown on BBC recently.
The time traveling element is amusing and is also an excuse for some very funny scenes (Robin Hood, Jurassic Park moment) but other bits don't work as well (the current-time dinner party is weak given the cast, and the Blackadder II bit isn't very funny and just shows how good the series was).
The dialogue lacks the sharp, cruel sarcasm that the other 4 series had it tries to do it but it isn't as fresh as it once was
I guess that's the real effect of time!Atkinson is good as Blackadder but he never seems comfortable with this incarnation as he did with previous ones
perhaps because it is an one-off creation.
Of the rest of the talented cast only Rik Mayall is really funny the rest (Fry, Laurie, Richardson etc) are all weak and never as good as they were in their roles in the 4 series.
However nice cameos from Colin Firth and Kate Moss make it interesting.Overall it's worth a watch but don't expect to be anywhere near the height of the original 4 Blackadder series..
This being hyped as the last Blackadder story is a great end to a very funny series.
The plot has Edmund Blackadder trying to con his friends (played by series regulars Stephen Fry, Hugh Laurie Miranda Richardson, and Tim Mcinnery) by claiming he has built a time machine on the eve of the new century, the year 2000.
Even though a lot of people on this forum seem to think this is rubbish i think this is a great blackadder ( although not as good as the TV series i admit ), It is funny and tries to incorporate a family audience to blackadder, I saw the film @ the Dome when i was just 10 and i was laughing my head off.
There are a phew mistakes with crew visible but it is a nice short film to end the blackadder series.The crew all seem to have had a great time making the film and it was a good send off after the killing off the characters in series 4, it shows them all as very good friends and Rowan Atkinson @ his cunning best..
Great fun all the way and well worth watching, if I do say so myself.This is a single episode of Blackadder, set in 1999 + many other times in history!
The day before the millennium, Blackadder plays a prank on his companions, he shows a time machine and says he will bring back anything from the past for each person.
+ Various actors playing different parts such as Stephen Fry and Miranda Richardson.I recommend this to people who love the theme of time travelling + Blackadder and for people who like fun, mixed humour.
Its genius was manifold: it was painfully hilarious, even if some of the more elaborately syntactical dialogue now seems ill-advised; it had as its hero, as all great comedies ('Fawlty Towers', 'Seinfeld', 'The Simpsons') must, an absolute monster, an affront to decency, morality, humanity, yet our only sympathetic centre in a world of idiots and grotesques; it embodied a general post-war ethos which saw history, not as a linear narrative of progress, the eradication of disease, the greater happiness of people, the perfecting of institutions, but as an unchanging circle of tyranny, caprice and greed; it placed in history a man of modern sensibilities, and made fruitful mileage out of the gaping gap between our time and the past; it was a timely, devastating satire on Thatcherism, on a government whose me-me-me capitalism would seek to deny history and its consequences, figured in the character of Edmund, whose scams of survival and wealth are continually undone by the forces of history.
it was also lucky to have available some of the country's most expert comedians just before they became undone by acclaim, predictability, expectations and ego.So, even before this 'movie', 'Blackadder' was a time travel comedy, Edmund being definitely one of us.
When I heard that this was appearing on TV I looked forward to it with relish as I thought it would be a bonus after the generally excellent quality that the 1980's Blackadder series provided.However, despite one or two good moments this was a major disappointment.
What made this series so good was its wit (the Shakespeare bit is an exception) and that is unfortunately lacking from this effort.The best thing that resulted from watching this was looking for Blackadder material on the Web and finding the full script to the hilarious 'Blackadder's Christmas Carol'.
Atkinson, as the soul and the title of the series, challenges himself on all sorts of personas, from gullible to being cunning as a fox, his necessity on greed and humility is the fabrication of the history itself.Robinson is the apt supporter of his, on every literal sense where every now and then brilliant actors like Laurie and Fry invests their talent in, to raise the bar.
Blackadder is much more than a mere series or a period sitcom, it has memories of ours and theirs childhood that makes it long last.Blackadder Back And ForthIt swoops in all the seasons with jumping from one scene to another and reminiscing all the signature acts by installing a time travel concept and even though it is less humorisc, it still is fun to see these characters have a big dinner table conversation..
I saw it at the Dome and I have to say that I felt it was an unstructured, rushed and messy affair.The main story is that Blackadder (Rowan Atkinson) tries to play a practical joke on his 'friends' by pretending that he has built a time-machine to the exact specifications of Leonardo Da Vinci.
However, he discovers that Leonardo's machine does in fact work and he is transported to the Jurassic era, facing a T-Rex. The rest of the story follows the attempts of Blackadder and Baldrick (Tony Robinson) to get back to their own time, visiting a number of periods of history on the way.
This storyline, which could be used as a synopsis for an entire series, is squashed into a feature only about 40 minutes long, with each period visited given only about 5 minutes.As for the humour - this feature follows on from where Blackadder Goes Forth finished off.
Compared to the first two series of Blackadder, this film is complete dross with little in the way of characterisation or subtlety.The film was used at the Dome, presumably to represent British humour at the outset of the Millennium.
When you consider how many classic comedy series Britain produced in the 70's and 80's (including Blackadder and Blackadder II), the timing of the new era couldn't have been worse..
Just like any other Rowan Atkinson project, if you give him a good script and top-notch characters to work with, he will do a brilliant job and make the program memorable.
The episode looks a heck of a lot more modern than the old Blackadder series - and the idea to have Blackadder and Baldrick sailing through time in a newly-built time machine in order to win a bet is one that is original and fits well with Blackadder's historical background.Blackadder brings modern life into the Elizabethan era in an extremely funny way (he shows a Tesco Cashcard to Queen Elizabeth I - absolutely hilarious), beats up William Shakespeare, kills the Duke of Wellington and Baldrick's pants wipe out the dinosaurs.
All of these outrageous moments are successfully incorporated into the plot rather than them just being there for humorous effect - and that is what makes this episode great, as Blackadder sets off on his adventures.
It is not much of a valuable addition to any Blackadder collection, except that it is a part of history, in it's own little way.I watched it in the Millennium Dome, and for that reason was impressed with it, whilst being greatly disappointed at the same time..
You basically just get this vague impression that something funny happened, "Oh yes, this is a joke, ha, ha." This is a pity, as the material is just as funny as usual.Also, you get the impression that they were trying to make a series out of it, but in the end, just settled on editting it all together for a movie, so in a lot of ways it feels rushed.
A lot of ingenuity (Hailed from Cambridge?) and acting was superb.The fact that most of the best actors from the last three series (Tim McInnery, Stephen Fry, Hugh Laurie; etc) was cast is what makes it the supreme last Blackadder.I have not added a spoiler warning because I think this is what everyone needs to know about before watching..
I can imagine it is difficult trying to resurrect a character one hasn't played in at least a decade, but at the same time, there might have been potential to play, say, Queen Bess a bit differently, perhaps play her as the older Queen, with the lead poisoning definitely setting in.I know Tim McInnerny didn't want to play Percy anymore, but I wonder what laughs they could have gotten if they had maybe drawn a connection between Percy and Darling in one of the tableaus.Blackadder, however, seems to continue his progression as a more confident character, getting to be more and more the straight-man in a lot of the gags.
I would have liked to have seen Richard somehow reincarnated, or maybe if Robin Hood had let out Mad Gerrold's trademark cackle at one point...Altogether, it was great fun to see what the show could do with a greater budget, but at the same time there was an uneasy feeling the cast and crew were doing it more for old time's sake than to try to create a new installment of this comic saga..
When I got the video of this it was good to at last see some fresh blackadder material but it was unfortunately quite below the standards of the series I had grown to love.
It is not the best Blackadder story, but with the added bonus of a budget probably larger than all the series put together and all of the Original cast members (Atkinson, Robinson, Fry, Laurie, McInnerny, Mayall, Richardson and Patsy Byrne back as Nursie!) plus some subtle references to the series it will please the fans.
And I must say - I was positively surprised, as I had heard a lot of critical remarks about it.BA Back and Forth is a brilliant ending to one of the best comedy shows in television history.
It wraps it all up beautifully, and fans of the BA series can't help but laugh at the many in-jokes and cliches, despite having heard them a lot of times before.If you are a fan of Prince/Lord/Butler/Captain Edmund Blackadder and haven't seen this 33-minute special - call your video rental, buy it on DVD or start making a lot of phone calls to the programme managers at your local TV-station!.
Released long after on video and DVD, "Blackaddr Back and Forth" probably felt like a great way to reunite, but ultimately it has little going for it and should never have been made.To celebrate the turn of the century, Lord Edmund Blackadder (Rowan Atkinson) invited his closest friends to join him for a meal.
Using a copy of Leonardo Di Vinci's actual blueprints of a time machine, Blackadder has servant Baldrick (Tony Robinson) build a copy for a prank.
Travelling through time, Blackadder attempts to get home only to learn that time travel has potential consequences.Written by Tony Curtis and Ben Elton, this half an hour long episode probably seemed like a good idea originally.
Unfortunately however, this reunion of original staff might have been fun to make, but it's not particularly good to watch.Firstly, ignoring the issue of a Blackadder being witty and intelligent any time before the pathetic wimpy Edmund of the first series, the short scene at Hadrians Wall is incredibly mediocre.
With the notable exception of Bob, there is no woman that has really been good enough for Blackadder, and by adding Kate Moss to the mix, it just doesn't feel right.To try and say something nice about this woeful mistake, the appearance of Colin Firth as William Shakespeare is a definite plus.
Only on team for a short time, he doesn't necessarily need to put in the greatest of performances, but the way in which Blackadder insults the great bard and pokes fun at Kenneth Branagh is definitely a highlight.Sadly, apart from the short scene involving Shakespeare, there is little else positive to say about "Back and Forth".
There's a lot more to it than this--with probably the best ending of any Blackadder series.
This movie is quite fun, as you see all the cast reunited (Rowan Atkinson, Tony Robinson, Hugh Laurie, Tim McInnerny, Stephen Fry, Miranda Richardson).
The jokes (like the clotted cream one) seemed a bit forced at times to me.However, Blackadder Back and Forth wasn't bad.
(Dual and Duality is one of the funniest TV episodes I have ever seen.) I also liked how Baldrick's underpants wiped out the dinosaurs.The only bit of history that Blackadder and Baldrick didn't change!.
This short reformation of the Blackadder gang came ten years after the final series, and was put together to run in the ill-fated Millennium Dome, that Greenwich white elephant opened to celebrate the arrival of the 21st century.Blackadder has built a 'time machine' which he has put together to impress his appalling dinner guests.
Taking Baldrick with him he plans to bring back an array of disgusting items to prove he's been away - of course, it is initially a scam, but ...Through their time travel, our heroes manage to change the course of history in more than one epoch - Edmund steals Maid Marian from Robin Hood (an OTT Rik Mayall with more than a whiff of Flashheart about him); he convinces Shakespeare - a morose Colin Firth - not to be a writer (and punches him for all the boring plays he wrote); he causes Napoleon to have slightly different fortunes than history dictated (Napoleon played by the stage actor Simon Russell Beale); and so on.All the usual cast are back - alongside Rowan Atkinson and Tony Robinson there's Miranda Richardson, Stephen Fry, Tim McInnerny, and Hugh Laurie.
Richard Curtis and Ben Elton's wonderful comedy sitcom characters have returned after ten years to do a special final edition to the saga (the final member of the Blackadder family, to date).
Rowan Atkinson as Lord Edmund Blackadder and his friends George (Hugh Laurie), Melchett (Stephen Fry), Darling (Tim McInnerny) and Lady Elizabeth (Miranda Richardson) sit down to dinner to celebrate the New Year, new Century and Millennium.
It's after Baldrick and Blackadder get into the machine and pull a lever that they do actually time travel, but it was meant to be a prank!
Blackadder Back and forth is a brilliant film where favourites of the TV series' get together for New Years Eve. Blackadder and Baldrick use a time machine to win a bet between the group, however change time in the process.
Basically if you consider watching this, it is probably not the first time you have come across Blackadder.
Anyway, the entire time traveling plot and what Blackadder did in these different periods was entertaining to watch.
The bad news is that we probably didn't need it.Edmund tricks Elizabeth, Melchett, George and Darling (whatever happened to Percy?) with a fake time machine, built by Baldrick, to celebrate the millennium.
If you want a good Blackadder special try the Christmas episode or comic relief short instead..
Blackadder and Baldrick are out to fool dinner guests by pretending to go back in a time machine that Baldrick made from following some DiVinci plans, and in the process taking them for a bit of money, 10,000 British Pounds each.
Needing to put history straight, they used the time machine one more time, but when they finally returned, they also set things up for Lord Blackadder to become King of England. |
tt0425027 | Flywheel | Jay Austin (Alex Kendrick) is a car salesman who consistently cheats his customers, even to the point of overcharging his own pastor. He teaches his rotund salesmen, Bernie Meyers (Tracy Goode) and Vince Berkeley (Treavor Lokey), to do likewise. Jay occasionally attends church, but only because his wife Judy (Janet Lee Dapper) wants him to go. He also fakes giving a donation to the church. His relationships with his wife and son (Richie Hunnewell), who both disapprove of his dishonesty, deteriorate. In addition he is facing foreclosure on his lot by the bank. Jay becomes troubled in his conscience, and one day while flipping television channels, he sees a pastor preaching that "you're in the shape you're in today because of the choices you've made." Jay becomes personally convicted and becomes a born-again Christian, prompting him to change his business practices.
Jay apologizes to his pregnant wife and his son and decides to sell cars honestly from that point on. However, he is now thousands of dollars in debt and facing the loss of his dealership if he can't catch up on his payments to the bank. Jay decides not to worry about his situation and to "let God handle it," telling the Lord that it is His lot. After the two rotund salesmen, whose interactions often provide comedy, leave over a disagreement about the newly reformed business practices, a young, innocent-looking "newcomer" Kevin Cantrell (Daniel Titus) comes to Jay to work for six weeks and asks him questions, such as how he sells cars. Jay answers by saying, "Just sell the car to them by its real price and God will decide." Sales are honest, but the amounts are mediocre at best. Kevin leaves after the six weeks, but later Jay sees himself on television as part of a news investigation on car dealerships. Kevin was a carefully concealed undercover agent investigating which car dealers cheat, and the report says that Jay Austin Motors was the only honest dealership among them. The next day Jay comes to the lot and sees many people there to buy his cars. Jay even has to call his wife to help sell all the cars on the lot that day. The total of the sales above the cost of the cars is enough to cover what the banker demanded, who comes later that day and wonders where all the cars have gone.
Business continues to be brisk, and then Jay begins to feel convicted in his conscience about his dishonesty during the prior two years that he had been in business, and with his wife's encouragement decides to make restitution to all the customers he had overcharged. He also finds that the amount due them was the same as the profit he had after expenses and salaries.
Shortly thereafter, Jay is asked to do another live television interview, this time from reporter Hillary Vale (Lisa Arnold) of WALB-TV. On camera, Jay sees his now former employee Bernie saying that Jay Austin is a cheater, leading Hillary to say viewers will have to make up their own mind. However, many of his old customers (presumably all seeing the news) to whom Jay had just made restitution wasted no time to visit the lot to tell Hillary that there is more to the story. Hillary broadcasts an update 30 minutes after the prior live newscast to reflect the lot's new visitations. At home Jay's wife and son, who had been praying for Jay since the first report, also see this latest development on television, and then his wife starts to feel contractions. Jay exits the lot and rushes home to bring his wife to the hospital. She gives birth to a girl named Faith, to stand as a living reminder of Jay's newfound faith in God. At the end of the film, Jay drives away with his son in his 1958 Triumph TR3, an acquisition at the beginning of the film, which Max (Walter Burnett), his mechanic, had repaired with a newly installed flywheel (thus the film's title). | christian film | train | wikipedia | It warmed my heart and strengthened my already strong faith in God, and the way He works in our lives.We often think that God has too many big things to do and He doesn't have time for our tiny lives.
God works in big and little things, and brings blessings to our personal worlds when we are patient and have faith in Him.The production values were such that I knew this film would not waste time with special effects or high production values but instead would concentrate its focus upon the message and the story.
Flywheel makes you think, cry, laugh and praise God. This movie was only to be in one theater for a couple weeks, a very limited engagement.
Although the quality is not what movie-goers are used to, the film more than makes up for that with a great story, awesome music and terrific actors.
Within a few minutes you will forget the lack of production quality.I was not involved in the production of the movie, but I know some that were; these actors, directors, crew and all others involved, sacrificed weeks and months of time and energy to make this film the success it is.The same production company is now making a new movie, "Face the Giants." The quality has been improved and I look forward to seeing what these talented people have in store for me..
You'll see in the first five minutes that it was shot with a video camera and, while the best that could be done with a prosumer video camera, it just doesn't look like a feature film quality production.
that's when God starts working through the film.Alex and Stephen have created a fantastic story here, and one you'll want to share with others.
What it lacks in production value it makes up for in everything else...and is not even noticed within 3 minutes after the movie opens.
"Audiences have been brought to tears and happiness" is right on the box and I have personally watched this movie in a theater with hundreds of people who were shaken from their foundations...and moved to change.
Shot completely on location in South Georgia by an independent film company, the heart of the movie is bigger than Hollywood's big budget box office flops and hits.
The wife in the movie got on my nerves at first because I wanted her to tell her husband how it was, but it taught me the lesson of praying for him and waiting for God to speak to him, then she stepped in and encouraged him and stood by his side through it all.
Unlike Hostle, people in this film actually redeem themselves, life is good, and can get better, and the world is NOT falling into ruin..
I see this film and know there are people out there who want to spend their time and money on GOOD thoughts and feelings.(Thank God, or whoever your "higher power" may be).
It is a fine example of a thoughtful effort to get a point across without explosions, car chases, or four-letter slang.The writer and lead Alex Kendrick has offered up a very sincere and cleverly told story.
A couple of plot twists near the end can be seen coming from a mile away, but that doesn't really hurt the film.Certainly there's a moral, and the movie succeeds at presenting food for thought.
However, this was a very good start and I look forward to more movies by this church in the future!
By the way, I loved "Facing the Giants" too.Funniest part of the movie was the joke about how the film staff at their church only copied tapes all day and did nothing else
I'm sure they got a kick out of that!.
And the movie does not suggest that if you turn your life over to God that everything will be instantly better.
It's not very well shot, some scenes could use better transitions, some dialogue feels forced, and the sound needs work (the background noise when going from indoors to outdoors is noticeable like on any home movie camera).
So don't, whatever you do, try to compare this to today's big-budget Hollywood productions!HOWEVER, all that said, the storyline is great, and story is what makes a great film!
You'll be asking yourself, "How's it going to end?" There were a couple shake-ups I didn't see coming which made it quite interesting.I hope we see many more movies like this being produced.
This movie supposes that only addressing one of those issues is enough to solve all of his combined problems (I'll leave it to you to guess which one...) Still, chronicling one man's discovery of faith isn't this movie's problem, and in fact it could have been it's main strength; Christian values have their places in movie dramas, but this movie uses charm as an excuse for blandness and its boasted do-it-yourself/preaching attitude as a cover up for uninspired writing/acting.
It's especially painful when the movie reaches the end of the road and makes its point halfway through the running time, but then decides to spend the rest of the scenes rubbing our faces in it, making sure that it's ingrained enough in your head.
Most of all, even though this movie has a lot to say about what we should believe in, one thing the writers definitely don't believe in is a personal conscience - the power of oneself to extend goodwill to others based on right and wrong, not because a threatening God is judging everything you do.
and sorry...it is successful ONLy to people who don't like movies, and who only care about the values and themes present in it.
this movie is no doubt made by nice people who have good hearts and mean well, but when people want to use it as some sort of crusade against 'hollywood' and proof of the superiority of their personal preferences, i just have to stop it.
like i said, i have no desire to hammer this film and the people behind it, but when if you try to push this on people and, even worse, if you actually think this is as good as even the average student film, you are deranged.if you do not have either an agenda, to try and force the point that Christian media is superior, or you know someone personally involved in this film, you wont make it through.
to the people who claim that it is 'better' than anything 'hollywood' can do, well, you are sorely and sadly mistaken...and sure, you can say that it is a matter of opinion, but as someone who watches hundreds of movies, things like acting and the script and pacing do matter.this movie is for people who hate movies.
or, like i said, unless you personally know someone involved in the film, then you won't like it.if you have any standards for movies that actually involve any objective level of quality, avoid this.
Flywheel tells the story of dishonest car salesman Jay Austin who cheats his customers daily, and at home, deals with lack of commitment for his family.
Jay soon finds the error of his ways and makes his heart right with God. That's all I'm going to say about the plot, so I don't spoil anything.
A much better allegorical message would have been that the flywheel of the engine keeps it running smoothly and evens out the individual explosions/life events -- just like faith in God, etc.In all fairness, the flywheel of self-starting engines does have gear teeth round the outer edge to mesh with the pinion gear of the starter motor.
Next film you need to use subliminal messages flashing Christ/Jesus or whatever because your horrid movies are not going to save anyone.
I think God himself would turn this movie off..
Even though this movie was produced by a church in Georgia (Sherwood Baptist), with no paid actors and on a shoestring budget, it is excellent.
If the movie industry would provide the public with this type of uplifting and inspiring movie on a regular basis, they could regain much of the audience that they've alienated over the years.This movie is just as good, in its own way, as the newer Sherwood Baptist production, "Facing the Giants," which has done very well indeed.
First off, this is a great story...honesty is not the subject of many movies anymore and I commend the writers for coming up with a great story.This of course was their first movie, so from a technical standpoint there are a lot of goofs and technical things wrong.The lighting is the most prominent of these, and you do spot the microphone in one scene, but these are understandable on a very small budget from a new film maker.I really recommend this and Facing the Giants.
One thing people complain about when it comes to Christian movies is their production quality.
Everything I said about every other Kendrick movie fits here-it's funny at times and has a great, important message.
Poor low-budget acting but films message remains good throughout..
The first time I watched this film was several years ago with my Church's Youth Group and I found it hilariously ridiculous due to it's poor acting and bad cinematography over all.
The story follows the life of a crooked car salesman who finds that instead of being crooked and blatantly ripping off his customers that God is the only way to keep his business successful.
Whilst the story holds strong bear in mind that this is a low budget film, and that not all the main protagonists circumstances are presented in a way that you feel sympathetic for him, not to say that you can't though, it is just fairly difficult from my point of view.
This film had a lot of potential the story is great, if a larger Christian film producer had this in their hands it would be fairly good.
Overall I do not recommend this film to everybody as I do not think people without Christian beliefs would be able to appreciate the message as much as people who do would, due to it's poor acting.
I do think people that do have Christian beliefs or are fairly open to a film that is solely based on the fact where God is the solution to it all then yes.
Flywheel is the story of Alex Kendrick a member in good standing of a profession that's looked down on, selling used cars.
In fact it summed up the standing of the profession.And Kendrick is owner of such a lot in Albany, Georgia where this film was shot on a shoestring budget.
As is shown in Flywheel the Lord does move in mysterious ways.As a Christian film it's not a bad representation for the genre.
In other words, it's really simple.God then proceeds to work miracles, and the formerly sleazy used-car salesman has a miraculously new and wonderful life.
Maybe we'll see movies about how it's possible to be an honorable politician, or honest lawyer, or even a noble drug company executive.In spite of those negative reviewers who say otherwise, God really does work miracles today, and the miracles God typically works in people's lives are precisely like the ones described in this little gem.
The camera quality looked okay, some of the performances were okay but the one quality that kept me hooked to the film and the reason why I liked it so much was the fantastic story it had.Writer/Director/Actor Alex Kendrick gives a powerful performance playing Jay Austin, a used car salesman who is the type of person we usually come to hate.
He rips off customers, teaches his employees how to do the same and his family life is going downhill along with his belief in God. But after many arguments and painful situations, he decides to change his lifestyle all for God, even by giving his car lot to God. And day by day, his life improves.The first twenty minutes or so, I wasn't quite impressed with what I saw, but then again I should expect that considering that this was their first movie.
Writer/ Director Alex Kendrick who co-wrote the script with his brother Stephen Kendrick should be commended for writing a good script, and for creating a movie that in the end, will make you feel good and have a want to praise God more than you ever had before..
But this movie is over the top (in a very good way) with a positive message, a realistic portrayal of how any person has the ability to change for the better with the right help and the right focus.
I only hope more fabulously inspired writers and film makers would take the risk to use their influence for good the way Sherwood has with Flywheel..
Despite turning a good profit, those around him, like his persistent wife and child, see his practices as dishonest and unethical, to which he decides he needs to dedicate his life to serving the lord.
This further leads Jay to discover the word of God, but more importantly, discover a more human side of reality, which is just because he is struggling, that's no excuse to rip off other in his path.Writers Alex Kendrick and his brother Stephen paint Albany, Georgia in a realistic, unglamorous light, which is part of the reason the film succeeds on an unforeseen level.
Rather than paint the town and its locale as the kind of bland, vanilla caricatures that should exist as real people but don't, the Kendrick brothers keep the whole thing honest and ruffled in the sense that no characters appear perfect, everyone's wearing clothes that have a little stain on them or need ironed, and everybody looks like practical, working class people.
Because this is absent, the characters can carry on with being just that - characters in a film about one person's desire to change hi sold practices and become more morally good.Yet Flywheel does still have some issues it needs ironed out.
With this, the film doesn't seem to shortchange and simply seems like it's trying to enlighten.Flywheel may not be polished in terms of production values, nor perfect in its representation of events, but it is a solid start for a Baptist Church turned film company to make and produce above-average Christian films for a clearly demanding and willing audience.
Any decent person will probably like this film.More depth: Jay Austin sells used cars.
However, I have an issue with these types of movies that make out like all your problems will be resolved for the better and things will get so much better in your life.
After Jay Austin(the protagonist; played by director and writer, Alex Kendrick) genuinely trusts and offers himself, his car lot, and his family to God...the viewers begin to see the stirring vicissitudes that God composes in Jay's once shattered life.
Make sure you look out for "Facing The Giants," Alex Kendrick and Sherwood Production's next film endeavor..
This is true to life, and is not "fantasy".Jay Austin is a "lip service" Christian (someone who claims to believe in Jesus, but doesn't act like it, a hypocrite in other words), who owns a used car lot.
I wanted to cry a couple of times, because the things I've seen portrayed in this movie demonstrates God's love and provision to us in real life, and makes me realize once again, what an awesome God we have!
Writer, producer, and director Alex Kendrick lays the Christian propaganda on pretty thick in his freshman effort "Flywheel," a modest, occasionally moving, but far-fetched account of a dishonest car salesman who hits rock bottom and decides to stop cheating his customers and get right with God. The theme of this shoe-string budgeted, spiritual saga is basically 'what would Jesus do?' After two years of ripping off his customersincluding his own minister, Jay Austin (Alex Kendricks) turns his life upside, sinks to his knees, and vows to be a better businessmen, husband, and father to his third grade son.
Earlier, before he changed his ways, Jay heard his son complain to one of his little friends about how he doesn't want to sell cars like his unscrupulous dad.
FLYWHEEL is the third in a series of inspirational based movies grouped with FACING THE GIANTS and FIREPROOF from Sherwood Pictures.
Throw in the fact that I have always liked small foreign cars and when I saw this on the shelf at the video store, it seemed like a good movie for me.The film seemed amateurish at first but I did not let that deter me from continuing because I have been pleasantly surprised by films with similar low-budget production values in the past.
And it happened there on the movie screen right in front of me.If you are really interested in seeing miracles on film, I highly recommend that people who rented "Flywheel" go rent "Jesus is Magic" starring Sarah Silverman.
But if you are not one of those people and want something that is entertaining and truly inspiring, DO NOT RENT THIS MOVIE!
That movie is based on a true story about a man who achieved greatness because he believed in himself, and thus is REALLY inspiring..
Although the depiction of the realization of God's providence is really looking coincidental and forced to dramatize the movie, but its presentation really is sufficient in telling a solid story.
The story is set in a used car lot, where we meet the owner, Jay Austen (Alex Kendrick), an unscrupulous and unhappy man.
Then, a chance remark by one of his clients causes Jay to rethink his whole outlook on life.This was the first of the four movies (so far) made by the Sherwood Baptist Church in Albany, Georgia, and like the others, it is touching and inspiring.
Though they are amateurs, they are very good and believable.This story of how one man's life is changed by God is a heartwarming one the whole family can enjoy together. |
tt0098536 | Turner & Hooch | Scott Turner (Tom Hanks), is a police investigator within the fictional town of Cypress Beach in Northern California whilst also being obsessively neat and routine. Bored with the lack of serious crime with his current work, Scott is set to transfer to a much better position in Sacramento, leaving fellow investigator David Sutton (Reginald VelJohnson) to replace him. Scott shows David around in the three days left before his transfer, meeting with long time friend Amos Reed (John McIntire) for a final time. The two investigators are then called to the discovery of $8,000 found at the local beach - an unusual discovery for such a quiet town. That same evening, Amos is murdered by an affiliate of Walter Boyett (J. C. Quinn) when Amos reveals his suspicions of Boyett's operations. Scott is alerted to the crime the following morning, ultimately resulting in Scott hesitantly taking in Hooch, Amos' pet Dogue de Bordeaux. Scott immediately takes Hooch to the new town veterinarian Emily Carson (Mare Winningham). Scott pleads with Emily to take in Hooch as he has no experience of handling such an animal before. However, Emily insists that Hooch will be good for Scott, whom lives alone.
Immediately returning home however, Hooch's noisy, destructive nature clashes intensely with Scott's routine lifestyle. Scott leaves Hooch alone one night to buy dog food, only to return to a home that has been completely ransacked by Hooch unintentionally. Furious, Scott kicks Hooch out, only to return later with Emily's female dog, Camille. Seeing an opportunity to get rid of Hooch, Scott drives both Hooch and Camille back to the Veterinary clinic, only to be caught by Emily as he leaves. Emily invites Scott inside, and the two proceed to continue painting the house that Emily earlier abandoned for the night. Scott leaves later on and although he expresses his disinterest in taking things further with Emily, it becomes clear that the two are starting to like each other.
Scott takes Hooch to the Police Precinct the next day, where a wedding occurs just across the street. Hooch identifies the wedding photographer as Amos' killer and gives chase, almost taking Scott's desk with him. The murderer is able to escape from his pursuers, but Scott is able to identify the killer as Zack Gregory, a former Marine with several prior arrests and also fits the profile in which Amos was killed (Scott had earlier speculated that Amos' murderer must have had special experience in killing as the stab wound performed on Amos ensured total discretion). Scott also speculates that Amos wasn't murdered in a robbery attempt, but in order for Zack to cover up an illegal operation near to where he lived. This theory matches with Amos' regular complaints to Scott about the noises he heard going on at Boyett Seafood, the company in which Zack is registered as an employee.
Celebrating the approval to search Boyett Seafood, Scott treats Hooch but notices his refusal to eat - Scott considering this as a consequence of Amos' death, the long term owner and presumably, only companion to Hooch. Scott and Hooch are seen to establish a closer bond with each other. The next day, the police search Boyett Seafood but find no evidence of any illegal activity. With his transfer pending the following day, Scott is relieved of jurisdiction of the case and is given to David by Police Chief Howard Hyde (Craig T. Nelson). Frustrated with reaching a dead end in the case, Scott meets with Emily, leading the two to spend the night together. In a eureka moment, Scott finally realises why the earlier search of Boyett Seafood turned up nothing - instead of searching for imports, Boyett Seafood was actually exporting goods. Armed with this new lead, Scott takes Hooch back to the factory to stake-out. The following morning, David arrives upon Scott's request with the earlier recovered $8,000 from the beach. On a hunch, Scott commands Hooch to trace the scent of the money to anything he can find within the factory, ultimately returning with the exact type of bag the wad was discovered in.
Scott travels to the Lazy Acres Motel, the false address that which Zack Gregory was listed as a tenant. Scott interrogates the Motel owner into revealing where Zack is, only to be held up at gunpoint by him moments later. Zack orders Scott into his car to drive away, but Scott crashes the Cadillac into a concrete barrier, propelling Zack through the windshield and pinning him down by the neck, provided assistance of Hooch. Scott interrogates Zack into revealing that he killed Amos, and also revealing that Walter Boyett is in on the illegal money trade going on at his factory, but is not in charge of it, to Scott's surprise. Scott returns with Hooch to the factory, and is unexpectedly joined by Chief Hyde. Already suspicious of Zack's earlier confession, Scott confronts Hyde, believing him to be in charge of the money laundering operation at the docks, using the gigantic ice cubes to cover the wads of cash being sent out of the country. A firefight soon occurs between Scott against Hyde and Boyett, with Hooch being able to ambush Boyett from above, although Boyett is able to shoot Hooch in the process. Confronting Hyde, Scott is initially coerced by the corrupt Police Chief to frame Boyett, who is subsequently killed by Hyde. However, Hyde knows that Scott is an entirely honest Police Officer, and calls his bluff. Hooch manages to struggle to his feet, and briefly distract Hyde long enough for Scott to kill him.
Realising Hooch's wound, Scott races to Emily's clinic to save his life. However, Hooch who lost a lot of blood dies on the operating table, with a tearful Scott and Emily in audience. During the aftermath, Turner is made police chief while Sutton is the leading investigator. Turner is also married to Emily, with the couple now caring for Camille and her litter of puppies, one of whom that looks and acts exactly like Hooch. | comedy, murder | train | wikipedia | We just may call this another typically silly Tom Hank's early age's movie that many have come to love at first sight.Simply put, this movie is all about funny situations and the comical performances of Tom Hanks and the dog (that dog was a great actor!).
In terms of storyline of 'Turner & Hooch' is not developed from a novel concept, the humorous treatment and the hilarious and endearing interaction between the lead pair is what makes it a charming little film.
Scott Turner (Tom Hanks) is a clean-cut cop.
Tom Hanks is very convincing and enjoyable in his role as a neat-freak cop, and the dog, surprisingly (I never thought I'd write this) is a great actor.
There are predictable and very typical eighties moments in "Turner and Hootch," but overall I thought the movie was a very enjoyable cop-doggy comedy, and it has a very nice ending to it ("This is not yours!" When compared to other cop-dog movies like "K-9," it's a wonder that Turner and Hootch isn't on the top 250!
Tom Hanks stars in this comedy about an obssesively neat small town detective who teams up with the only witness to a friend's murder - the victim's slobber-happy dog.
TURNER AND HOOCH teams Tom Hanks with an unlikely murder witness: a slobbering junkyard dog named Hooch.
Tom Hanks was very convincing as a meticulous detective and Hooch is a hoot as a dog that can rattle him..
I simply cannot believe that this film is rated under an 8.It must have taken ages to get the Hooch's parts right, and it was so funny and even made me cry!
It's not a great film but it ain't no dog, either."Turner and Hooch" does its own take on the cop-buddy genre of films.
In few others, though, did one of the buddies ever have as severe a drooling problem as Hooch.Hanks, in one of his last few comedy roles before aiming strictly for Oscar-calibre movies, is perfection as a neat freak cop teamed with a pooch that would be a calamity no matter whom he was with.
I won't say anything about it, for the uninitiated, but all I will say is I wish it would have ended differently.But besides Hanks and hound, there are other good parts, such as the observances of the unique characters in the town, the extent of damage a mastiff can do, and what kind of a cop carries a Dustbuster in his car.
About 60 minutes into the movie the Hooch drops the goods.A few seconds later, the bad guy is in his sights.Now call me cynical but isn't that just the way life is sometimes?First out you have to eat a few dog biscuits, then if your in the right place at the right time...
The relationship between Turner and Hooch is what makes this film so funny.
This duo is sure to tickle your funny bone.If you like crazy, silly comedy police/governmental type of stories such as "Spies Like Us", "The Naked Gun", "Police Academy" "Fletch" or "Dragnet" then it is a good chance you will get quite a few laughs out of Turner and Hooch.8.5/10.
I laughed several times at the antics on display, mostly because of the interactions between Tom Hanks (Turner) and Hooch.
So initially ugly, so big, yet turning out so lovable and actually handsome with his sad face and droopy expressions, once he cleaned up and didn't slobber too much.We have Tom Hanks at the height of his comedy career (before he turned too serious) giving a very energetic and enthusiastic performance despite playing a serious, by-the-book, neat freak.
For me, this film remains a reference, even today, in terms of dog-comedy movies.Rating: 7 out of 10 (Very good).
(Once you've seen it, you'll find yourself telling a dog later on, with not some hilarity, "Hey - don't HOOCH on me!")A feel-good movie that's also an action movie with a sense of humor, give this movie a try because it will entertain you and move your heart.
Tom Hanks had to pull out all the stops prevent that wonderfully funny slobbering French mastiff from stealing the entire film Turner&Hooch.
After all the two were equally top billed and should have had an equal share of the laughs.Turner&Hooch has Hanks as small town police detective Scott Turner who is moving to an unnamed big city because he wants more challenging police work.
McIntire had been complaining about strange goings on at a nearby fish cannery and when someone is murdered there McIntire is also silenced.The only witness is McIntire's dog Hooch and Hanks saves him from being put down as he's the closest thing to a witness he has.
So it would be a good idea to fast forward through those scenes, dont worry about missing the plot - just watch for the chemistry and charisma between the dog and Tom Hanks..
Tom Hanks plays a police detective who is assigned a murder case, where the only eyewitness is a dog.
Anyway, I would recommend this film to anyone, whether or not you're a Tom Hanks fan or a dog lover.
This film has excellent acting by Tom Hanks as Scott Turner, Mare Winningham as Emily Carlson, Reginald Veljohnson as David Sutton, Scott Paulin as Zack Gregory and J.C Quinn as Walter Boyett.
Turner & Hooch, however, was a surprisingly enjoyable Tom Hanks role.
The 1989 film co- starring Mare Winningham made Hanks a compulsive investigator who suddenly becomes caretaker to a large slobbering dog who remains the only witness to a homicide.
Scott Turner, an investigator for his local police department, is just days ahead of a move to the Sacramento police department to join the big dogs of crime fighting.
The film itself was a bit predictable, but if you go into this viewing with an expectation to only have a little fun with a lighthearted dog/human crime comedy, you won't be disappointed.
All-in- all, you could skip Turner & Hooch and never be the wiser, personally, I'm glad I saw it for a fun young Tom Hanks role..
At the end of the film, when protagonist the dog, while dying, saves the life of Tom Hanks in the way of "the water margin", the viewer wants to cover her/himself with blanket, stop hearing and hug her/his hands and legs.
The other issue in the film is the scene when Tom Hanks cuts a piece of meat into small pieces in a comical way with a tool like axes and gives it to dog, although the dog prevents eating.
Turner (Hanks) is a police detective and his only witness to the murder is Hooch a drooling pooch - together they must find out who killed Hooch's owner.
Turner (Hanks) is a police detective and his only witness to the murder is Hooch a drooling pooch - together they must find out who killed Hooch's owner.
Roger Spottiswoode directed this comedy that stars Tom Hanks as neat and orderly police detective Scott Turner, who is looking forward to his transfer to the big city when a murder occurs in his town, and the only witness is a big drooling dog named Hooch.
A detective (Tom Hanks) must adopt the dog of a dead man (John McIntire) to help him find the murderer.Looking back from today (2014), this film may seem like a fun, 1980s buddy cop movie between Tom Hanks and a slobbering dog.
Even with its star power (Hanks), this is not a very exciting film, and no better than countless other movies of its kind.
In a sleepy California coast town, neat and tidy police detective Tom Hanks (as Scott Turner) is assigned to investigate a murder witnessed only by an ugly, slobbering dog named "Hooch".
There is at least one surprise in this predictable, warm-hearted story; and, it isn't pretty.**** Turner & Hooch (7/28/89) Roger Spottiswoode ~ Tom Hanks, Mare Winningham, Craig T.
Having said that, this movie is more fun than its stretched premise suggests but if you've already watched "K9" then the chances are that this will be of limited enjoyment.Hanks plays obsessively tidy Scott Turner, a detective in a sleepy corner of coastal America.
A mere three days before he leaves for the city and "real" cases, Turner's world is turned upside-down when his friend Amos Reed (John McIntire) is found murdered down at the docks.
Forced into taking care of Reed's slobbery dog Hooch, Turner and his partner David Sutton (Reginald VelJohnson, of "Die Hard" fame) must crack the case before Hooch completely ruins Turner's life and his budding romance with local vet Emily Carson (Mare Whinningham).You can probably imagine what this movie is like.
Even without Hanks, the dog manages to hold your attention far better than anyone else in this movie and provides almost all of the laughs.
Even the dog cannot fight off his human masters forever and by the time Hanks is giving orders to Hooch like a SWAT commander and the dog understands (but of course!), you know that you've seen enough.With a more imaginative screenplay and stronger performances, this might have been a classic.
I watched this movie because it was billed as a comedy and I like Tom Hanks.
I really liked his character in this movie, and I did laugh at times, BUT--and this was a really big downer for me--there were several very realistic murders in the movie, and what's worse the dog gets killed in the end.
If, on the other hand, Tom Hanks at his nauseatingly over-the-top worst makes you wanna gag, then you should avoid this movie at all costs, except for the fact that the dog is so cute.
Well,i have no idea why this movie has been given such a low rating.I mean my opinion could be a little biased because i love dogs.But the chemistry between hanks n the dog was gr8.The direction was good.
People generally make such movies with no chemistry between the dog and the person concerned.It is however not the case here though.And hanks i felt did a gr8 job as well.The ending though was sad, but then in terms of twists and turns,that does count as one,which was good as otherwise there wasn't much of that.
Tom Hanks does really good as Turner.
This is a film Tom Hanks decided to do before turning away from all the silly comedies that came his way.
As directed by Roger Spottiswood, this is a film that will not add anything to the star's resume, or the director's, but as these type of formula movies go, it's a pleasant distraction for all age groups.Tom Hanks plays Turner, a police detective in a small California town.
Hooch is something else to watch; the dog is key in solving the murder and the mystery behind the bad guys running the illegal trade at the cannery.Tom Hanks makes the best out of his detective.
Scott Turner (Tom Hanks) is a beloved obsessively-organized neat-freak in a small seaside town.
Dr. Emily Carson (Mare Winningham) treats the dog and falls for Turner.Tom Hanks is undeniably charming.
Detective Scott Turner (Tom Hanks) is a very tidy unusual man.
During his last days of work before being transferred, his old friend Amos Reed (John McIntire) has been murdered and the only witness is a rough big dog named Hooch.
Young Tom Hanks gives a truly funny performance,and the dog is absolutely hilarious..
Tom Hanks dog movie of the 1980's..
I like the guy in "Die Hard", but here he is just another person to take away screen time from Hanks and the dog.
While some may dismiss it as "that Tom Hanks film with the ugly dog", I find Turner and Hooch to be a funny, action-packed and, in places, heartwarming film that I must have watched at least 100 times, yet still love to watch.
Tom Hanks, as Scott Turner, is great, managing to be both humourous and serious, often within the same scene.
The storyline of this film is pretty insignificant when its watched because your distracted too much by the stupendous chemistry between Hanks and Hooch.
TURNER AND HOOCH (1989) ** 1/2 Tom Hanks, Mare Winningham, Reginald Vel Johnson, Scott Paulin, Craig T.
So not one of Tom's best but my all time fave.For all those out there Hooch, obviously the dog, is NOT a mastiff.
I admit this wasnt Tom Hank's best film ever but it was still really great, especially for kids of all ages, like me, im 14 and cannot get enough of turner and hooch, if you havent already seen it, see it!!!.
One of the reasons why I like this movie is because it has Tom Hanks in it (who is my favorite actor).
Turner and Hooch to me seems like a real "quiet" movie (not a lot of music in the background).
My least favorite character in the movie was Zach Gregory who stabbed the old man (Amos, Hooches owner before Scott Turner) in the back.
Overall I think that Turner and Hooch is a very successful movie and love to watch it.
'Turner & Hooch' isn't a great movie, but it is an okay comedy-crime film which, if not terrific, at least is fun and entertaining enough.Again, not a spectacular film, but it has lots of hilarious moments (it would take too long to mention them, as there are so many to number).
The movie's best known actor is Tom Hanks, here in one of his early roles.
This is one of the few (if not one of the only) films which he isn't annoying.Tom Hanks's character, the police investigator Scott Turner, is more of an obsessively neat guy and funny at the same time, however with a major tendency for anger (he loses his temper easily and yells a lot).Reginald VelJohnson is more funny than great, but one can't deny that his character, detective David Sutton, has sense of humor.The dog, however, is the real star of the movie and naturally a great "actor".
Without saying I did not enjoy watching Turner and Hooch it is not one of those films that made a lasting impression.A story about a young police officer who sort of accommodates a dog who is a witness to a murder, they hate each other at first then they become inseparable, along comes the vet who after their dogs flirt the humans turn comes.Rather pleasurable movie, nothing more.Would you have thought by watching this movie that this young officer would become an a list Hollywood superstar?
In Turner and Hooch, Tom Hanks is Scott Turner, a detective who has only 3 day left working at the police department.
Nelson is the chief and he delivers a decent performance.Tom Hanks is somewhat funny in this film.Hooch makes Turner's life a living nightmare.The Bad: The script could have been written betterThe romance scenes are very unnecessaryAt the end of the movie, The Dog dies!
So Basically, it can go both ways but in all honesty, Turner and Hooch was good but not one of Tom Hanks' best work.6/10.
Basically Tom Hanks as Detective Scott Turner is investigating a murder, that was carried out to cover up something, and the only person (besides the unknown murderer) that witnessed this murder was the victim's closest friend who was with him on the pier, his dog!
Hanks is funny being mad, the dog is okay, and the comedy isn't too bad, not a bad film.
TURNER & HOOCH is a buddy-buddy comedy of the 1980s with a twist: one of the cops is in actuality a dog, the only witness to a murder that saw his owner killed.
Turner and Hooch came out in 1989 under the Touchstone Pictures banner and tells the tale of a cop named Scott Turner played by Tom Hanks who befriends a Boxer named Hooch(Beasely The Dog) after his owner was murdered.
The chemistry between Hanks and the dog was very good and there is a certain scene that will have you crying as tragedy strikes for Hooch.
Scott Turner must solve a murder using a junkyard dog as a witness and partner..
Tom Hanks plays clean cut police detective Scott Turner whom is nearly finishing up his last shifts in his quiet old town and he will transfer to the big city.
Tom Hanks plays a police officer who ends up adopting a dog because he is the only witness to a murder.
The film is fun to watch and occasionally makes you laugh but I really felt the ending fell flat when Hooch died I didn't feel the emotion it went over to quick we see Tom Hanks crying for around thirty seconds and then it flips to his new life married to the vet living in a home with many dogs & even a mini Hooch this felt like there was no mourning to Hooch he deserved a bigger death scene and more sadness as the audience we never even got a chance to cry because in a matter of minutes we were hit with this big happy ending!
Tom Hanks plays Detective Scott Turner, a young man who is far too neat for his own good.
He's sure the old man's dog, a big, slobbering French Mastiff named Hooch (Beasley) saw what happened and can help identify the killer.
Yet the scene where Hanks and Beasley are on the pier and Scott Turner must wrestle Hooch to the police car is a fine example of ensemble acting by two talented and unselfish actors, each totally into their characters and yet giving fully to the other.
Turner (Tom Hanks) had an interesting relationship with Hooch even before he took over as Hoooch's owner died.
The closest thing to a witness in the case is Amos Reed's dog, Hooch, which Scott Turner has to take care of if it's going to avoid being "put to sleep".Hilarious though it sounds it does have it's moments for tears. |
tt0068768 | Joe Kidd | Set in the early 1900s, Clint Eastwood stars as Joe Kidd, a former bounty hunter who is in jail for hunting on Indian land and disturbing the peace in the New Mexican town of Sinola. Mexican bandito/revolutionary Luis Chama (John Saxon) has organized a peasant revolt against the local landowners, who are throwing the poor off land that rightfully belongs to them.
When a posse — financed by wealthy landowner Frank Harlan (Robert Duvall) — is formed to capture Chama, Kidd is invited to join, but prefers to remain neutral. Harlan persists and Kidd finally relents when he learns that Chama's band has raided his own ranch and attacked one of the workers.
The posse rides into a village and forces the villagers into the church at gunpoint. They threaten to kill five Mexican hostages unless Chama surrenders. Harlan throws Kidd into the church to prevent him from helping Helen, a female captive who is also Chama's lady love (unbeknownst to Harlan), and the other Mexican hostages.
Kidd manages a daring escape and saves the hostages, determined to find Chama on his own and see that justice is done, but when he does capture Chama and delivers him to Sheriff Mitchell (Gregory Walcott) Harlan is already waiting for them in town.
To get to the jailhouse, Kidd drives a steam engine through the town saloon. A gunfight then ensues between Kidd and Harlan's men. Kidd manages to kill Harlan in the courthouse by hiding in the judge's chair. Chama then surrenders to Mitchell, but not before Kidd punches the sheriff for not standing up to Harlan and his murderous plan. Kidd then collects his things and leaves town with Helen. | cult, humor, violence | train | wikipedia | This is a pretty good though very simple Western and I am sure that the somewhat low ratings are due, in part, to the movie not being exactly what Clint Eastwood fans expected.
In this film, he plays Joe Kidd--a decent sort of guy but not exactly as super-human as "the man with no name" in his Spaghetti Westerns.
The character Joe Kidd shows off his abilities here and there, but he isn't the amazing man with a 6-shooter as you'd expect from Eastwood either--though he sure does pretty well with a rifle or train (you'll have to see what I mean by seeing the picture).
So overall, this film is very good but a bit subdued and more realistic than most of Eastwood's Westerns--plus at under 90 minutes, it's pretty short as well.
Clint Eastwood plays the title role in Joe Kidd a former bounty hunter and tracker hired by big rancher Robert Duvall to bring in John Saxon.
Saxon's a local hero among the Mexican population in this southwestern based film for standing up to the Anglo ranchers like Robert Duvall who've robbed them of their lands both gunfighters and with bought justice in the courts.It doesn't take Clint long to decide he's made a big mistake as Duvall's hired bully boys intimidate the local Chicano population.
Still he's one of the good guys for better or worse.I don't think Joe Kidd measures up to Clint Eastwood westerns like The Unforgiven or Pale Rider or The Outlaw Josey Wales.
Joe Kidd (Clint Eastwood) is a former gunman and bounty hunter, hired by the landlord Frank Harlan (Robert Duvall) to chase Luis Chama (John Saxon), a Mexican-American fighting for land reform.
Joe Kidd is discreditable ex-bounty hunter who's facing a couple days in jail, but a well-known big flier landowner Frank Harlan pays his fine hoping that he would join his group of hunters in tracking down the revolution leader Louis Chama.
Maybe that's because I knew very little about it and I wasn't expecting anything revolutionary, but I found this little slam-bang western to be an earnest vehicle for Eastwood, which has a capable supporting cast in Robert Duvall, Don Stroud and John Saxon and in the director's chair is John Sturges.
After "Dirty Harry," Eastwood returns to the West to work for the first time and the last with John Sturges...With quality Westerns like "Bad Day at Black Rock," "Gunfight at the O.K. Corral," and "The Magnificent Seven", Sturges would be the right filmmaker to accelerate Eastwood's cowboy career...
In the event he wasn't...The excellent sketching of characters and the poignancy of the dilemma of the peasants which made "The Magnificent Seven" such a classic Western were deplorably absent in "Joe Kidd" and the film never escaped from the weakness of its own screenplay...Eastwood brought some of the qualities of Leone Stranger, but lacked his style, his wit and his class...The film is set in the small town of Sinola, New Mexico, at the turn of the century...
The peasants find a charismatic leader in Luis Chama (John Saxon), who takes them before a biased judge to defend their land rights...Upon learning the judge's nature, the Mexicans turn to violence and nearly kill the judge whose life is saved by Joe Kidd (Clint Eastwood), a prisoner jailed for drinking too much...This action endears Kidd to Harlan, who recruits him as a tracker for the posse he has hired to annihilate the poor Mexicans who oppose him...However, Kidd's commitment to Harlan's cause grows weaker the more he observes the landowner's methods...
Kidd considers the action cowardly, and decides to change sides and join Chama's forces...If you are happy to see Eastwood back in the saddle, and you want to watch him with Robert Duvall, don't miss this highly forgettable Western...
Here you've got Clint Eastwood co-starring with Robert Duvall (in one of his first post-"Godfather" roles), to say nothing of an excellent supporting cast that includes John Saxon, in a western directed by John Sturges whose name I will always utter with reverence because he gave us "The Great Escape." And it's based on an Elmore Leonard novel.
Besides the fact that this movie has two great actors, Clint Eastwood and Robert Duvall.6.4/10.
Perhaps it's expectations regarding the talent assembled here that make one feel somewhat underwhelmed: the screenplay is by Elmore Leonard, the direction by John Sturges, and genre veteran Clint Eastwood is the star.
Fans of the genre will find that this kills an hour and a half fairly easily.Clint plays the title role, a former bounty hunter who's sprung from jail by a ruthless land baron, Frank Harlan (Robert Duvall).
This time round, Clint plays the title role an individualist, of course, and one with a sense of justice not unlike Dirty Harry; where Joe Kidd differs is that he has no truck with the law and prefers the hunter's life on the range.Which, in turn, causes him to wind up in jail because, in the opener, we find Joe in jail having been charged with hunting deer on reservation land.
After the bandits run, Joe settles down to work off his jail term of ten days only to be hauled out of that predicament by Robert Duvall's nasty business tycoon, Frank Harlan, who wants to hunt down, with his own band of killers, the leader of the Mexican band, Luis Chama, as portrayed by John Saxon.Thereafter follows an inventive narrative and denouement as written by one of America's best writers, Elmore Leonard, involving a hunt to the high sierras and a Mexican standoff and a Mexican standoff - between the Mexican bandits, the American bounty hunters and finally Joe who escapes the clutches of the bounty hunters to try to persuade Chama to plead his case in a court of law.To say more would ruin the plot for you.
Clint was already a veteran of many westerns by the time he made "Joe Kidd" and, though many don't find it among his best, it shows Clint as the Joe of the title doing what he does best.As a ne'er-do-well who ends up siding with Luis Chama (Saxon), a wanted Mexican bandito, Kidd does battle with a group of bounty hunters (led by a suitably villainous Duvall) out for Chama's blood."Joe Kidd" is leisurely but not uninteresting; after all, any film written by Elmore Leonard has interesting points (just look at his later work).
Clint was already a veteran of many westerns by the time he made "Joe Kidd" and, though many don't find it among his best, it shows Clint as the Joe of the title doing what he does best.As a ne'er-do-well who ends up siding with Luis Chama (Saxon), a wanted Mexican bandito, Kidd does battle with a group of bounty hunters (led by a suitably villainous Duvall) out for Chama's blood."Joe Kidd" is leisurely but not uninteresting; after all, any film written by Elmore Leonard has interesting points (just look at his later work).
And when I saw Clint eye that train, I knew something was going to happen (you'll have to see that one yourself).Overall, "Joe Kidd" may not be as big as "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly" or as profound as "Unforgiven", but it's a good film nonetheless and bears watching.
And when I saw Clint eye that train, I knew something was going to happen (you'll have to see that one yourself).Overall, "Joe Kidd" may not be as big as "The Good, the Bad and the Ugly" or as profound as "Unforgiven", but it's a good film nonetheless and bears watching.
An ex-bounty hunter (Clint Eastwood) reluctantly helps a wealthy landowner (Robert Duvall) and his henchmen track down a Mexican revolutionary leader (John Saxon).John Sturges is a capable director and had directed acclaimed westerns such as "The Magnificent Seven" (1960).
The locations and cinematography are fine too while Robert Duvall is okay as the baddie, enlisting maverick Kidd to track down a Mexican bandit with whom he's at war, before he does that totally idiotic thing you don't do to Eastwood in one of his films, which is to double-cross him.The weaknesses of the film are firstly the narrative, as I struggled to believe that an amoral character as Kidd would get involved in a turf-war like this, secondly, the casting of the supporting parts, in particular John Saxon completely lacks menace, never mind the charisma to control his gang as the scurrilous but selfish rebel and thirdly, the score by Lalo Schifrin, which seems to belong better to some of the cops and robbers TV shows and films he was also scoring at the time.The plot is fairly predictable, enlivened by a "OK Corrall"-style shoot-out at the end, but for me the film never really takes off.
I enjoyed the under-the-radar humorous references to Eastwood's recent success with "Dirty Harry" but there was little other humour to report which might have helpfully pepped up proceedings.Instead, Kidd's dour personality and Duvall's unrelenting thirst for revenge make for a stolid movie, directed adequately, no better, by John Sturges, who like Eastwood and Duvall, made better movies than this.It's no disaster mind you, just a bit predictable and run-of-the-mill.
Wealthy landowner (Robert Duvall) wants to hire cavalier former bounty Joe Kidd (Clint Eastwood) to guide a posse searching for a Mexican revolutionary (John Saxon).
I saw the plot outline, and an amazing cast including such names as Clint Eastwood, Robert Duvall, John Saxon, Don Stroud, Paul Koslo, Gregory Walcott, and Dick Van Patten, and a direction by John Sturges.
Clint played a very good former bounty-hunter Joe Kidd, Robert Duvall was great as the wealthy landowner Frank Harlan, John Saxon was excellent as the hispanic revolutionary Louis Chama, Don Stroud was very well cast as the sadistic Lamarr Simms, James Wainwright was perfect as the sniper Olin Mingo, Paul Koslo was also well-cast as the goofy Roy Gannon, Gregory Walcott was wonderful as the outspoken sheriff Bob Mitchell, and Stella Garcia was good as Helen Sanchez.The music was pretty well done, and there were some good scenes although nothing extraordinary.
Thankfully, this isn't entirely the case as Leonard wants to try and explore a story of a Mexican man (played by John Saxon, yes, he can play just about anything) who wants his proper land rights back and is up against a ruthless killer (Robert Duvall) with Clint playing the title character a the hired man who is conflicted on both sides.
But luckily Duvall is really excellent in his part as this determined villain and Eastwood is sturdy as always as a man who knows how to shoot and knows his sense of justice well, which is actually kind of gray.Minor characters, like Duvall's woman and Saxon's guy, are less developed, though they're supplemented by some good suspense scenes, a shoot-out over a very wide range of space between mountains, and that climactic train rolling into the bar.
It's fairly predictable and not anyone's best work, but it's not as sub-par as you might have heard: Joe Kidd is like Elmore Leonard (and by proxy Clint Eastwood) almost lite..
Truth is is that with Eastwood starring, Robert Duval and John Saxon supporting, John Sturges directing and Elmore Leonard writing, well this resally should have turned out far better than it did.In short order it has Eastwood as gunslinger/bounty hunter Joe Kidd who somehow finds himself helping a wealthy landowner and his henchmen to track down a Mexican revolutionary leader - it's a land issue we think....
If you take Eastwood at his prime, add John Sturges who made some great westerns like "O.K. Corral", "Bad Day at Black Rock", "Escape from Fort Bravo", and add a story by Elmore Leonard you are bound to have something very good.
Everything in this western is excellent, you have the blending of two styles, Sturges' and Eastwood's, the great performance of Robert Duvall, and some fantastic shootouts, specially the scene of the train..
In Joe Kidd, Robert Duval's character states something like "I hear you used to hunt men - and were pretty good at it" Joe Kidd looks up and replies "That was a long time ago...." hmmmm sounds like "the man with no name" to me....
Joe Kidd does have a lot going for it though with Clint Eastwood, a good score, good support cast and tight direction by John Sturges.
Clint Eastwood, Director John Sturges, and Writer Elmore Leonard are Not At There Best.The Result is a Tepid, Turgid, Tale of Land Rights and Oppressed Mexicans.
This is not one of John Sturges' or Clint Eastwood's best films; "Joe Kidd" is not more than a Western with a lousy script and poor story by Elmore Leonard.
What easily could be a good and descent Western, since Clint Eastwood's character Joe is a typical cool cowboy not too different from his other characters (which is by no means a problem), is in the end just a poor and uneven film without much suspense or atmosphere.
Clint Eastwood plays Joe Kidd, a former bounty hunter in the American Southwest who is approached by a wealthy landowner(Robert Duvall) to help him fight a band of Mexicans(led by John Saxon) who are irate that their land claims have been denied(destroyed in a courtroom fire apparently) and so have taken up arms.
With his marquee name, well respected director John Sturges at the helm, and novelist Elmore Leonard scripting, the 1972 release Joe Kidd would seem likely to be another feather in Eastwood's Western cap.
Like the other leads, Saxon is held back by the thin script, there isn't a lot of meat on the bones of Chalma for him to sink his teeth into.Standardized genre films can sometimes provide reasonably entertaining vehicles, but Joe Kidd is so lackluster and rote, and also lacking much in the way of suspense or action, that it can't really manage to summon up enough entertainment value to help transcend it's boilerplate plotting and characters to make it stand out.
In this film "Joe Kidd" (Clint Eastwood,) tries to do just that.
Eastwood is joined by notables such as Robert Duvall as Frank Harlan, John Saxon as Luis Chama and Don Stroud playing Lamarr Simms.
Joe Kidd (1972)Plot In A Paragraph: Joe Kidd (Eastwood) an ex-bounty hunter, reluctantly helps a wealthy landowner (the always brilliant Robert Duvall) and his henchmen track down a Mexican revolutionary leader (John Saxon).Written by Elmore Leonard (Yes that Elmore Leonard) this is a bit of a mismatch, as it has good performances Eastwood and Duvall.
The man who brought you The Magnificent Seven and The Great Escape, John Sturges, comes a cropper with Elmore Leonard writing and Clint Eastwood zombie-ing in Joe Kidd.
It's all so very topical and typical of the late 60s and early 70s, with Clint playing an ex-bounty hunter who is hired by Robert Duvall (sporting a ridiculous cowboy hat and non-geographical Southern twang) to hunt down a sort-of Junior Varsity Mexican revolutionary (John Saxon, sporting a non- geographical Mexican accent) because he's "cutting fences and stirring up the Mescans about land reform."Duvall has a girl in tow for amusement, and his crew of sociopaths (James Wainright, Paul Koslo, and Don Stroud) all try to look menacing, but they only get to boredom.By the end of the movie, there's been a lot of shootin' and land-reformin' and double-crossin,' but mostly just yawning.
I suspect the strengths are due to two main things: The basic story by Elmore Leonard where some of his tough-guy language and character interactions managed to filter through into the final product and the cast, especially Eastwood and Duvall who act like the Pros they are in consistently professional performances.
The film has Joe Kidd (Clint Eastwood) having to decide what side to be on as a bunch of Mexican bandits claim to own the land which a rich ruthless businessman owns.
Basically Joe Kidd (Clint Eastwood) is a former bounty hunter and tough guy in the American Southwest, and he is caught in between a battle for claims of the land.
Actually, the role of Chama's woman seemed to be oddly attracted to Joe Kidd whenever he was around as if to tease a relationship of sorts, so the viewer needs to make up their own mind on that score.You know, it's interesting to see Robert Duvall as a villain, he's pretty much the ultimate bad guy here but never quite allowing his hands to get dirty unless push came to shove.
She isn't the love interest for Eastwood, in fact there isn't one, but she makes for a strong female in the film.I was a little surprised when I saw the director for Joe Kidd was John Sturges who had done some epic films like The Great Escape and The Magnificent Seven.
Joe Kidd is an average film, not bad but nothing special.I don't really see the draw of watching a western with Clint Eastwood in it, as he is just better than everyone else and no harm will come to him.
Land owner Frank Harlan (Robert Duvall) and his posse of professional shooters come gunning for Chama, hiring Joe Kidd (Eastwood) to track Chama.
I think that's unfortunate because the movie has the likes of Robert Duvall and John Saxon(not to mention Don Stroud who is always a great heavy and was also Eastwood's adversary in Coogan's Bluff)as hunter and hunted respectively.
Eastwood's Joe Kidd is perhaps a more "ordinary" hero lacking the mythic quality often displayed in other westerns.Mr. Harlan(Duvall)and his hired killers, cocksure Lamarr(Stroud), crackshot rifleman Mingo(James Wainwright)and cocky wisecracking Roy(Paul Koslo), real bad hombres(all quite confident in their abilities), are preparing to hunt down and kill wanted Mexican outlaw Luis Chama(John Saxon)who is stirring up his people to reclaim the land stolen out from under them by the likes of Harlan who deals in territory.
Maybe, it could be because Eastwood made so many memorable western classics that it is inevitable one like JOE KIDD simply falls to the back of the pack due to the list being so long? |
tt0047191 | The Long, Long Trailer | As Nicholas Collini (Desi Arnaz) takes a new job as a civil engineer, his new bride Tacy (Lucille Ball) comes up with an idea to buy a trailer to travel around the USA to various work projects on which Nicky is employed, as well as to save money that would otherwise be spent on a house. Tacy also hopes to haul the trailer themselves to Nicky's new place of work in Colorado, as part of their honeymoon trip to the Sierra Nevada mountains. But the honeymoon trip, as well as happenings leading up to it, rapidly become a catalog of disasters.
Shortly after arriving at the trailer show, Tacy and Nicky come across a large trailer home, which Tacy instantly falls in love with. To tow the trailer, the Collinis end up buying a new car and trailer hitch, and the money spent starts to mount up.
Early in the trip, after being swamped by friendly trailer park neighbors their first night, Tacy decides to camp back in the woods the next night. But after turning on an old logging road, the trailer falls on its side into the mud during a rainstorm, which Nicky tries to level. The next day, the Collinis go to visit Tacy's relatives. But upon arriving at the home of her aunt and uncle, with other relatives and neighbors who are gathered watching, Nicky accidentally backs the trailer into their hosts' carport, partly destroying it as well as a prized rose bush. As Tacy and Nicky continue traveling, Tacy is determined to make their trailer home, collecting fruits and vegetables to can for winter, as well as rocks to decorate their front patio when they arrive at their ultimate destination in Colorado. Soon Tacy wants to learn how to drive the car, but after being constantly criticized by Nicky about her driving skills, Tacy gets out and jumps in the back, furious. After having another fight that evening over who was sleeping where for the night, they make up again.
The following afternoon, Tacy attempts to cook dinner while Nicky drives, hoping to have dinner ready once he parks the trailer at their next stop. Unfortunately, it goes awry, as the trailer moves and rocks, causing the dinner to be ruined and Tacy getting severely bruised. Afterwards, Nicky decides to make an offer on the trailer, hoping he and Tacy can move into an actual house. But Tacy is still determined to keep the trailer, and refuses to sell it. That evening, Nicky orders Tacy to get rid of all the rocks and canned foods she has collected before they make a cliffhanging ride on a narrow road through the mountains. But Tacy feels they are throwing away precious memories of their honeymoon, and decides to keep them hidden, so Nicky wouldn't find them. But as Nicky and Tacy drive up and down the mountain, everything Tacy has hidden rolls around inside the trailer, causing a big mess. Finally, when they reach the top of the 8,000 feet (2,400 m) mountain, the trailer falls over again, weighed down by all of the possessions. In a rage, Nicky takes everything Tacy has collected and throws it off the mountain. Tacy later storms off in a huff.
As their marriage deteriorates, Nicky meets up with Tacy as she prepares to sell the trailer and move back home. Nicky attempts to apologize, but doesn't know where to start and instead leaves. As Nicky starts driving off in the pouring rain, Tacy runs to catch up with him. The two finally forgive each other, and tearfully reconcile. | satire, flashback | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0090555 | Crocodile Dundee | Sue Charlton is a feature writer for Newsday (which her father owns) and is dating her editor, Richard Mason. She travels to Walkabout Creek, a small hamlet in the Northern Territory of Australia, to meet Michael J. "Crocodile" Dundee, a bushman reported to have lost half a leg to a saltwater crocodile before crawling hundreds of miles to safety. On arrival in Walkabout Creek (by helicopter due to its remote location), she cannot locate Dundee, but she is entertained at the local pub by Dundee's business partner Walter "Wally" Reilly. When Dundee arrives that night, Sue finds his leg is not missing, but he has a large scar which he refers to as a "love bite". While Sue dances with Dundee, a group of city kangaroo shooters make fun of Dundee's status as a crocodile hunter, causing him to knock the leader out with one punch.
At first, Sue finds Dundee less "legendary" than she had been led to believe, being unimpressed by his pleasant-mannered but uncouth behaviour and clumsy advances towards her; however, she is later amazed, when in the Outback, she witnesses "Mick" (as Dundee is called) subduing a water buffalo, taking part in an aboriginal tribal dance ceremony, killing a snake with his bare hands, and scaring away the kangaroo shooters from the pub from their cruel sport. The next morning, offended by Mick's assertion that as a "sheila" (Aussie slang for a female) she is incapable of surviving the Outback alone, Sue goes out alone to prove him wrong but takes his rifle with her at his request. Mick follows her to make sure she is OK, but when she stops at a billabong to refill her canteen, she is attacked by a large crocodile and is rescued by Mick. Overcome with gratitude, Sue finds herself becoming attracted to him.
Sue invites Mick to return with her to New York City on the pretext of continuing the feature story. At first Wally scoffs at her suggestion, but he changes his mind when she tells him the newspaper would cover all expenses. Once in New York, Mick is perplexed by local behaviour and customs but overcomes problematic situations including two encounters with a pimp and two attempted robberies. After this Sue realizes her true feelings for him, and they kiss.
At a society dinner at her father's home in honour of Sue's safe return and of Mick's visit, Richard proposes marriage to Sue, and in a haze of confused emotions, she initially accepts in spite of Richard having recently revealed his self-centered and insensitive "true colours" during a period of intoxication. Mick, disheartened at Sue's engagement, decides to go 'walkabout' around the US, but Sue has a change of heart and, deciding not to marry Richard, follows Mick to a subway station. There, she cannot reach him through the crowd on the platform, but has members of the crowd relay her message to him, whereupon he climbs up to the rafters and walks to Sue on the heads and raised hands of the onlookers and kisses her. | humor, entertaining | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0195945 | Next Friday | After Craig Jones' successful fight against the neighborhood bully Deebo in the previous film, rumors spread that Deebo will be breaking out of jail soon and will be looking to enact revenge on Craig. As a result, Craig's father Willie decides to have him stay with his uncle Elroy and cousin Day-Day in Rancho Cucamonga. Craig agrees to go, albeit reluctantly, as he does not want to leave behind his best friend Smokey who is currently away at a rehabilitation center in an effort to cure his marijuana addiction. However, it isn't until Craig and Willie are about to leave, they have a brief confrontation with Deebo and his little brother, Tyrone.
Initially, life with his uncle and cousin seems to be ideal but trouble soon arises. In spite of his family winning the lottery, Day-Day informs Craig that his family is not rich anymore. After taxes were deducted from their winnings, all they were left with was their house and Day-Day's BMW. Because of this, Day-Day still has a job at Pinky's, a local record store.
Day-Day's pregnant ex-girlfriend D'Wana is angry about their breakup and delusional Day-Day is the father. She vandalizes his car, pepper sprays him and threatens to return with her sister, Baby D.
A family of Mexican thugs, the Joker brothers live next door and Day-Day and Craig learn about their drug dealing activities from Mrs. Ho-Kym. Craig notices their sister Karla, but Day-Day warns him to stay away from her because of the tension between them and the Joker brothers. The mailman gives Craig a notice for the house being auctioned and he goes to the record store to inform Day-Day.
As Craig arrives at the record store he sees Day-Day being harassed by customer about the terribleness the CD he brought at the store. Craig immediately gets tired of the customer and throws him out and tells Day-Day about the letter they received in the mail. As Day-Day begins to freak out, Roach answers a phone call from D'wana and Baby D threatening to enter the store and alerts him. Day-Day then runs to the door and locks it.
When D'wana and Baby D get to the door to find out it's locked they then bang on it demanding entrance. When allowed entrance by Craig. D'wana instantly ask for Day-Day and when denied, she pretends to be looking for a CD. Day-Day is then spotted by D'wana who said that she needed to go to the bathroom and gets chased out of the back entrance by Baby D and D'wana. The guys later makes it back into the store to relax and talk about what's been going on lately. While the fellas are inside the record store D'wana and Baby D are still outside harassing Day-Day by throwing a brick through the windshield of his BMW.
Shortly after that situation the record store owner Pinky returns and mistakes Craig for a thief attempting to rob his store. After fighting Craig, Pinky fires both Day-Day and Roach on the spot.
Having previously received a notice of unpaid taxes, Day-Day is extremely upset with Craig for getting him fired. As they think of a solution and Roach attempts to leave, he slips on his skateboard which is then intentionally run over by the Joker brothers. As they watch, they see the eldest Joker brother removing a suspicious hydraulic pump from the trunk. They decide to find out what is inside the pump, with Roach distracting Chico with a chronic hidden in a brownie.
Craig and Day-Day manage to break into the Jokers’ house and Craig discovers the hydraulic pump contains a large amount of drug money and steals some of it. Craig then goes into Karla's bedroom which impresses her and she tells Craig the whole story about her family. The neighborhood was peaceful until her brothers got out of jail by taking over the house and are the direct cause of her parents' mental breakdown. Karla and her parents tried to avoid her brothers by saving money and moving away, hoping it would deter them to remain in jail. However, she mentions that it only encouraged Joker, Lil' Joker and Baby Joker to follow them everywhere they go. After hearing this, Craig is encouraged to restore peace in Rancho Cucamonga and help Karla to put her brothers back in jail.
Day-Day and Roach grow nervous about Craig's prolonged absence and attempt to find him. They knock at the door and are greeted by the three brothers who are armed with handguns and automatic rifles and take them hostage after discovering their money has been stolen. When Craig realizes that Day-Day has not returned home, he, Willie, who arrives after receiving a "message" that Craig was in trouble, and Elroy plan a rescue mission. Willie and Elroy takeout Joker's younger brothers, Lil' Joker and Baby Joker.
A fight then ensues between Craig and Joker, while Day-Day and Roach are freed by Elroy. After a scuffle in which Joker aims an automatic rifle at Craig, Day-Day and Roach, he gets knocked out from behind by Deebo, who along with Tyrone, had snuck into Willie's truck after spotting Willie at a restaurant bathroom and tricking him into thinking Craig was in trouble. Tyrone takes Joker's rifle from the unconscious Joker and gives it to Deebo so he can exact revenge on Craig. Fortunately, Chico, Joker's dog attacks Deebo and Tyrone. The police arrive soon after and arrest Deebo, Tyrone and the Joker brothers. This gives Craig the opportunity to make off with the hydraulic pump and the cash, which does not go unnoticed by Joker as he and his brothers, along with Deebo and Tyrone are hauled away.
Craig, Day-Day and Elroy split the money, with Elroy expressing his gratitude to Craig, as Craig and Willie depart back to South Central. As they prepare to leave, he spots D'wana pulling up to Day-Day's BMW, and sees Baby D get out and toss a brick through the rear window and the two speed off laughing. | flashback | train | wikipedia | Next Friday is actually pretty funny even though it lacks the film's first scene stealer Chris Tucker.
Ice Cube makes a funny script with the help of new scene stealer Mike Epps who plays his cousin Day-Day. All in all if you just want a good time check this one out..
Rated R for Language,Drug Use and Sexual Content.Next Friday is the sequel to the movie Friday and the second movie in the trilogy.Friday and Friday After Next were very funny movies.This one was not as funny but did have some really funny moments and was overall a fun and entertaining film.In this one, Craig moves to the suburbs with his rich uncle Elroy and his cousin Day Day.The reason he moves out of his old neighborhood is because Deebo has broken out of jail and wants revenge on Craig for beating him up(this happened in the first movie).There are some more funny characters in this movie such as Pinky the owner of the record store that Day Day works at and the three Mexican brothers who like to start trouble.Next Friday may not be as good as the first or third Friday movie but it is still funny and worth watching.8/10.
Jacob Vargas was hilarious, and he's been in a lot of other good movies like AIRBORNE, CRIMSON TIDE, MY FAMILY, GET SHORTY, SELENA, and ROMY AND MICHELLE.
Ice Cube is a talented guy, and he did the best (or worst) he could with his character, but it wasn't a shining role like it was in FRIDAY.
The "biches" (Joker's women) were very hot, and Lisa Rodriguez had a smart female character, something not seen much in movies like these.
The first Friday was a classic, not to be messed with, and they put out this awful movie as a sequel.
Some nice jokes, especially the joker brother, and ice cube was very funny to.
When I first heard that Next Friday was coming to the theater, I was excited but unfortunately it never came to the theater in my hometown but when we rented it on video, I was actually quite dissapointed cause it was a basic rehash of the original with a lot less laughs, while this movie still contains some funny parts it just wasn't the same like the original and I wish that Smokey (Chris Tucker) was in this movie, Day Day (Mike Epps) wasn't half as funny as Chris Tucker, but Ice Cube, John Witherspoon and Tiny Lister (as Deebo) does a great job for what they got.Overall this movie isn't a big letdown or a waste of time, it just doesn't come close to the original's standards, if you liked the first Friday or like gangsta comedies, then you'll like Next Friday.
Craig gets into some misadventures with his cousin's family and the Latino gangster neighbors as the family faces foreclosure.I'm not saying that Chris Tucker is a magical elixir for any franchise but part of the original charm is the lead characters' friendship.
Without Chris Tucker, the Friday series begins to lack a bit of the good comedy he provided.
This wasn't as funny as the other two Fidays, but it still can make you laugh hard enough if you just watch the movie and try not to look for flaws..
Next Friday also has some pretty good acting, which in general make the movie even funnier.
It Was A Bad Day. Next Friday is one of the worst films ever made.Starring rap "star" Ice Cube,this is an awful film portraying black people as a bunch of lazy,stupid,indecent,trashy goofballs with no purpose in life but indulging in sex,drugs,money,and pleasure.No character in the film,including Ice Cube's own character,is anybody that you would care about when watching the "film".The attempts at humor fall way short of O'Shea Jackson's(Ice Cube's real name) means of achieving them.It is just a ugly feature film filled with vulgarity,violence,poor taste,and ebonics,showing blacks in a terrible light.
I don't find this movie nearly as good as the first Friday, mainly because of the absence of Chris Tucker.
Ice Cube alone just isn't able to lift the movie and the portrayel of the beyond idiotic hispanic neighbours is too stupid to be funny.
As long as you don't make the fatal mistake of trying to compare Day Day with Smokey from the original as they are both different characters, but very funny in their own separate way.
Following on from the original Friday, Craig Jones (Ice Cube) has moved away from the 'hood to Rancho Cucamonga to live with his eccentric (and hilarious) Uncle Elroy and his cousin Day Day to escape from his arch nemesis Deebo who is due to escape from prison and hurt him for beating him up before he went to jail.
Although I missed Chris Tucker, and some of the other characters in the original, I enjoyed this film as well..but not as much.I think it's worth taking a look at.
Ice Cube once again shows us his writing talents by giving us a great movie to see on Friday.
And even though Chris Tucker is not there, the new characters make up for the comedy with loads of funny, stereo-typical humor that just makes you laugh your butt off.
jacob vargas was much funnier in my opinion and the joker brothers were the funniest thing in this movie thats why i liked it better then the first one.
And it ain't Day Day or Craig who makes the movie so hilarious, it is the Joker brothers across the street.
I thought this was going to be funny and carry a good plot like the first Friday.
Fist, I would like to point out that I loved Friday.I've had it with all these people saying "oh, this movie was not so bad, it's different from the first, blah, blah, blah!" This 'film' was an utter failure on every count.
It is obvious that Ice Cube attempted here to recreate the same laughs (and i do mean -same-, since almost every joke in the movie is a rehashing of some joke that worked in the first) Even though not a single one succeded in even arousing more than a bland sense of contempt, this wasn't a bad idea to work from, since it is equally as apparent that he has no ability to create an interesting or well thought out plot.
This film starts out like it has a good plot working, it gets you thinking about how that convict is gonna catch up with Craig and they're going to have a showdown - which would have been good.
A lot of controversy was revolving around the fact that Chris Tucker was not going to be in the movie so it would not be worth watching.
In all if you just think of this as another comedy movie and not the sequel to "Friday", you will definitely laugh..
Ice Cube made a major blunder when he did not pursue Chris Tucker to make the sequel.
I felt despite the loss of Chris Tucker to the cast it was a solid second effort and blows the doors of many other sequels to hit movies (Dusk til Dawn are you listening???).
After seeing the first Friday film and enjoying it, I expected this sequel to while not living up to the first, to be an enjoyable comedy that would serve up a decent amount of laughs.This film is the equivalent of an Araon Seltzer and Jason Friedberg movie where the film has no plot and the humor is solely based around swearing and being vulgar, except it's all irritating and not funny in the slightest.
Anyway, true there's no sight of Chris Tucker anywhere in this movie, its still definitely worth watching over and over again.
Also, the closing track of "You Can Do It" is one of the Cube's best.Yes, the characters are stereotypical cut-outs and there's a lot of offensive humor, but the film is still very good.
Cube is a good writer, and he came up with such original lines like, "You ever heard of El Nino?" "Yes." "Well, this is El Negro." There were many wacky moments where I laughed hard, like the one with Pinky, the owner of a music store who comes to work in a limo and struts around like a pimp.
He hangs out with his moronic friend Day-Day and they try to be funny with a long series of boring, tired, done-a-million-times jokes on drugs, sex and flatulence.I cannot believe that someone who is supposed to have some talent such as Ice Cube could have written such trash.
The first Friday was hilarious, but I only laughed a few times with this movie.
Ice Cube carries this movie very well, and his cousin Day-Day and Uncle Elroy are hilarious.
Horrible.First off, I felt like Ice Cube and Mike Epps could have easily filmed this on a lazy Sunday afternoon and shipped this out while drunk to the movies.
This one takes place exactly a week after "Friday" did.Next Friday is about Craig Jones (Ice Cube) who reprises his role as Craig, goes to live with his uncle in Cucamonga after the neighborhood bully he beat up escapes from prison.
Mike Epps takes the role of the supporting character, Day-Day, Craig's cousin.
Which they tricked him in driving down to Cucamonga saying Craig was hurt.In the line of "Good Sequels" and "Bad Sequels", this has it's moment, but its nothing compared to classic "Friday." This one tries to have a lot of memoirs to the first movie, which it does, but many are forgettable.
Still a decent sequel, I recommend Next Friday, but see the old Friday before this or you will be lost.Starring: Ice Cube, Mike Epps, and John Witherspoon.
this second film in the Friday trilogy is a pretty good film.i enjoyed it quite a bit.it's pretty funny at times,though maybe not quite as funny as the first one was.i think they stretched a couple of the jokes too thin.there is one running joke that they milked a bit too much.still the story is interesting.the cast of characters is not quite as large,with only a handful of characters from the first film returning.Ice Cube is back as Craig,and John Witherspoon returns as his Dad,Mr.Jones.there are some new characters,but these are not nearly as quirky or interesting as the characters in the first movie.to me,they seemed a bit stereotypical.overall,though,the movie is funny and entertaining.for me,Next Friday is a 7/10.
Vengeful bully Deebo escapes from prison and makes his way back to South Central to try and settle the score with Craig (Cube).
Follow-up to Friday has more of a plot than its predecessor, along with a likable cast, but it has an abundance of crude humor which seems more desperate than funny, and the whole thing gets old pretty quickly.
I know the rating on IMDb doesn't seem too promising, but believe me, I think that people were just being a little too harsh on the film because it wasn't like the first one.Craig has to stay with his lottery winning uncle and cousin 'till things cool down back home since the bully he took down in the first Friday broke out of prison.
When Craig finds out about his uncle and cousin's house being sold in an auction, he and Day-Day try to find a way to get the money to keep the house.I really laughed a lot more in Next Friday than the first one, as much as I love Chris Tucker, I have to admit that he was somewhat annoying in the first movie, it was nice having a little tone down in this film.
But seriously, people need to cut this movie a break because it is a really funny film when you just let go and relax.
The prequel to this film had a better story in it, and being a fan of hood movies, better locations.Ice Cube once again proving he is a talented person, not some lifeless rapper - turned - actor.
His part was as good as his last, but some new characters in this movie did not prove to me the film was better.I would like to give this a better rating than 6/10, but for me it was not a big hitter.So, the sequel theory is right again.
When he hears that Deebo plans to break out of prison, Craig gets taken to a much better neighbourhood to avoid trouble by hiding out with his lottery-winning uncle Elroy and his drugged out cousin Day-Day. Unknown to Craig though, Deebo has a plan for finding out where he is hiding but in the meantime he has his own problems: Day-Day has a Fatal Attraction thing going on with a neighbour, Uncle Elroy is a freak, another neighbour appears to be in a gang and it is only a matter of time before Craig is back in trouble on another Friday.Opening with the credits delivered in weed smoke while the smokers chuckle and comment about them, I knew from the start that this was hardly going to the film to watch if I was looking for anything beyond ebonics and clowning.
They leave the 'hood and head to Rancho Cucamunga where Craig would be staying with his lucky uncle Elroy, who recently won the million dollar Lotto, and his hip cousin Day Day. Willie was jealous of Elroy and didn't come in the house.
Craig said goodbye to Elroy, Suga and Day Day and returned home with Willie to good ol' South Central.Next Friday.
Ice Cube is back as Craig and as funny as ever.
So if you like Ice Cube or movies about the 'hood or you saw the first Friday, then by all means see Next Friday today!
I Think Friday Was Good But They Added Just a Little More Humor With Mike Epps Although I Wish They Would've Kept Smokey (Chris Tucker) But I Thought It Was Really Good.
But Craig Decides To Move To The Suburbs with uncle Elroy and day-day (mike Epps) .
Chris Tucker and Ice Cube were great, along with John Witherspoon, but this movie could have been so much better.
I would have liked to see Chris Tucker in it, but Mike Epps coming into the role as Ice Cubes cousin in a nice suburb was awesome.
My suggestion for Ice Cube is to choose acting or music and stick with it because this performance doesn't show how good he can be."Next Friday" is a film that should have gone directly to video because that is where it belongs.
My suggestion for Ice Cube is to choose acting or music and stick with it because this performance doesn't show how good he can be."Next Friday" is a film that should have gone directly to video because that is where it belongs.
Once you lose a main character like Chris Tucker, you lose your movie.
This movie to me was the weakest movie i have seen in a long time with jokes that is not even funny there tried to make a sequel to Friday but with this it didn't happen this is one of those movies that when you are watching it you are thinking to your self wow i must be bored nothing about the way the movie was made was good to me it was a big joke in its self i would not ever ever ever see this movie again and I thought don't be a mince while drinking your juice in the hood was bad I think this should win the trash award I would rate it a -1 out of 10 A movie with a bad plot and brainless actors..
I recomend this film to people who like corny stupid and funny movies!
Next Friday was as good as the first one the people that didn't see it because Chris Tucker wasn't in it are stupid.
Mike Epps is no Chris Tucker, but he is just as funny and is own his way to becoming one of the funniest comedians out today.The movie has laughs from start to finish.
Everyone should forget about the whole issue if Chris Tucker is in it or not...Next Friday is funny!
What made Friday such a good movie was its originality combined with the credibility of the antics that anyone who lived in a similar neighborhood could relate to or maybe even remember.
When I heard when they were coming out with "Next Friday" and got the news that Chris Tucker wasn't coming back, I thought it was going to be jake.
The only differences are that Craig (Ice Cube) has gone from South Central L.A. to the suburbs.
Going into this movie, I was thinking "Next Friday" was at best going to be a decent film, but I was wrong.
Going into this movie, I was thinking "Next Friday" was at best going to be a decent film, but I was wrong.
Going into this movie, I was thinking "Next Friday" was at best going to be a decent film, but I was wrong.
Still, the movie isn't the worst ever, it has many laughs from it's supporting characters (John Witherspoon, Mike Epps, Don Curry) who play Craig's odd family.
Next Lame Day. Next Friday (2000): Dir: Steve Carr / Cast: Ice Cube, Mike Epps, John Witherspoon, Tommy "Tiny" Lister, Tamala Jones: Brainless mess with absolutely no reason for existing.
Sequel to Friday with Ice Cube writing and narrating the film.
If you missed "Friday," Craig (Ice Cube) beat the Goliath of the ghetto, Deebo (Tommy 'Tiny' Lister Jr.) to a pulp after the bully had run roughshod over the neighborhood.
Unfortunately, producer Ice Cube and freshman director Steve Carr screw up "Next Friday." They squander too many good characters.
and i love how day-day (mike epps) and Craig (ice cube) fight.
and i love how day-day (mike epps) and Craig (ice cube) fight.
i think it is the best Friday of all, and my favorites movie. |
tt2799166 | The Pyramid | During the 2012–13 uprisings in Egypt, an archaeological team discovers a vast pyramid buried 600 feet (180 m) below the surface. Further examinations of the pyramid's apex reveals that the structure is three-sided, unlike any pyramid previously discovered. They locate a tunnel leading into the apex of the pyramid. While breaking into the opening, toxic air is released poisoning a worker. Soon after, Egyptian authorities order the team to leave the site because of a violent uprising in nearby Cairo. Team leader Dr. Miles Holden (O'Hare) and his daughter Nora argue over whether to obey the order. They eventually agree to send in a remotely-controlled rover vehicle – named Shorty – to enter the pyramid and document its interior.
While examining a small portion of the structure, Shorty is attacked by an unknown creature and goes offline. The portion of the team that has remained at the site decide to enter the pyramid to recover Shorty. After finding only a piece of the rover, they discover the wire tracing their way back out was cut. Realizing they may be lost, they enter a room with an unstable floor that collapses beneath them. Team member Zahir (Amir K) is wounded by the falling debris which pins his leg to the floor. Sunni (Nicola), another team member, attempts to climb up a small opening but is attacked by a creature hidden at the top and falls back down. Forced to leave Zahir behind, they look for another way out. Within moments, they hear Zahir scream and return to find only a bloody trail leading up the wall.
They are pursued through a narrow tunnel by a pack of the creatures Sunni encountered, which have a cat-like appearance. An Egyptian soldier who found another way into the pyramid finds and rescues them in time pulling them out of the tunnel. After killing a few of the creatures, he peers into the tunnel and is suddenly seized, being pulled inside snapping his back in the process. Left to fend for themselves, the team stumbles into a sand trap but manage to escape. During the chaos, however, Sunni falls into a spike pit and dies shortly after.
Forced to keep moving, the team finds a burial chamber which contains the corpse of a Freemason explorer who had been trapped in the pyramid in the late 19th century. A journal he left behind details a possible escape route from the burial chamber. Dr. Holden suddenly has his heart torn out from behind by a large creature. Nora and the team's cameraman Fitzie (Buckley) flee, but after realizing they're trapped, they return to find Dr. Holden still alive tied to a scale. They learn the creature is the Egyptian god Anubis, who is seen weighing Dr. Holden's heart in an ancient ritual to determine his worthiness to enter the afterlife. Miles is deemed unworthy and dies when Anubis eats his heart.
After Anubis leaves, Nora and Fitzie decipher hieroglyphs in the chamber that indicate the pyramid was constructed to imprison Anubis, who is seeking to reunite with his creator, Osiris. They find an air shaft with a ladder left behind by the soldier Shadid, but Anubis sees and pursues them. Nora climbs first and Fitzie follows, but midway up the ladder he is grabbed from below and dragged to his death. Now alone, Nora continues to scramble up the crumbling ladder and reaches the top but is captured by Anubis. Tied to an obelisk, she uses a blade hidden in her hand to slowly cut through her bonds before Anubis can finish his ritual. Once free, she wounds Anubis, who is then attacked by a horde of scavenger cats allowing Nora to escape. Exhausted and traumatized, she finally climbs her way to freedom and collapses just before clearing the pyramid's exit. She awakens sunburned and injured, only to discover an Egyptian child playing with her camera. As she pleas for his help, Anubis suddenly appears from the dark lunging at them both, presumably killing them. | paranormal, violence | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0070068 | 40 Carats | Ann Stanley, who sells real estate in New York City, is on vacation with her mother in Greece when her car breaks down. To her rescue comes a young man on a motorbike, Peter Latham, who has a difficult time persuading Ann to accept a ride. They become better acquainted, drink ouzo, and ultimately consummate the relationship. Ann enjoys his company, but still views their relationship as a summer fling.
Back home, at a party one night, Ann is stunned when her grown daughter turns up with Peter as her date. Peter was not daughter's date–he picked her up at her home in place of daughter's date. It turns out, however, that Peter's goal is to resume his romantic acquaintance with Ann, having developed feelings for her during the summer. The age difference embarrasses Ann greatly. He is 22 and she is 40. Friends and associates of Ann are somewhat aghast at her behavior as the persistent Peter refuses to take no for an answer. In time, after demonstrating a great deal of reluctance, Ann finally acknowledges that the only thing that matters is true love. | romantic | train | wikipedia | Liv Ullmann in a comedy:.
"40 Carats" - a light and cheerful comedy is the only comedy I've seen Liv Ullmann in.
She plays Ann Stanley, forty years old Manhattan Real Estate agent divorcée who lives with her mother and 16 years old daughter.
On her vacation in Greece, she meets 22 years old Peter Latham (Edward Albert), and they spend the night together.
Ann quietly disappears into the early morning hours, leaving him with the memories of the night and nothing else - no address or telephone number.
Peter later returns to New York, where one evening he arrives to pick up a date for the evening.
What follows is, IMO, funny and charming romantic comedy with wonderful supporting performances from Gene Kelly (as Ann's first annoying husband), Binnie Barnes and Deborah Raffin.
I've read some comments that Liv was miscast and was not comfortable playing such a light comedy after all the profound and tragic characters she had played for Bergman.
For me, one of the most memorable scenes of the film is the one after Liv (Ann) returns home from her vacation and is asked what Greece was like?
Ann turns to face a camera, smiles, and says, "Greece glows under the sun" - but it is her face, her smile, her eyes that glow.
There are kindness, tenderness, strength, and something even more attractive than beauty itself in them - the goodness of her soul."40 Carats" was a very pleasant surprise for me.
I hope that it will be released on DVD soon and become available for all admirers of Liv Ullmann and of funny and clever romantic comedies..
In her usual intense style, Liv Ullmann gives a likable performance as "40 something" Ann Stanley.
While vacationing in Greece, Ann has a chance meeting with "20 something" Peter Latham, endearingly played by Edward Albert.
Much to Peter's disappointment, Ann quietly disappears in the early morning hours, leaving him with little more than a one night stand.
Peter later returns home to New York, where one evening, as he arrives to pick up a date, his date's mother appears at the door and it is none other than Ann Stanley, his one night stand from Greece.
This chance meeting sets the scene for some very awkward moments and great comedy.
Gene Kelly, Binnie Barnes and Deborah Raffin are wonderful in their supporting roles.
"40 Carats" is one of those films that was such a pleasant surprise for me and I've never understood why it has been so overlooked.
Based on a hit Broadway play that won a Tony Award for Julie Harris, 40 CARATS is a comedy about a 40-ish woman who is pursued by a 22-year-old man.
Liv Ullmann, looking very pretty, stars as the New York City realtor who meets the young man (Edward Albert) while on vacation in Greece.
By coincidence (and a big one) he meets her again when he shows up for a blind date with her daughter (Deborah Raffin).
It turns out he's from a wealthy family which interests Ullmann's swinging mother (Binnie Barnes).Into this mix are Ullmann's first husband (Gene Kelly), her secretary (Nancy Walker), a hick from Texas (Billy Green Bush), a customer (Natalie Schafer), and Albert's parents (Don Porter, Rosemary Murphy).The plot revolves around the machinations and misconceptions of who is dating who and is it proper for Ullmann to marry a much younger man.Ullmann is good as the "middle-aged" woman.
But in her final film appearance the 70-year-old Binnie Barnes (looking decades younger) steals every scene she's in as a swinging grandmother who's always borrowing Raffin's clothes and can't wait to hit the dance floor.
"40 Carats" is a surprisingly good movie.
While Ullmann and Albert have little chemistry together, they nevertheless make a sweet pair, because they are both enormously appealing individually.
Gene Kelly adds a few nice moments and leads a likable supporting cast.
The film is slightly overlong but more mature than you might think..
This a breezy comedy based on a hit Broadway play and one of the few worthwhile comic tales depicting the relationship between a younger man and an older woman.
While on holidays, visiting Greece, a divorced real estate agent encounters by chance a vital young man, and they have a brief romantic interlude.She leaves him while he is sleeping and escapes back to New York.
Regaining the cherrished stability she has conquered as a lady executive, she settles down on her lovely apartment where she lives with her daughter and her mother.
Peter Latham, the man our main character had an affair with while in Greece.
But now, he is introduced as a friend of her daughter's.After constant bickering, they decide to get married, but will their relationship last?'40 Carats' is a light, entertaining and cheerful movie, filled with beautiful, rich people whose vain problems serve as the basis for an plot.
But this film suffers mostly from the miscasting of Liv Ullmann, Ingmar Bergman's norwegian muse.
No matter how versatile the wonderful Ms. Ullmann can be, she is a rather indelible case of typecasting - used to play such profound characters whose heartaches and emotional flaws we can relate to, she seems uncomfortable portraying a futile woman whose psyche isn't that complex, after all.
In this scene she confronts her future in laws.Another highlight of the film is Michel Legrand's beautiful soundtrack that includes the love theme 'In Every Corner Of The World', and Gene Kelly's performance as Liv Ullmann's annoying first husband.All in all, this is a movie whose delicate subject provokes a barrier that keeps it from being a great film, but is, nevertheless, sheer cinematic delight..
Beautiful 36, no
38, no
39, no
40-year-old Liv Ullmann (as Ann Stanley) from Norway originally is driving through gorgeous Greece when her car overheats.
Along comes handsome 22-year-old Edward Albert (as Peter Latham) from Pittsburgh, USA on a motorcycle.
Believing herself too old to ride a motor bike, Ms. Ullmann instead strips down to her underwear for a swim with Mr. Albert.
Perhaps feeling a little old and out of sorts after the act, Ullmann leaves Albert while he sleeps...Back home in New York, guess who arrives to pick up Ullmann's daughter for a date?
At first this seemed like it was going to be a drama, but it's obviously a comedy by the time Ullmann and Albert meet in New York.
It probably would have been funnier if a woman more experienced in situation comedy played Ullmann's part, but the film does garner some chuckles.
Although Albert does look like the younger of the two, the age difference seems more like ten than twenty years.
Ullmann appears closer to Albert's age than she does to ex-husband Gene Kelly (as Billy Boylan).
Respected elder Binnie Barnes (as Maud Ericson) does well in her last feature.****** 40 Carats (6/28/73) Milton Katselas ~ Liv Ullmann, Edward Albert, Gene Kelly, Binnie Barnes.
Worth watching for Edward Albert.
I do love this little film.
I also think Edward Albert is the only actor is this film who isn't overacting.
I could watch this film all day, just to watch Edward.
The premise of a woman old enough to be the man's mother become romantically involved was BIG at the time.
When the scene is relaxed and the acting natural, it's a lovely film to watch.
I am not so sure of the comedy rating of this film.
After "Butterflies are Free" and "40 carats" it seems a mystery that Edward Albert Jr didn't continue to make such good films.
This film is what "The Graduate" should have been, a sympathetic study of inter-generational relationships..
As a 40-ish divorcée courting a 22-year-old man, Liv Ullmann (beautiful Norwegian actress in only her second American film) looks like a deer caught in the headlights.
She's much too shaky and insecure to warm up to, and her scenes with Edward Albert have no romantic lift (this isn't all Liv's fault, Albert pushes his moments with her in a creepy way, coming off like an overripe gigolo).
The good supporting cast includes Binnie Barnes and Deborah Raffin; Gene Kelly is lively playing Liv's ex-husband, although he is forced to go-go dance (such were the times).
I first saw this movie when I was in high school in the 70's.
I love old movies and have an extensive DVD library.
This is my first writing of any comment on movies that I have seen or would like to see.
I saw an article in a book about Liv Ullman and got to thinking of movies I have seen her in in the past.
The second film directed by Milton Katselas..
i loved Butterflies are Free; that one had Goldie Hawn, and ALSO had Edward Albert.
40 Carats is a May-December story, with Ann (Liv Ullmann) having a quick romance with Peter (Edward Albert) in Greece.
Keep an eye out for Nancy Walker (Rhoda's mom) and Natalie Schafer (Lovey Howell!) and of course, Gene Kelly with a mustache.
Edward Albert died young at 55, only a year after his dad, the OTHER Eddie Albert.
Liv Ullmann waaaaya over-acts.
After all that sturm und drang for Ingmar Bergman, Liv Ullmann tackled a comedy, Forty Carats, based on the hit Broadway play.
It originally starred Julie Harris (succeeded by June Allyson, Joan Fontaine and Zsa Zsa Gabor), with Gretchen Corbett as her daughter, and Glenda Farrell as her mother.
It later became a summer stock vehicle for actresses such as Lana Turner, Ginger Rogers, June Lockhart, and others.Forty year old Norwegian-American divorcée Ann Stanley (Ullmann) is a successful real estate broker.
She lives with her mother (Binnie Barnes) and her daughter (Deborah Raffin).
Ann's ex-husband is an actor, Billy Boylan (Gene Kelly) and she hasn't had any romance since their breakup.While in Greece, she meets a 22-year-old young man, Peter Latham (Edward Albert) and the two sleep together on the beach one night.
Embarrassed, Ann leaves without saying goodbye.
When she meets him again in New York, he still wants to be with her.
Ann is not able to deal with the age difference, and her mother wants her to take up with a wealthy southerner who is after her, J.D. Rogers.When it was to be directed by William Wyler, many top stars, such as Audrey Hepburn and Elizabeth Taylor, were up for the role.
For me, Liv Ullmann, as likable, lovely, and beautiful as she is here, was not quite right for this role.
Also, there was not much chemistry between Ullmann and Albert.
Both he and Deborah Raffin died too young.
Albert only a year after his father.
The stunning Deborah Raffin is a good Trina.
This was Binnie Barnes' last film, and she and Raffin played well off one another.Gene Kelly was over the top.
I think this could have been directed with a stronger hand.Nowadays, 40-year-old women sometimes do date younger men so it's not such a big deal, and Ullmann looked like 40-year-olds look today, meaning she looked younger than what we used to think of as 40.
This is a sweet film about the heart wanting what the heart wants, and that love can sneak up on you when you least expect it under less than ideal conditions..
Liv Ullman, lovely in a series of chic early-'70s outfits, is not quite right for the cougar part played memorably onstage by Julie Harris (and Lauren Bacall on tour).
She never relaxes, she doesn't look like she's having fun, and the chemistry between her and Edward Albert, as the 22- year-old she falls into bed with, is hardly overwhelming.
The miscasting doesn't end there, with Gene Kelly rather creepy as the weak but loving ex-husband who sets things right for the mismatched couple; not for the first time, he seems more in love with himself than anyone around him, and it's embarrassing to watch his character try and pass himself off as 40.
Some good character actors hang around and do what they can to make the stage machinery work-- Binnie Barnes, Don Porter, Nancy Walker--and there's some picturesque Greek location filming, and a pretty Michel Legrand theme.
But the stage-rhythm dialog doesn't resonate, the outcome's never in doubt, and Liv looks like she'd be much happier being miserable in an Ingmar Bergman opus..
Long before Demi Moore walked out hand-in-hand, in Public, with Ashton Kutcher, this film went "public" with the possibility that a younger man, (who was strong, handsome and had both his own business and LOT of money already in his pocket!), could find an older woman, (who wasn't broken down or bitter about life!), attractive, desirable and worth "fighting for"!
The romance between Peter Latham and Ann Stanley, (played with sensitivity and subtle humor by both Edward Albert, Jr., and Liv Ullman respectively), begins one dusky night in Greece and culminates after he accidentally finds her again in New York.Ann had originally gone to Greece for a bit of a "final fling" before she felt "compelled by societal convention" to settle into "matron-hood", (that time in life after having been a Wife and Mother, and now, with her marriage over, and her daughter grown; she was no longer "on the market" as it were for any of the "usual" things that most men supposedly wanted out of a woman...
So, she'd just "concentrate" on running her own Interior Design business and "forget" about "Love" ever coming into her life again...) However, Peter's feelings were a bit bruised when he woke up the next morning after their romantic tryst, alone and went looking for Ann, thinking that he and she had just begun a wonderful relationship.Realizing that he'd been (essentially), sexually "used" by Ann, he chalked the night up to a "wonderful fling" that he'd just have to "get over".The real mayhem begins (again!), when Ann's daughter comes home one evening and announces that she's got a date with a friend of a friend....
The man who shows up to go on the blind date with Ann's daughter is the man that Mom already got to "know"!
Subtext and double entendres play out in a scene that is both hilarious, squirm-worthy and exciting all at the same time when Peter wants to know why Ann behaved "so cowardly" in regards to the way she left him in Greece.Peter wants to know why Ann would be so Puritanically inclined now that she's back in the "real world", and sets out to win her love all over again!Liv Ullman, (formerly directed by the legendary Ingmar Bergman!), is a most unlikely "cougar", and Edward Albert, Jr. a most decidedly un-cub-like "cub" in this priceless gem of a film.Everyone is of legal age, which only begs the question, "Was society ever so truly closed-minded?" The answer, sadly is, they still are!
The only real problem with the film, here, is that it's NOT readily available anywhere!.
While vacationing in Greece, a 40-year old woman (Liv Ullman) has a one-night fling with a 22-year old (Edward Albert).
She returns home to New York and meets him again when - surprise!
- he comes to date her teenage daughter.I loved this movie when I first saw it in 1973; I was young and thought it was blissfully romantic.
Watching the movie now with a more mature eye, I find it silly and off-putting.
Albert is sincere but sometimes creepy and pushy and there's no chemistry between them.
His undying love for her seems juvenile and gee, what are the odds that he'd turn up a world away as her daughter's date?
In an annoying subplot, Gene Kelly gives a hammy and embarrassing performance as Ullman's former husband.
And I found it disturbing that the 17-year old daughter is paired romantically with a 43-year old man and the family is thrilled for her.
*shudder* The movie, based on a Broadway play, looks and sounds very stagy with artificial, phony dialogue and there is a laughable go-go dancing scene that definitely dates the film.
Light but lovely romance.
When I was 20 and first read this story I loved it.
Then I saw the movie and was charmed by Liv Ullman, Edward Albert, and the rest of the cast.
Gene Kelly dances the twist!) Now, over 30 years later, I have watched it more times than I can count.OK, so you know the story from the plot synopsis.
However, there is one glaring problem: for a 40-year-old woman to be interested in a 22-year-old, he must be a pretty incredible and "mature" guy.
But Albert's character consistently descends into childish argument and even name-calling when Ullman disappoints him.
("You don't know what you want." and "You are a silly, helpless woman...") This would be an unbeatable romance if there was more depth to his character and more development of their relationship.
And that is a flaw of the script, not the casting.Still, with a "willing suspension of disbelief", it is a charming romance and a chance to see Liv Ullman be happy..
The plot is a shallow fairy-tale with the most improbable twists and turns, and its central theme - that where true loves reigns, age difference simply does not matter - is just plain silly.
By way of proof we have a recent high school graduate fall in love with and marry a 43 year old multi-millionaire from Tulsa, Oklahoma, and 40 year old Liv Ullmann fall in love and marry 22 year old Edward Albert, by coincidence the son of another multi-millionaire.
All of that is bad enough, but what really put me off is the way Ullmann - an obviously sensitive and intelligent woman - is shown as being overcome and indeed pushed around by a creepy guy with no personality who grabs at her to "help her undress" and is just generally obnoxious in his self-satisfied smugness.
Ullmann looks attractive enough to make her a plausible love object for a 22 year-old, but the other way around?
To round it all off Gene Kelly gives a hammy performance as Ullmann's ex-husband. |
tt0807832 | Mushishi | Mushishi is set in an imaginary time between the Edo and Meiji periods, featuring some 19th-century technology but with Japan still as a "closed country". The story features ubiquitous creatures called Mushi (蟲) that often display what appear as supernatural powers. It is implied that there are many more lifeforms more primitive than "normal" living things such as animals, plants, fungi and bacteria, and Mushi is the most primitive of all. Due to their ethereal nature most humans are incapable of perceiving Mushi and are oblivious to their existence, but there are a few who possess the ability to see and interact with Mushi. One such person is Ginko (ギンコ), the main character of the series voiced by Yuto Nakano in the original version and by Travis Willingham in the English dub. He employs himself as a Mushi Master (蟲師, mushi-shi), traveling from place to place to research Mushi and aid people suffering from problems caused by them.
The series is an episodic anthology in which the only common elements among episodes are Ginko and the various types of Mushi. There is no overarching plotline. The most frequently seen character is an otherworldly-looking man named Ginko, who is a rare sort of person who attracts mushi, which inspires a lifestyle of constant wandering. He also smokes in order to keep the mushi away. In terms of personality, Ginko is generally laid back and focused on his work. However, he can be very serious when it comes to protecting people from mushi. He also often stresses that the mushi are not evil, but merely trying to survive like everyone else. A majority of the stories do not focus on Ginko, but rely on him as a catalyst to move the story forward by diagnosing or curing mushi-related illnesses and phenomena. | paranormal | train | wikipedia | Mushi-Shi (2005) from Japan is a brilliantly written and thought-provoking anime series, with lots of surprises in store for you if you are patient and open minded.With Mushi-Shi you will refreshingly NOT see your typical anime cutesy big-eyed girls having crushes on boys, shallow harem sex stories that get old fast, or violent, senseless samurai blood letting.
As the teachers used to tell us in school, "You will need your thinking caps for this one." At first you think you are watching a series about a life force called "mushi", and a traveling man named Ginko who is studying them, but the episodes all have moral tales to teach that transcend the outline of the basic stories.
The mushi are really incidental and act as catalysts to the dynamics of personal relationships.For instance, in the incredible "A String from the Sky" episode the story isn't really about the mushi string that captures the girl, flinging her into the sky; the real lesson being taught is the essential trust that has to exist between a man and woman who claim to love each other.
In "One Night Bridge" the episode really isn't about a mushi bridge that appears once every twenty years; rather the story is about a love so powerful between a young girl and boy that even the experience of death cannot truly break the devotion of their relationship.There are also surprising touches of humor in the stories and the main character of Ginko, both of which help bring some levity to serious situations taking place in most of the episodes.I watched in both Japanese with English subtitles and then all over again in the English dub, and I ended up liking both equally.
Each episode is basically a stand alone segment, with different characters interacting with Ginko, who is the traveling "Mushi Master" out to help them, if he can, extricate themselves from the mushi's influences.I rented the series from Netflix.
There is nothing in Mushi-Shi that children ten years of age or older couldn't watch.
Mushishi is an episodic anime comprised of 26 parts.
Each episode stands alone from the rest and often the only common denominators in the stories are the presence of Ginko, the main character, and occasional appearances of his friend, Adashino-sensei.
At the same time he helps those who come into contact with these entities: it seems many types of mushi are parasitic in nature and there are unfavorable results when they cross paths with humans.
It was refreshing in that it was so serene to watch the art is beautiful, the atmosphere is peaceful, and yet the series was able to create excellent tension when it was called for.
The stories within it are intriguing and one is left with a sense of wonderment when all is said and done.However, I was left yearning for more from the series.
As a result, you have to be patient while watching the series and enjoy it for what it is; its pacing is so different from other animes that you might be more familiar with.This series has easily become one of my favorites, and I hope it receives more recognition outside of Japan recognition that it so plainly deserves.9/10.
describing the meaning of mushi-s without emerging some false ezoteric- extraterrestial blabla is almost impossible, probably thats why this masterpiece of anime remained quite unknown.
amazingly visualized, breathtaking beauty of life, as it flows mysteriously and appear in different manifestation, like animals, plants, and mushis creating a wonderful and complex ecology.
it just picks you up from the world around for 23 minutes, and shows some real values using the average, common people to show the greatness of humans, and mushis, and above all: life.
How on Earth did I end up here, smack bang in a middle of this wide-eyed& reason-free land taken over by some mysterious creatures, called sweetly but completely unlikely, errr - "Mushi"?..
Half way through the first episode (23 minutes or so each, btw, including the obligatory long sing-along intro) and I knew I was caught hook line and sinker on the simple but haunting beauty of the whole thing.
Watched 10 episodes by now, head filled with strange yet strangely believable, and, um, highly desirable world of Mushishi, with its magical scenery, just-so characters and non-judgemental story lines delivered with quiet ease and confidence by someone who knows what they are talking about.
Being a huge fan of Anime i was looking for a really interesting anime to watch.
Mushi-shi is one of my now all time favourite anime series.
Mushi-shi is a pure jewel and also emits all the right messages about nature and life.
Anyone looking for a gripping anime with great stories.
It takes place in almost feudal Japan (they seem a lot more liberal and have access to some technology like microscopes and the mushishi talks about genetics in one episode) and follows Ginko, a man that can see the strange lifeforms that are all around us, called Mushi.In the end the episodes are rarely tense, with no or almost no violence.
Unlike most mushishi (a sort of mushi hunter/doctor), Ginko, the lead character, seeks only to restore the balance between normal life and mushi life.The anime itself takes place for only 26 episodes, all self contained, you could watch any of them in any order without losing any continuity.
The manga is of course much longer and you can read it online.The calm music and the elements of traditional Japanese life and history are most welcome for a leisurely time when you want to relax and take your mind of things..
Ginko the Mushi-shi travels around japan encountering Mushis.
Mushis are creatures that are neither animals or souls, they are living things between them.
Its not just about the Mushis or the Mushi-shis, Its about Human emotions and love.A must watch anime.
While there's nothing totally wrong with the former type of anime, Mushishi really sets itself apart from the others - with a very melodic and abrupt opening, calm atmosphere and music throughout the show, as well as minimal dialogue that is quite monotone.The story is a very interesting one that explores the world inhabited by creatures dubbed "Mushi", which surround us and are much more complex than any standard organism.
In each episode, Ginko meets individuals who have been affected by the Mushi in some way.The dub is surprisingly great and lacks the melodramatic and over-the-top voice acting that other anime tend to have, so I would definitely recommend it just as much as the original.
I'm about three episodes into Yuki Urushibara's masterpiece, "Mushishi" and I must say, its incredible.
The show itself does not have much of a main plot, but focuses on each episodes individual story- an episodic format much like that of hit-TV series, "Supernatural."The animation is completely stunning- its almost ethereal green colour pallet is captivating, and was what originally got my hooked.
Packed with interesting characters, and a perfectly suited soundtrack that could lull anyone into a blissful sleep, Mushishi has proved itself to be very strong artistically.But Mushishi is more than just your typical pretty looking anime combined with a nostalgia inspiring soundtrack, it actually has some really interesting content, and a creative idea.
Despite the episodic nature of the show, I still find myself compelled to keep watching the next episode.Mushishi has me hooked, even my girlfriend who is not exactly an anime fan, it thoroughly enjoying it.
The new Mushishi volume is identical to the two sisters episode 11 and 12(or special if you like) from season 2 by the way..
There's certainly a proper amount according to most animes, but the stories contained in these episodes leave you begging for more!
Each episode is longer than it really is--the timing and pace keeps the viewer's attention, but it makes 22 minutes seem so much longer, without dulling the experience of watching.
I almost cried at the end of the aforementioned episode, and I'm not the type of person to cry in -any- visual media production (but they would've been tears of amazement--not of sadness.).Again, the only reason why I gave this a 9 instead of a 10 was because I'd like to continue watching new episodes forever, and this one does have its last episode.It's a great time while you're watching, and this is actually one of the few animes which I'll gladly let the opening music/credits play.
Everything about this anime is beautiful--the art style, the music, the ambient sounds, the stories, the characters, etc.
Watch this when you're feeling disconnected from nature, or anytime to enjoy the art of this creation..
One of the best anime I have ever had the pleasure to watch.I would preface this with a simple, "Brilliant", if I didn't have to write more lines...One of the best anime I've seen in my entire life, I'm looking for the DVD version now, bc I need it..
If you love a beautiful graphics and great soundtrack in anime I recommend this Mushi-Shi anime to watch, I've ever seen like this!!!
A mind-blowing, and beautiful anime series.
The pacing is slow, and there isn't a lot of action, yet it turns out to be very gripping and suspenseful nonetheless.Story: Episodic, without any type of overall link between the different encounters of the protagonist other than the protagonist himself and the occasional explanations about some of the phenomenon throughout the show (and some characters).
Yet, each and ever episode contains its own individual story that all prove to be very gripping, and often somber.
Each episode presents different characters from all around the regions Ginko travels to, and each has their own issue that is Mushi-related.
The many twists and turns the episodes take leave the viewer at the edge of their seat and constantly engaged even if the show isn't super fast-paced and action-packed.Art: The artwork is often very beautiful.
The sound ultimately creates the type of atmosphere the show would intend for with each given situation.Character: Ginko is an amazing protagonist.
The other characters introduced can be very brash, other times tragic, or many other things across the spectrum which works well for each of the scenarios and situations in each episode.
Whether a fan of anime or not, one could find so many reasons to adore this series and be captivated by it..
Beautiful and Intriguing Animation which makes me Sleepy.
It's one of the most beautiful anime i have come across, the water color style usage is very similar to what we see in Studio Ghibli movies, it goes perfectly well with the rich flora and fauna theme.
The anime don't have a central plot instead each of the episodes focuses on the mysterious beings called Mushishi, these creatures are intriguing, creepy and beautiful at the same time.
The episodes have hardly any dialogs instead relies on great background music,the whole style is so calming it actually makes me sleepy most of the time.
Whats the biggest plus point for the anime is the only negative it has - the extra calming effect, took me ages to finish the anime as i could never get myself to watch back to back, instead cherished each individual episode..
"Feeling myself so strongly seduced by both the light and the darkness is something that I never want to forget..." - Yuki Urushibara, author of the Mushishi mangaThe Japanese anime series "Mushishi" has a very special place in my heart, so I wanted to dedicate several lines about it since a long time.
And now I reconnect with the real idea behind the emotion which pushed me to explore this beautiful and emotional piece of Japanese animation.
And we can clearly feel why.It is not important how we get it - it is interesting that no matter of our own level of perception, we all, the viewers understand emotionally every chapter, every episode of this journey through the people and their life between the darkness and the light.
We as viewers do not know how, but we feel sympathy to the heroes in each story, because they live like us and have experience so similar to the real life that we simply accept through out hearts.And here we come to the conclusion that this both naturalistic and imaginary style of representing life is an elegant symbol of humanism.
Absolutely one of the most beautiful animes I've ever seen.
Each episode contains a story,they're like tales, which will make you start thinking more.Sometimes, It might be a little confusing and it requires you to focus in order to understand it , but it will never cease to amaze you.
Now of course there are some episodes and some things which I didn't really like and that's why I gave it a 9/10, but the stories and the messages Mushishi transmits, are the reasons why you mustn't lose it.If you haven't seen it yet, DO IT NOW!!.
Beautiful anime..
Mushishi is a very episodic anime with each episode depicting a case or a problem or something related to the creatures known as Mushi, which are special creatures present everywhere but only a selected few can see them.
I really don't like episodic things but Mushishi somehow managed to make each 20 mins an interesting and beautiful tale, some better than other obviously.
There is a very unique beauty in this anime, regarding nature/life etc, which is more complemented by beautiful art and great soundtrack.
If only it wasn't this much episodic, I most probably would have loved it way more.
Every episode of this anime make me feel thrill.
1) Because of the Graphics 2) Because of the mystery about the main character 3) Because of the sound effectsIf you love a Great graphics in anime I recommend this anime to watchThis anime is full of trivia for Example: About the pillow.
And in addition per episode of this anime has a unique story.
But the thing is that mushishi puts all its' force in depicting beautiful Asian scenery full of life.
And at the core of that life are the 'Mushi'.Mushi are not animals, and they are not plants.
And those who gathers lore about the mushi and knows how to treat them are the mushishi.I actually got the feeling of watching a horror movie when i saw this, the only thing was that there was no horror.
Still, the mood was there, but in a kind and gentle way.The series follows a mushishi named Ginko and his travels and missions in the land.
I don't know if this is something coming from the authors own view of life, but it makes room for a feature where nature is the emotional basis, and it stands strong on the feelings that you get from marvels that lie within the silent whisper of the wind among trees.You encounter characters that all are affected by these mushi.
Many of the stories are built on things we notice in nature around us but find it hard to explain, like shooting stars, the end of the rainbow and the fact that a third of your soul remains within your pillow when you leave bed as it is where all your dreams live.The series moves in a slow gentle pace, where the music never gets too eager and nothing ever gets too exciting in manners of rush or panic.
It might somehow even be sleep inducing, but in a good way, like the swaying of the trees or a cold snowy night where everything is silent but the sparkling fireplace.Of course, it's up to anyone to have their own thoughts about it, but I think that the series wants to tell us that there is more to life than just being human.
There is beauty in more than just you and me.I was expecting to find some sort of greater story that would unfold towards the end of the series, but that never came.
There was never any certain resolution to the series, only the soft mushishi music with its' hypnotical drums, and when you had watched the last episode you knew that everything in the world of the mushi would keep on going as it had ever done before.
I never got the feeling of saying goodbye to characters i'd miss, but was happy to have been able to come along on the journeys in this world so full of life and wonders..
Mushi-shi is a captivating entity in the realm of anime that shows that slow-paced films can be absolutely fantastic if you do everything just right.With fantastic visuals presented by a lesser known anime company ARTLAND, the world of the mushi-shi is brought to life with a truly intellectual perception and drive the contents of its unusual mystery to a level of great integrity and appreciation.Mushi-shi is smart, well-written and interesting to watch, succumbing its viewer with the profound elegance that the mushi-shi are, neither human nor plant, they are life in its purest form and as the world will go on, we will one day discover that the cure lies in the curse..
Mushishi is basically a ghost spirit story of the most unique kind.
A man named Ginko travels Japan searching for the most interesting and original spirits that dwells in folk lore.
The movements of each character to the way eyes meet in the conviction of each person's mannerism.A plus is the music that matches each story.
To them it's all part of the grand scheme of things for simple minds to not figure out in order to keep their quiet life balanced.To others like Ginko it is an opportunity to find the strange fascinating as well as keeping a safe distance to observe and not to construe too forward into the unknown world of spirits or ghosts.
Mushishi is full of original and well kept stories for the mind to wander later on as if to say...
'What if?" Excellent series, great music, and wonderful content for those who love a good ghost story. |
tt0823671 | Tinker Bell | Tinker Bell (Mae Whitman) is born from the first laugh of a baby, and is brought by the winds to Pixie Hollow (which is part of the island of Never Land). She learns that her talent is to be one of the tinkers, the fairies who make and fix things. Two other tinker fairies, Bobble (Rob Paulsen) and Clank (Jeff Bennett), teach her their craft, and tell her about the fairies who visit the mainland to bring each season. Tinker Bell is thrilled and cannot wait to go to the mainland for spring.
While out working, she meets Silvermist (Lucy Liu), a water fairy; Rosetta (Kristin Chenoweth), a garden fairy; Iridessa (Raven-Symoné), a light fairy; and Fawn (America Ferrera), an animal fairy. After meeting them, she notices Vidia (Pamela Adlon), a fast-flying fairy who immediately dislikes her because of her unusually strong talent. Vidia challenges her to prove she will be able to go to the mainland, and Tinker Bell creates several inventions, which she shows to the Minister of Spring (Steve Valentine). But Tinker Bell soon learns from Queen Clarion (Anjelica Huston) that only nature-talent fairies visit the mainland.
She tries her hand at nature skills; making dewdrops with Silvermist, lighting fireflies with Iridessa, and trying with Fawn to teach baby birds to fly, but she fails miserably at all of these. Meanwhile, Bobble and Clank cover for Tinker Bell when questioned by Fairy Mary (Jane Horrocks), the tinker fairy overseer. When Tinker Bell returns, she tries to explain, but Mary simply responds that she knows, and expresses her disappointment with Tinker Bell's actions.
On the beach, Tinker Bell finds parts of a music box and figures out how to put them together. Iridessa, Fawn, Silvermist, and Rosetta witness her doing this, then tell her that she was tinkering and that she should be proud of her talent—if this is what she's good at, the mainland should not matter. But Tinker Bell still wants to go to the mainland. She asks Rosetta if she will still teach her to be a garden fairy, but Rosetta says she thinks that tinkering is Tinker Bell's talent.
As a last resort, Tinker Bell asks Vidia for help in becoming a garden fairy. Vidia craftily tells her that capturing the sprinting thistles would prove her worth. However, once she sees Tinker Bell making progress, she lets the captured thistles loose, and in attempting to recapture them, Tinker Bell destroys all the preparations for spring. Tinker Bell decides to leave, but after talking with the light-keeper, Terence (Jesse McCartney), about how important his job is, she realizes the importance of a tinker.
Tinker Bell redeems herself by inventing machines that quicken the process of decorating flowers, ladybugs, etc. This allows the other fairies to get back on schedule, thus saving the arrival of spring. Vidia is punished for prompting her to cause the chaos, and Queen Clarion allows Tinker Bell to join the nature-talent fairies when they bring spring to the mainland. Tinker Bell is given the task of delivering the music box to its original owner (shown to be Wendy Darling). The narrator ends by saying that when lost toys are found or a broken clock starts to work, "it all means that one very special fairy might be near." | fantasy | train | wikipedia | This was much better than some of the theatrically released Disney animated films I've seen (notably "Atlantis"), making it among the best of the Mouse's direct-to-video titles.
I've seen some trailers and clips from this movie and the animation looked quite good, so although my expectations weren't the highest, I still hoped that "Tinker Bell were going to be a watchable picture - which it turned out to be.It's a shame that this film wasn't released on theaters, cause, like Brettster said, it was much better than Disney's recently theatrical releases ("Chicken Little", "The Wild") and a whole lot better than the previous "Peter Pan"-cartoon, "Return to Neverland".Anyway, about the movie; It is very sweet in many ways.
The animation is absolutely beautiful and detailed and the delightful score (which is sometimes Irish inspired) provides the sweet, enchanting mood of the film.
The movie is a film that families can safely watch together.And then there's the songs; "Tinker Bell" doesn't contain many songs, which is good, cause often the songs on Disney's non-theatrical releases are quite mediocre.
I admit, I am a fan of Tinker Bell (something a 22 year old MALE wouldn't approve of, like me), and I've always wanted to see this enchanting but short film.
It's magical in every way.Tinker Bell is born as a tinker, a fairy who makes teapots out of nuts.
She does not approve of this and wants to be like the other fairies that travel to the mainland.
Most of these cast members you'll already know, like Mae Whitman (best known as Katara from Avatar: The Last Airbender), America Ferra (TV's Ugly Betty), Rob Paulsen (Danny Phantom) and even Steve Valentine (TV's Crossing Jordan).Overall, this is a very sweet and funny film that, despite its short running time, will leave its magic mark of pixie dust with you forever.
also i have read peter pan and researched into James Barrie's life for hours on end, but I still loved this movie.
it was adorable and cute and even though they changed the feisty Tinkerbell that was, it was placed before peter pan.
In fact, she likes it better than many of the more highly touted Disney theatrical releases.The character of Tinker Bell is truly charming, and in my opinion, much more enjoyable than the classical portrayal in Peter Pan. Sue me, I LIKE that Tink can speak.
She's still gutsy, and independent, but in this movie has far better motivations for her actions than jealousy over Peter Pan.All of the faeries' characterizations were entertainingly done, and I like that they all had their own "thing" going on.
Other plus points include some really pretty animation (young girls in particular will love the eye-popping colors and the liberal use of sparkle) and a good overall message.
Both my daughter and myself enjoyed the celtic-inspired score and tunes, so if your child likes different types of music other than just top 40 pop, she/he should enjoy this as well.My only minor quibble is that at times the dialogue is a tad insipid and inane, and the over-use of the term "Sweetie" when the faeries are addressing each other.For a movie that was designed for the home DVD market, I think that this one delivers much more bang for your entertainment buck than many of the big budget theatrical releases..
While too short with some moments of insipid dialogue, Tinkerbell is a cute and entertaining movie that never tries to be anything more than it is.The film looks surprisingly great, initially I was expecting something along along the lines of all gloss no depth, but the look is clean and quite warm with gorgeous colours and all the fairies look convincing.The music I also loved.
The story is very simple, but it is very sweet with a good message that doesn't feel forced or preachy.The characters are really quite engaging.
I have never hated Tinkerbell as much as others did in the Disney Peter Pan movie, which is not a Disney favourite but I like it very much for the music, but she is much more likable here and the fact that she isn't jealous or stubborn here will make her easy to relate for the younger crowd.The voice work is on paper of high-calibre, and in the film they do do sterling jobs.
Mae Whitman is very emotive and resourceful in the title role, but the standout for me was the immensely talented Anjelica Huston who is really quite excellent, also she is a presence that adults will thoroughly enjoy.In conclusion, a cute and fun little movie.
8/10 Bethany Cox. Good cute movie when you see it separately from Peter Pan....
For me that cartoon is good, but Tinker Bell here is not the Tinker Bell from Peter Pan...
Not really any bad character in the movie, that is relaxing and very different of most where there are villains...
The worst "villain" here is another fairy, jealous for actually no reason, just like kids fight, not real ones...
If you think it's Peter Pan fairy, you'll hate that movie...
Really great Animation FIlm. I really liked this movie very much.
The audience group would be mostly little girls I guess but even I as an adult enjoyed watching it because it's such a nice story with lovely characters and a predictable but beautiful ending.One must not expect the Tinkebell in this movie to be the one from Peter Pan, the character here is a lot different, however I wouldn't let this fact influence my rating for this movie because I think it would be unfair to give a good movie a bad rating only because of this.So to anyone who loves Fantasy stories and fairy tales I would definitely recommend to watch this movie (with or without children)..
Its about a fairy wanting more from life, believing she's not bound to doing tinkering her whole life.
In a way I could relate to Tinker Bell.The animation was good.
The Bad:Our title character has almost zero points in common with her character from Peter Pan, nor does Peter Pan seem to exist in this universe (we certainly never see him in any of the Tinker Bell series films).
The plot is not terribly clever (and I don't feel that just because this is a film aimed at young kids that you need to be overly formulaic) and most of the fairies – who look so interesting – get very little screen time.
Tinker Bell's "talent" feels like lazy writing rather than something clever (and, although this doesn't affect the rating on this movie, the rest of the series seems to mostly ignore this idea for Tinker Bell).
The Good:Tinker Bell seems to have had a personality make-over (probably because she is actually so unlikable in Peter Pan).
Tinker Bell's talent, is not a stereotyped "girl's skill", which is nice since this movie is heavily marketed towards little girls.
The Mom view:There is nothing objectionable about the film and while predictable for an adult, a young child might not see the end coming and enjoy Tinker Bell's discovery along with her.
The moral of the story – finding what you are good at and being happy in that – is not bad, but it might also be seen as "don't try things you aren't skilled at", which isn't as good of a lesson to absorb.
Uunless you have a child who absolutely loves fairies (NOT one who loves Peter Pan), this is pretty skip-able..
As is always the case with Disney movies, the animation in "Tinker Bell" is absolutely top notch - drawn with an obviously delicate touch, realistic and very, very beautiful.
Tinker Bell is a Disney character everyone knows, but about whom we know virtually nothing, so the idea of filling in the little fairy's past was a good one, as was the thought of giving us a glimpse of how fairy life is organized.
I also didn't think that - aside from Tinker Bell herself - any of the characters in this movie were particularly memorable, and I was extremely disappointed with the music.
Disney can usually be counted on for finding memorable songs to go along with their movies, but the music here was, again, not something that I thought young kids would relate well too, and certainly I won't be singing any of the Gaelic-inspired tunes that were used here.
we,people from India(me and many friend) Like all part of tinker bell.we need or want more like these.so kindly create more animation specially tinker bell.
i think this kind of concept and imagination is great.it also better for children.and also these animation make mind free,nice,peaceful.
there is another animation which help to thought about animals.yes its about ice age.i know its not yours.but good is good.however we wait for tinker bell part 7/8/9/10,
i don't know about other country or other people but we Indian,king of emotions.always like these movie.
I really like Tinker Bell now.
I was never a fan of Peter Pan and I certainly didn't like Tinker Bell in that movie.
However I do like fairies and was curious to see what they would do with a movie of Tinker Bell living her life in Pixie Hollow with the other fairies.
At first I thought the digital graphics would bother me as I was used to the more classic Tinker Bell animation.
Next to Tinker Bell's story we learn about the different kind of fairies, their abilities and duties, which came in really handy for me a storywriter.
I was also glad to hear that this movie will have sequels which will probably end at the moment she meets up with Peter Pan. I liked Tinker Bell without Peter and the lost boys.
It's maybe not perfect as I would have hoped to get to know the other fairies better too, but I guess the sequels will work on that.
My toddlers who are two and three love this movie, but it's so packed with kitsch that I can't bear to watch it.It's cloyingly sweet all the way through, reminds me of Thomas Kinkade paintings.I can't imagine it's good for little minds to form their visual taste on this kind of cheesy junk.I'm just surprised a respectable actress like Anjelica Houston would associate herself with such a project, but it makes sense that it went straight to DVD.
They did a good job of expanding on the character of tinker bell.
I cant wait to watch the next Tinker Bell movie..
Tinker Bell is a surprising good direct to DVD.
It tells the story of Tinker Bell's origins.
this movie shows you should be proud of your talents and not to try and be something you're not.At first Tink does not want to be a "tinker" but she comes to realize that she was born to be a "tinker".
She loves and is great at building things which you don't see too much in kids movies.
Unlike most Disney movies she does not need a boy to rescue her..
One of my favorite childhood films is Peter Pan, the Walt Disney version.
It also introduced us to one of Disney's ultimate bad girls, Tinker Bell.
Modeled after Marilyn Monroe, she's one of Disney's true little beauties who fought for her true love and despite everything that she did to hide it, she really does have a good heart.
I wasn't sure how it would work but decided to give it a shot.Tinker Bell is born from the first laugh of a baby, and is brought by the winds to Pixie Hollow.
She learns that her talent is to be one of the tinkers, the fairies who make and fix things.
Tinker Bell is thrilled and cannot wait to go to the mainland for spring.
Vidia challenges her to prove she will be able to go to the mainland, and Tinker Bell creates several inventions, which she shows to the Minister of Spring.
But Tinker Bell soon learns from Queen Clarion that only nature-talent fairies visit the mainland.
Tinker Bell still wants to go to the mainland and asks Vidia for help in becoming a garden fairy.
The story is very predictable and Tinker Bell is completely different than what I grew up with.
There's nothing about her that is like her original story, so if that's what you're looking for, don't bother seeing this film.
I'd also say this movie would entertain your kids very much, it's got the good morals going on and a nice story.
Tinker Bell is still a little beauty that could melt your heart.
I really don't like ANY of the Tinkerbell movies to be honest.
Not to mention the fact that they can also CREATE sunshine and water, even though is was established earlier they couldn't.While I like the background designs, the voice talent and the animation, it does NOTHING to save this TERRIBLE, TERRIBLE movie.
I guess I didn't like this as much as most people, but it's still a good movie.
This is notable in marking the end of the direct to video Disney sequels everyone was complaining about to make room for the Tinker Bell movies.
This movie actually tells us about Tinker Bell's name.
In this movie, she tries her hand at various other things besides tinkering.
It turns out that her special talent was tinkering all the time.
I mean, that's pretty original for a kid's movie.
And as it was Tinkerbell's first movie showing how she was born and first arrived in Pixie Hollow, the first lot of Disney Fairies knew her before the newer ones, and in the end of the movie, she found the owner of the music box, which I suspected would be Wendy ...
but this again was weird as when I read Tinkerbell's mini book, it said "Dinsy Fairies" is set after Peter Pan ...
(Though nothing was said to that effect) I certainly hope they do another movie (or series) with the first Disney Fairies as well as the newer ones - and that it is superior to this one.
Tink looked way better when they did the first wave of Fairies also.
too nice, if you see the Otiginal Pater Pan, Tink has a lot more spunk.I liked Silvermist a lot (even when I saw her on a site before I saw the movie.) She was very beautiful.
I read her mini book and while she doesn't isn't a nice Fairy, she certainly was not vindictive, nasty or cruel and I was hoping to see more character depth, but sadly, not a jot.
The animation threw me as I think for this movie, traditional line drawings would have been better, mixed with CGI for the surrounding scenery and the sparkles, but the Fairies did not look as beautiful and spectacular as they did in previous animation drawings I had seen of them.However, that aside, praises I will give this movie is the special effects of the pixie dust and sparkles, fairies flying the glow when Queen Clarion appeared and when Tink first arrived and the hammer glowed, were beautiful and the scenery looked lovely.
And I liked the message to be proud of who you are, even if one does not think they are special.
This is a parable for a child or a person who is overweight, different, or perhaps not good at something like math or science, to know that there is something special that they can do which is unique to them and something they can do well.
Like Tink I found I had special talents too ...
I found that I love to write, and I have a deep empathy with people and like to help people.However, next time I will not be so trusting and hire a movie at the video shop before I buy it!
Spoilers in this review.Tinkerbell is a computer animated movie that tells the story of the title character's origin.
According to this direct to video movie, Tinkerbell was born of a baby's laughter and arose fully formed in Pixie Hollow, the magical place in Neverland where all the fairies live.
Over the course of the movie, she learns to accept herself for who she is and embraces her role within the bigger picture of Pixie Hollow.My main problem with this movie is that the character of Tinkerbell has nothing to do with the one from the 1952 Peter Pan movie, or even the original play.
The original Tink had attitude, but was straightforward.Some of the animation is nice to look at, but overall, I really have a hard time with the choices made in this adaption.
To me, Tinkerbell was a very special character, and should have been protected better.
I had seen the original 1953 Disney animated film Peter Pan, and its sequel made nearly fifty years later, and I guess a film focusing on the famous pixie fairy sounded relatively interesting, so I watched it.
Born into this world as a fairy herself is Tinker Bell (Independence Day's Mae Whitman), who before settling in has to find her skill and talent, like all the fairies have, and she is selected by her tool as a "tinker".
In the end, Vidia gets what she deserves for being mean, and Tinker Bell proves herself the hero by saving the Spring season ready for the Main Land, and as reward she is allowed to see it, and return a toy spinning ballerina back to its owner, a little girl named Wendy (of course).
This CGI feature from Disney tells the origin of Tinker Bell.
The fact that the Tinker Bell shown here is nothing like Barrie's is neither here nor there - neither was the Tinker Bell in the original animated feature.
Likewise the fact that the visual look is very clean and simple, without the multiple rendering passes for adding levels of texture - this doesn't matter.Because Tinker Bell is primarily a film for relatively small children. |
tt0061791 | How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying | J. Pierpont Finch buys a book, How to Succeed in Business, describing in step-by-step fashion how to rise in the business world. The ambitious young window cleaner follows its advice carefully. He joins the "World-Wide Wicket Company" and begins work in the mailroom. Soon, thanks to the ethically questionable advice in the book, he rises to Vice-President in Charge of Advertising, making sure that each person above him gets either fired or moved or transferred within the company.
Finch begins to fall in love with Rosemary Pilkington, a secretary at the company. Finch finds out that the president of the company, J. B. Biggley, has made advances towards Hedy LaRue, a beautiful but incompetent woman the company has hired. Finch uses this information to assist his climb on the corporate ladder.
Biggley's annoying nephew, Bud Frump, also takes advantage of the situation and tries to get to the top before Finch. By story's end, however, Finch has become chairman of the board, and might make the White House his next step to success. | comedy, satire | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0494716 | Read It and Weep | Read It and Weep begins with freshman Jameson "Jamie" Bartlett (Kay Panabaker), who has three best friends named Connor (who has a crush on her) (Jason Dolley), Lindsay (Marquise Brown), and Harmony (Alexandra Krosney), a brother named Lenny Bartlett (Nick Whitaker) and a very mean enemy named Sawyer Sullivan (Allison Scagliotti) (who she calls "Myrna" in her journal and the novel), whose boyfriend Marco is the object of Jamie's affection. She also owns a tablet PC which she writes in every day. In that journal she writes about a character named "Isabella," or "Is" (Danielle Panabaker), a popular girl with incredible powers based loosely on herself. Jamie uses her tablet PC as her own little universe, where she tells about different people, and stories, but in actuality is her own life, just a little more imaginative.
As an English assignment, she has to write an essay of her choice. Her printer dies and Lenny refuses to let her use his. Lindsay offers to print the essay if Jamie emails it to her, but she accidentally sends her the journal. After Lindsay turns the journal in for the English assignment, it wins a writing contest. Jamie's book attracts a lot of publicity and eventually becomes a bestseller. She appears at many book signings, reality TV shows, is often interviewed, and meets stars whom she has always wanted to meet. Soon, success gets the better of Jamie; she becomes increasingly materialistic and critical of the world around her, quitting her job at her father's pizza place, ridiculing her brother's guitar playing, and favoring fame over her friends. Her newfound popularity is dashed when she inadvertently reveals on a television interview that the antagonist of her novel is based on Sawyer and all of her other life dramas.
As Jamie's classmates learn that the book was based on Jamie's negative feelings toward her school, she wishes to restore her relationships but her friends are unwilling to trust her again. Her friends begin to reject and avoid her. To make up for her mistakes, she apologizes to her brother, Lenny, encouraging him to take up his guitar playing once more, despite what she'd said. Jamie overhears her parents' conversation about having to close down the pizza parlor, and Jamie feels guilty.
As she is getting ready for the school dance, Jamie confronts Is, a figment of her imagination who tries to make Jamie like she is and acts as the main antagonist of the movie (next to Sawyer/Myrna), and tells her to stop. She then goes to the dance, where she tries to apologize to everyone. They do not accept her apology at first, but gradually do after learning the book was really Jamie's personal journal and that she never meant for it to be published. Jamie finds Connor just as he is leaving. She asks for his forgiveness and they kiss. They walk back into the dance, where Lenny performs a song ("I Will Be Around") dedicated to Jamie.
After the dance, which was ocean-themed, Jamie invites everyone to eat at her parents' pizza parlor. When Lenny rushes into the kitchen to help cook the pizza, his jacket, which was covered in seaweed from the dance, accidentally lands on some of the pizzas, covering them in seaweed. When the pizza is delivered to the customers, they love it, and Jamie's father finally figures out the secret of how to save their business, ending the film on a happy note. | cute, entertaining | train | wikipedia | Okay, so I just watched this movie on Disney channel and I think it was pretty awesome.
Normally, I don't like Disney channel movies, but this one is the best I've seen.
Though I cannot pin-point exactly when it started happening but slowly Disney Channel movies began taking a turn for the worst and I stopped watching them as I grew older; no doubt they were still entertaining for little kids but one of the things I always enjoyed (and still do) about Disney is that they masterfully appeal to both children and adults, not to mention those inbetween.
The first Disney Channel movie I watched in as long as I can remember was "High School Musical" and my faith in the channel was instantly renewed.
True, she's got three great friends, a cool but strange older brother and loving parents but Jamie wants something more.
Accidentally, Jamie turns in the story of Is to her English teacher and the "novel" ends up being published in the school newspaper because making it all the way to the Bestseller list.
Suddenly Jamie (or rather, Is) finds herself sky-rocketing in popularity; Sawyer and the "Populars" actually want to be friends with her and Marcco is starting to look her way.
Jamie faces the age-old dilemma of choosing between what she thinks she wants and what made her happy before, leaving a good message for all tweens who watch the film.As an 18-year-old, I found certain things about the film bothersome that wouldn't even enter the mind of the tweens and younger children who watch it, so I know I'm simply nitpicking.
The story is cute (based upon the pre-teen novel "How my Private Journal Become a Best Seller -sorry if that's not the exact title) and the characters are warm, though Jamie is slightly obnoxious at times.
Panabaker Sr. plays her character with a comfortable ease, no doubt feeding off the fact that she's used to upstanding her younger sis (though Kay has a promising career in front of her in the children's movie set, if I'm not mistaken) and is enjoyable the entire time.For the intended audience, "Read It and Weep" offers a very important lesson: you don't need to be superhuman to be happy and content.
Being yourself is just as fine as being like Is. While most children's films will force their messages down the throats of the kids watching, "Read It" manages to work the meaning into the story without making it painfully obvious.As with any children's movie, the story is sub duded, written for a child to understand and enjoy (though this is one of the first Disney Channel films I remember where two of the characters actually kiss; there was only a peck on the check in "HSM." The little romance between Jamie and her background best guy friend was more then enough to keep me interested) but still manages to capture the attention of any age group.
Even at the age of 18, I found the movie adorable and entertaining, something I would watch again given the chance.While "Read It and Weep" is no "High School Musical", it is certainly a movie to stand with "HSM" when it comes to turning around the quality of Disney Channel movies.
Read It and Weep is, in my book, one of the finest of all DCOM movies (and lets me honest, Disney has been feeding us a lot of trash recently).
and nick whitaker's singing ("Lenny" was his name, in the movie) blew me away, & made me want to know if he really sings and/or plays in the real world (i would buy his album!).If you're looking for a deep, thought-provoking, lets-ponder-the-universe type of movie, keep looking.
try USA, TNT, or Court TV.But if what you want is a fun, hilarious, quite nearly tear-jerking movie that makes your heart bubble and your sides ache, look no further.You've found it in Read It and Weep.
I thought Read It and Weep was a very good Disney Channel movie.
I even have to say that I think it was almost better than High School Musical because it didn't have all the song interrupting the story line.
Daniel, Is, was a perfect alter ego, the point of the movie was that Is, was supposed to seem like she was helping and was a good, nice person in the beginning but towards the end she showed her other side, her alter ego, and it showed that she wanted everything to be about her.
It was absolutely awesome, it really shows the point of the movie and gives a good message to kids every age.
I was wondering if anyone knows if there was going to be a soundtrack to the new DCOM "Read it and Weep", because I love the song at the end done by Nick Whitaker, AKA Lenny, Jamie's brother.
This was one of the best Disney channel movies that has come out in a long time, and I loved it.
All the cast members did a GREAT job, and I also thought it was wonderful the way they chose to have the Panabaker sisters play Jamie, and "Is".
Wow i really really liked this movie because it is something everyone in High School can relate to.
Even if people don't want to admit it in every High School there is a Jamie\Is.,a Sawyer\Myrna(and he evil followers, and a Conner( he is really cute)oh yeah and a Marco.
Also i really want to know where I could find Jamie's laptop thing I'm getting one for Christmas and I would like to know what kind and where to get it.Overall all the Characters in the movie Rock I love Danielle and Kay there amazing actress and super smart.
Most of the people who did't like the movie is probably one of those people who don't want to admit that there High School is tough and the story was really truthful..
after searching the movie in IMDb i read the plot and thought it is a pretty confusing movie, considering the fact that Disney channel left a lot of important facts about the movie, which would help to get more viewers.
Jamie Bartlett tries to find her way through her freshman year unnoticed but when her private and personal journal gets published into a book by accident things get a little "different".
Read it and Weep is a nice movie that shows that sometimes movies can be just as great as the book!
The book was, of course, better but Disney did a great job molding it into an Original Movie.
This movie was absolutely spectacular with great acting,scene transitions, emotional feelings, tone, and the soundtrack (I loved the last song and the song it played when Jamie was getting ready for the dance-still trying to figure out what it's called :) ).
To tell you the truth, I feel a sense of closeness to this movie because I like to think that I can relate to the one the characters.
the film is really good but i don't like Jayson Donnelly but apart from him it was good and this movie made me think about the way i was treating my friends its such a good film but i really want to know what laptop she has i mean its like so cool the way she can like flip it and then write on it so anyone know what make it is???
Well, I was a little far from that, but still saw a fairly interesting story.Kay Panabaker plays Jamie Bartlett, a girl struggling to survive the hierarchy of high school social life.
Jamie deals with the repressive tyranny of high school life by writing in a personal journal on a tablet computer, using fictional characters loosely based on the people she knows there.
Welch, Jamie's private diary has an alter-ego, a semi-super-heroine named "Is," played by Kay's older sister Danielle...
Through Is, Jamie gains fortune and fame, gets her parents' pizza place some more business, gets to hang out with the school snobs who used to torment her, gets the boy of her dreams, and unfortunately nearly loses her friends, then everything else when she inadvertently reveals the inspiration for the villains in her book on a talk show.
But I suppose if you don't have incidents like these at school functions, they tend to become lame.Some may see this as an excuse to get Danielle and Kay Panabaker to work together on the same project.
Okay, maybe most of the 7 is Jamie, Kay Panabaker, who in this movie seems a lovely creature.
Read it and Weep is a Fatastic movie, You could totally relate to Jamie and what she is going through in high school.Like having a big crush on the popular guy and wanting to be in the popular crowd, but Jamies life before was still great on having great friends who were unique in there own way, but sweet.
First there is Lidsey who is part of the Animals right group, Seacond there is Harmony who is a great artiest, Thirdly there is sweet Connor who is in love with Jamie for a long time,but she does not know this and treats him like a Best friend should be treated.But when Jamie is not looking You could totally see it Connor always looks at her and gives her a cute smile when she looks at him, but her mind is somewhere else because she has a crush on Marco.
But then, today a movie premiered on DisneyChannel UK that renewed my faith in Disney Channel movies.Although the end was somewhat predictable: the rest of the movie had enough to keep anyone interested.To be entirely fair: i only started watching it because i saw the video for Jordan Pruitt's "Outside looking In", and wanted to hear the song again, so watched the movie.
Although this is the vague pattern the plot took, there were enough twists and turns in between that it seemed like this was merely a starting point, and thus really didn't effect it as much as it obviously does to some Disney channel movies Very Very Impressed by Kay and Danielle's acting.
I think the idea that they used these two sisters who are so close in real life was a great starting point, because it meant that Danielle already had a certain grasp over how Kay's mind worked, and thus it was easier for them to know how to influence each other without it seeming forced on screen.I have to say, although i only came for the song, i cannot wait to see it again.
It is just a really poorly laid out movie, with no climax, or point.Character wise a lot of the actors were great.
Jaimie- I thought the actress did a good job portraying her, it was just a dumb character to have to portray Is- gah that was the absolute stupidest character ever, but the actress did a good job Harmony & Lindsay- great actresses Connor- he is cute, good actor Lenny- holy crackers he is amazing, i looove that song he sang, i hate that one song he was listening to though...the outside of the crowd or something Sawyer- over the top, i hate the way she talks, it is annoying...i agree with one commenter about when the seaweed was dumped on her she looked like she was going to scream i'm meltingYes, my comment is kind of scattered and has no order, but hey, it goes with the theme of the movie right?.
I asked some of my Disney-channel-obsessing friends if they thought that the book was better too and they didn't even know the movie was based on a book!
I thought it was great how much the main character Jami, (Kay Panabaker who is one of my favorite actresses) changed over the movie.
I thought it was great how much the main character Jami, (Kay Panabaker who is one of my favorite actresses) changed over the movie.
My favorite scene in the movie was when Jamie finally realizes that Connor was the guy that wrote that article.
Couple that with the fact that the movie's structure sends the wrong message; heroine Jamie Bartlett is perfectly fine with her celebrity status and unconcerned about blowing off her friends until she overreaches and her new world begins to fall apart.
High school sophomore Jamie Bartlett (Kay Panabaker, "Phil of the Future") has three semi geek friends (who would only be geeks in a teen movie), and documents her life in a journal- the names are changed to protect the innocent.
The "Read It and Weep" premise needs a better treatment but the movie should still be enjoyable for many in the middle school crowd; especially if they are crushing on one or more of the actors.
Read it and Weep, is just a pathetic attempt by Disney to grab the same audience that they did with High School Musical.
So, I viewed at my own risk.I noticed the very familiar motifs this movie had, along with other bad Disney and Disney Channel works at the time: cheerleading, loving, and wicked stuff.But wait!!!!!
well on the plus side,there's only two lines left...my favorite part of the movie is at the end,where Jamie kisses conner..that part was the cutest..wellll i hope there's another movie as good as that one soon!!!i love Jason dolley!!<33333333.
i watched it while i was babysitting, and the kids seemed to enjoy it, it was a little cheesy though, but it's a Disney movie so what can you really expect?
anyways, my real question is, does anyone know what kind of computer Jamie uses to write her journal...i thought that it was so cool, and i really would like to know!
Read It and Weep is like every freshman's experience in high school.
but even though it didn't came out the same way i thought it did at the end i found out that was good because then i know this movie is unpredictable.
It is about Jamie Bartlett who turns in her private personal journal at school and becomes a national bestseller Jamie journey into the celebrity world isn't all that easy her friends start getting mad at her and her parents pizza parlor suffers at the end but in the beginning business is GREAT!!
I think the way the people found out that it was them in the book was a little corny but i liked it.
Watch this awesome movie and you'll see what happens between Jamie and Is, and more importantly Jamie and her friend Connor (played by Jason Dolley).
Interesting premise." A girl, Jamie Bartlett (Kay Panabaker), finds a headband that helps her to have an alter ego "Is" (played by Danielle Panabaker, her older sister.) Using the people she meets at school as characters in her journal, "Is" has many fantastical journeys the when the book is published causes Jamie to have instant success.
The thing is, with this movie, it's like watching the other millions about teenage life.
It's simply a movie about a teen girl who writes her journals in book form, and it accidentally gets published.
But after I watched the movie I wanted to read the book, because one of my friends read it and loved it.
I think I liked the book better (which is saying a lot) only because I love books more than the movies anyway.
Kind of saying that no one is who we think they are) In the book, I loved the Jamie actually helped a girl who hadn't always been very nice to her but came to her looking for serious advice.I still loved the movie because I think Kay Panabaker was very good at Jamie.
Looks like they made a good call having an older brother instead.Nick Whitaker didn't do much in High School Musical, but it was his turn to shine on Read It and Weep.
Connor was not the best looking guy for this movie, but I'm sure that they got him for the whole "Underdog finally gets the girl story." One thing that I don't understand is why Marco, which looked to be a Junior, would go out with Jamie, a Freshman.
it's great for kids but it has that edge so that teens can like the movie too.
I loved that they had both Panabaker sisters in this movie, and i thought they both were great in this movie!.
Anyone who loves this movie has never read the book, but once again, my opinion..
In the end, it turns out that Is is not who she seems and Marco is a fake who used Jamie's friend to get by in school.
What i really didn't understand was how Danielle Panabaker was one of the "stars" when all she did was pop up randomly in the movie and spit out a few lines like "don't do it" and "what do you think your doing?" I mean there were so many better actors to give credit to, for example, Jason Dolley (One word.
Lately, Disney Channel Original Movies have been great.
Danielle looked like she was enjoying tormenting her real-life sister's character.The ending was happy, but the plot predictable.
I felt like this movie was going to be great but it ended up being one of my least favorite movies ever shown on Disney!
It's just sad that Disney channel can make awesome TV shows that don't look good until you watch them, but make movies the complete opposite!!!!.
Well why would little kids watch a movie about high school???
I think that people will like this movie.
I think Jamie is a character that a lot of teenagers could probably relate too and that some people may or may not have an alter ego that are like Is (Isabella) and that there is Sawyers and that there is Marcos and that there Conners and that there is Harmonys and there is Lennys and that there is all the other people I forgot out there. |
tt2042692 | The Unseen | After a hotel reservation mix up, two sisters Karen and Jennifer, and their friend Vicki Thompson, meet a friendly, but shady character named Ernest Keller who is the owner of a small town museum. Ernest convinces the three women into accepting an invitation for cheap room and board at his large farmhouse outside of town where his wife Virginia also lives. Once there, Jennifer and Karen leave for the holiday parade fair which Jennifer, a news reporter, is reporting on. At the festival, Jennifer is met by her soon to be ex-boyfriend, Tony, who gets her to stay behind to talk about their relationship.
Meanwhile, back at the house, Vicki prepares to take a nap in her room, but is attacked by an unseen figure. The unseen eventually begins to pull Vicki into a floor vent when she tries to escape. The grate of the vent slams down on her neck, killing her. At the parade, Karen leaves Jennifer and Tony to talk, and makes her way back to the house alone—where she too is then attacked and killed by the unseen, as it attempts to pull her by her scarf through a vent into the basement. Virginia, who had been in the barn slaughtering a chicken, soon after comes inside to find the bodies of both Vicki and Karen.
When Ernest arrives back at the house, he finds Virginia in shock. At this point, it is revealed through flashbacks that Virginia and Ernest are, in fact, brother and sister, and that Ernest had murdered his own sadistic father over 20 years ago in order to maintain the unnatural relationship. It is also revealed that they have an incestual son named 'Junior' who has been kept locked up in the basement; the viewer also learns that Junior is often viciously beaten by Ernest. Ernest then convinces the subservient Virginia, who the viewer now realizes is taken advantage of by Ernest, that Jennifer must be killed upon her return, in order to keep everything under cover.
When Jennifer gets back that evening, she is lured into the basement by Ernest, who then locks her inside. She wanders around looking for a way out, only to stumble upon Karen and Vicki's dead bodies. In a panic, she is confronted by Junior, who turns out to be a mentally retarded and infantile grown man; at this point, it becomes clear that in all likelihood the Junior did not actually mean to kill Karen and Vicki. Ernest comes into the basement to finish off Jennifer, but Virginia, having had a change of heart, attempts to stop him. Ernest begins attacking Virginia, but Junior, enraged by the sight, intervenes to protect his mother. A fight breaks out between Junior and Ernest, while Jennifer escapes. The fight ends with Ernest gaining advantage over Junior, and knocking him in the head with a broken board containing a sharp, exposed nail, which causes Junior to collapse and die.
Ernest then makes his way outside to hunt down and kill Jennifer with a hatchet. Just as she is about to be attacked, Tony pulls-up in his car, sees the commotion, and runs to help her, but trips and falls due to an existing leg injury. However, at the last possible moment, Ernest is shot in the chest from afar by Virginia and died. The film ends with Virginia in the basement cradling the dead body of Junior. | tragedy, plot twist, haunting | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0070379 | Mean Streets | Charlie (Harvey Keitel) is a young Italian-American man who is trying to move up in the local New York Mafia but is hampered by his feeling of responsibility towards his reckless younger friend Johnny Boy (Robert De Niro), a small-time gambler who owes money to many loan sharks. Charlie works for his uncle Giovanni (Cesare Danova), the local caporegime, mostly collecting debts. He is also having a secret affair with Johnny Boy's cousin Teresa (Amy Robinson), who has epilepsy and is ostracized because of her condition—especially by Charlie's uncle. Charlie's uncle, a dignified man who takes his role as caporegime seriously, also wants Charlie not to be such close friends with Johnny, saying "Honorable men go with honorable men."
Charlie is torn between his devout Catholicism and his Mafia ambitions. As the film progresses, Johnny becomes increasingly self-destructive and disrespectful of his creditors. Failing to receive redemption in the church, Charlie seeks it through sacrificing himself on Johnny's behalf.
At a bar, a local loan shark named Michael (Richard Romanus) comes looking for Johnny to "pay up", but to his surprise, Johnny insults him. Michael lunges at Johnny, who retaliates by pulling a gun on him. After a tense standoff, Michael walks away, and Charlie convinces Johnny that they should leave town for a brief period. Teresa insists on coming with them. Charlie borrows a car and they drive off, escaping the neighborhood without incident. But then a car that had been following them suddenly pulls up alongside, Michael at the wheel and his henchman, Jimmy Shorts (Martin Scorsese), in the backseat. Jimmy fires several shots at Charlie's car, hitting Johnny in the neck and Charlie in the hand, causing Charlie to crash the car. The film ends with an ambulance and police arriving at the scene, and paramedics take them away. | cult, comedy, neo noir, murder, violence | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0074042 | Quincy M.E. | The series starred Jack Klugman as Dr. Quincy, a strong-willed, very principled Medical Examiner (forensic pathologist) for the Los Angeles County Coroner's Office, working to ascertain facts about and reasons for possible suspicious deaths. His colleagues, friends and wife all address him by his surname or the shortened "Quince". (The character's first name was never fully given, although in the third-season episode "Accomplice to Murder" his name is shown on a business card as "R. Quincy" and in early episodes the name "Dr R. Quincy" appears on his door.)
In his investigations, Quincy frequently comes into conflict with his boss, Dr. Robert Asten (John S. Ragin), and the police, in particular, LAPD Homicide Lieutenant Frank Monahan (Garry Walberg). Each usually have their own (often flawed) theories about a particular case and about Quincy's deductions. In early episodes, Quincy's relationship with both men is often volatile and nearly adversarial (with Asten especially). This changed dramatically in later episodes where Quincy appears to have much closer professional and personal relationships with the two. Quincy is assisted by his faithful lab assistant, Sam Fujiyama (Robert Ito).
It is revealed in the episode "The Last of Leadbottom" Quincy is a retired Captain in the US Navy and remains in the Naval Reserve. In the episode "Crib Job", Quincy notes he originally wanted to be a railroad engineer, after revealing a number of facts about the dangers of the occupation. A well-liked man, Quincy lives on a sailboat in a permanent boat slip in Marina Del Rey, California and frequents Danny's, a restaurant and lounge at the marina owned by his friend Danny Tovo (Val Bisoglio).
Quincy is very popular with women. He was married once before but lost his wife Helen to cancer. In the Mystery Movie installments and earliest hour-long episodes, Quincy has a regular girlfriend named Lee Potter (Lynette Mettey) who sometimes accompanies him on his cases (such as in "...The Thighbone's Connected to the Knee Bone..."). This is his only steady relationship until near the end of the seventh season, when Quincy remarries (Dr. Emily Hanover, played by Anita Gillette who had previously portrayed Helen in a flashback) and sells the sailboat in the episode "Quincy's Wedding". Quincy occasionally drives an antique car (which is shown in Season 4, Episode 1 to be an antique Packard Town Car), but friends sometimes ask why he drives his "work vehicle" (the county coroner's hearse, a 1976 AMC Matador Station Wagon (reg plate: 999853) in the first 2 seasons and a 1975 Ford LTD Station Wagon for the rest of the series) on his day off. Quincy claims that his car is off being repaired.
Early seasons' episodes contained elements of mystery and whodunit and focused on criminal investigation; a typical episode would find Quincy determining the real murderer in a crime or the real cause of an unusual poisoning case. Later seasons' episodes began to introduce themes of social responsibility; Quincy would find himself involved with a police investigation that reveals situations such as a disreputable plastic surgeon and the reasons his poor surgeries are not stopped, flaws in drunk driving laws, problems caused by punk rock, airline safety issues, dumping of hazardous waste, the proliferation of handguns, Tourette's syndrome, orphan drugs and anorexia among others.
Quincy, M.E. was one of the first dramatic series to use a format like this to further a social agenda. Klugman himself even came to testify before the US Congress about some of these issues (such as orphan drugs in 1982), describing what he had learned about a difficult or complex social concern as a result of its use in one of the show's episodes.
In 2008, Klugman sued NBC, asserting that the network had concealed profits from the show which were owed to him.
While many detective series had depicted rudimentary physical evidence analysis such as fingerprints and bullet comparisons, Quincy M.E. was the first to regularly present the in-depth forensic investigations which would be the hallmark of later detective shows such as CSI: Crime Scene Investigation and its spin-offs, NCIS, Diagnosis Murder, Crossing Jordan, inter alia. Klugman himself made guest appearances on the latter two series as, respectively, Dr. Jeff Everden and Det. Harry Trumble, and Dr. Leo Gelber. | murder | train | wikipedia | At least once an episode, Sam (Quincy's Asiatic sidekick) has to say 'I don't like it Quince'3.
In fact, many of the episodes dealt with forensic methods which were just coming into being in the 70's, and for the first time let the audience of the series see these new techniques and research, including the build-up of a skeletal face to what the person could have looked like, looking for evidence of where a person has been by looking at the residue on a person's shoes and other forensic methods we take for granted nowadays.What's even more interesting is that many of the topics of these episodes, some 25 years old, show a great amount of relevance even now.
Such things as airplane safety, epidemics, political influence, riots, runaways and child pornography, post traumatic stress disorder as a result of a war experience, migrant workers, crash diets, child abuse, and much, much more.This show was and is a great forerunner to many other shows over the past twenty-five years.
The original was one of the last series to be created for the NBC Mystery Movie strand which consisted of the shows,"McCloud", "MacMillian and Wife","Banacek",and also "Columbo" which was on the same network.
First off,Quincy was played by the great Jack Klugman,who before the series aired was Oscar Madison for five seasons on the TV version of Neil Simon's "The Odd Couple",which was on a rival network.Klugman had a style and substance to the role where he can make his character looked serious and sometimes humourous at the same time(watch the episodes to see my point),but had a knack for solving cases for the police,uncover the proof of foul play against impossible odds,and go beyond the lengths to help the authorities catch the killer or suspects that were involved.
Then after solving another grueling case,he's back onto another one leading to more clues and surprises at every turn.This show during its run was in the top ten and was a grand favorites against competitors like from other detective shows like Kojak,Barnaby Jones,and Baretta,not to mention Starsky and Hutch.
However,the show was a inspiration for such shows today as Crossing Jordan and CSI:Crime Scene Investigation,not to mention in this category Diagonsis:Murder.Its is amazing that they don't make shows like this anymore,but Quincy was very good.
However,during its last season,the ratings slipped,and in 1982 the show was cancelled,and its replacement show over at NBC was that of a man and his talking car which....well you know the rest of the story...............Catch the episodes everyday on the Hallmark channel..
Every single episode goes down the same way:Quincy has just gotten off of a particularly grueling case.The boss brings in a new body that Quincy "just has to look at".Sam, his ever faithful assistant, is just about to leave for the night before Quincy calls him back.
"I need you to stay and figure this one out."They show the 'late-night working montage', which always consists of Sam running spectral analysis tests while Quincy pokes at the body.The montage ends, and Sam says "I don't like the looks of this Quince".Quincy then insults Sam about the quality of his coffee.Quincy puts on his detective hat, and interviews witnesses.Quincy will come against opposition to him solving the case, and he will yell at that person.
In fact, he will have been yelling for most of the episode, but now the yelling is of a righteous nature.Quincy will confront his main adversary and scream, "PEOPLE'S LIVES ARE AT STAKE HERE!!"Quincy's boss, who was against all meddling from the start, eventually comes around.Quincy solves the case, then explains everything over breakfast/lunch/dinner with his pals.Someone at the table tells a throw-away joke, usually at Quincy's expense, leaving everyone in stitches.Roll credits.Eat your heart out, Jordan Cavanaugh.
"Quincy" is one of my favourite shows of this kind (second only to the excellent "Columbo").
It has struck me that despite the implausible pairing of Quincy with much younger women, the clashes with the management and the police, this show covered some pretty controversial topics for a 30 year old mainstream show:- * Teenage alcoholism * Elder abuse * Mental health issues * Legislation for lief jackets on plains * Drunk driving *Public health issues such as food contamination/pollution Yes it can be cheesy but I still find many of them watchable and find the range of issues covered impressive for the times.
I watched "Quincy" when it was on the first time round with my mum, dad & sister.
He lived & loved like a man who's time was almost up, and it showed.
There was no other man on television who had a hand that was as good with a woman as it was with a dead body.Quincy cares.
Sure, Quincy was a man's man; he would be at the bar buying a round for the guys, but he hurts like the rest of us.
Crossing Jordan is yet another dark tale and generally as concerned with Jordan's sex life as with crime investigation.By contrast, Quincy is very engaging but also optimistic.
Jack Klugman is brilliant in the role of the smart & tough, kind hearted & principled, grumpy but charismatic coroner.
Each episode sees him ferreting out some new case of foul play, aided by his faithful Oriental lab cohort, Sam, engagingly played by Robert Ito. The pair enjoy a touching friendship.The series gave us a glimpse into the forensic techniques and research of that era.
I do agree that some of the plot lines can fall on the formulaic side, but I can't help liking Quincy M.E. all the same.
The acting I don't have a problem with, Jack Klugman is great as Quincy, who has his flaws such as being grumpy on occasions but is still charismatic, kind-hearted and clever, while Sam is a nice character and engagingly played.
2. To Dr. Quincy, the case "just doesn't seem right" and he won't close the case--wanting to take more time with the autopsy or do some investigating on his own.
4. Quincy's friend, Lt. Monahan, wants to close the case because he KNOWS that it either wasn't a murder or he's blaming some innocent guy for the crime.
Oddly, despite the Los Angeles Police Department being one of the largest ones in the world, somehow Monahan is almost always on the case--he's apparently a very, very busy guy--as is Quincy!
2. Dr. Quincy becomes angry because the death was caused by some social issue such as spousal abuse, sexual abuse or poorly staffed emergency care centers, so he goes on a rampage and annoys practically everyone.3.
But because it's a social issue program, they may or may not say something funny to end the show.So why, despite the predictability of the show did I and so many others like it?
Heck, after a while, you even grew to like Asten--especially since he mellowed and was less of a paper-pushing bureaucrat in later episodes.Excellent writing, a likable cast and great imagination, this show has stood up well over time.UPDATE: I just finished re-watching the entire series and think I should update my review.
I think Quincy was great when it first aired but is reflective of the "Shake 'n Bake" formula of TV in the '70s and early '80s.
It did bring the science of criminal forensics to public attention so I am sure there are people working in that field today because of Quincy.An episode or two might be tolerable for most people, but beyond that the repetition will wear almost anyone down.I think I would pay real money if for once his boss Asten, Lt. Monahan and everyone else would believe Quincy when he finds something out of the ordinary.Something like,"Gee Quincy, you were right about all of the last 75 deaths you investigated when I didn't believe you despite considering you my friend.
Jack Klugman was far more dedicated to his job and to doing the job of the police than any coroner I ever dealt with.
Now maybe Jack Klugman would have found out on the show, but I ran into no Klugmans in my professional or personal life.But Quincy would always go an extra few miles with his trusted assistant Robert Ito until he was proved right.
Ragin who had a lot of corpses to be disposed of and little time for the individual attention Klugman gave those cases we saw.But if Klugman had problems with Ragin there were nothing compared to those he had with detectives Garry Walberg and Joseph Roman who naturally resented him doing their jobs.
The resentments never lasted long though.My favorite parts of the show were always in their hangout where Klugman got together with Ito, Walberg, Ragin, and Roman at Danny's, a nice cozy little piano bar with good food, good drinks, and good company.
It looked like such a great place to hang out.But if you think medical examiners are as dedicated as Quincy you will be sadly disillusioned as I was..
Though Quincy began its run as a great mystery show, it all too soon evolved into a vehicle for discussion of the social issues of the day.
When Quincy stuck to storytelling, it was entertaining, but when stories took a backseat to "messages," it jumped the shark every time..
Quincy ME brought us the fascinating world of Forensic Pathology and yes, even crime scene investigation 30 years before we would be flooded with analogous programs.
I remember being a bit annoyed as certain episodes resembled after school specials, rather than the medical/ crime drama I became addicted too.
For me Quincy was more laughable than a serious series, simply for the reason that Jack Klugman or should I say Quincy, exaggerated at almost every opportunity.
The women is, of course, young enough to be his daughter despite his conspicuously charm-less looks and zimmer frame status.To be fair, this program was never less than interesting in debating the medical, social and political issues of the day and the failures or contradictions inherent in the American capitalist system but mostly, it has to be said, you remember the shouting.
The first-name-challenged Quincy - even his girlfriends (and wife, in the very last episode) called him "Quince" - could be guaranteed to practically solve the case for the police, uncover proof of foul play against the most impossible odds, and go to bat for every cause under the sun...
the airline industry in an episode about an air disaster, the industry won; one show about gun use ended with a boy playing with a weapon and shooting his sister).Plausible it may not have been - like all TV detectives, the poor man couldn't even go on holiday without getting into a medical emergency (as Leslie Halliwell wrote, "You'd think the cast would have figured out after one season that Quincy's always right"), and why did so many good-looking women fall for him?
Fortunately that was in the final two-part episode - Quincy without his boat would have been like Batman without his cape.It'll probably still be repeated long after we're all gone; formulaic but more effective than not, really..
It dealt realistically with real social issues like child abuse, incest, drunk driving and college hazing.
Quincy had a wonderful message behind it, it showed how one person with guts who cares can make a difference.
Quincy was a great show with some very good and relevant episodes, covering environmental, epidemics, cot death, legal and medical loopholes.
Jack Klugman was perfect for the role and the banter between his character, Asten and Monaghan was excellent.There is one puzzle though, what was the point of two of the characters, Danny and Sergeant Brill?
Jack Klugman was unforgettable as the intense and often angry Dr Quincy and he was brilliantly supported by Robert Ito as the idealistic Sam, John S.
Jack Klugman was unforgettable as the intense and often angry Dr Quincy and he was brilliantly supported by Robert Ito as the idealistic Sam, John S.
While I'm not a strong believer in jack Klugman's acting talents, I do enjoy this series.
Very few TV shows at that time would touch the issue.As an incest survivor I am painfully aware that there is a desperate need for expore, fiction and non-fiction, of this horror that happens to more children than not.I have met very few people who did not eventually admit to me that they had been abused.I have met too many who don't believe it is common or could be happening in any family they know.And if the justice system in this country continues as it has, so will incest and pedophilia.Both are popular.
The series made a household name of that fine character actor Jack Klugman, who made the main character his own.
Quincy was the kind of character who needed to complete a job regarding a suspicious death (his speciality), no matter that he inevitably rubbed certain people up the wrong way.
Amongst these people, were a friend from the Los Angeles police department and Quincy's own boss.
Quincy genuinely cared about everything that went with his profession, including presenting bad news to someone's loved ones.
"Quincy M.E" became highly successful, the series ran from 1976 til 1983 and lasted 148 episodes.
It is seldom that I see any television show from today that could hold a single match stick, let alone a candle to classic shows like the above.
Having watched Quincy, ME many years ago when it originally aired on broadcast television, I can truly attest that it is a joy to see it again, and watch my hero come to the aid of the victim of that day's episode.One of the most refreshing and inspiring aspects of this show was that Dr. Quincy on occasion would use an issue of the day in their show, i.e. alcoholism, child abuse, then at the end of the show give hotline numbers to help those in need.
Where is that with today's shows(not counting reality TV)?Thank you, Jack Klugman and Dr. Quincy!
Jack Klugman did a brilliant job as a Los Angeles County Coroner on the show.
"Quincy, M.E." dealt with the most specific issues of its time during the seven years on NBC Television.
I have watched Quincy since I cant remember when, and have always loved it.
Klugman made the character his own, and I have to say that I love the guy to bits.
I admired his guts and determination to see things through, and his desire to right all the wrongs of the world dos not make him a bad person.Thanks to watching Quincy I developed a massive interest in the world of forensic medicine that still continues almost 25 years after seeing him for the first time.
Jack Klugman will always be Quincy to me, thats how convincing he was in the role.
I think it's a great programme, every episode is about someone dying and Quincy investigates by doing an Autopsy, to find out what was that person's cause of death.
Some of the characters in this programme try to stop him but there is no stopping for Quincy for him to do an autopsy on the person who has died..
"Quincy" is like "Columbo" one of the very rare series that are exciting up to the end.
Jack Klugman played "Dr Quincy" in such an incredible good way that you might think he was a medical examiner, too.
the series stars Jack Klugman, Robert Ito, John S.
Ragin and Gary Wlaberg Quincy is all about the daily life of the Coroners office in Los Angeles.It revolves around the Coroner Dr.R.Quincy(Jack Klugman)and how each week he does an autopsy which will lead him somehow to take on a particular hot topic at the time.His list of one man wars include alcoholism,mugging,punks,Vietnam vets,gangs,medical insurance as well as diseases and murders.Quincys aided in his work by his loyal assistant and friend Sam Fujiyama(Robert Ito),his long suffering,fair and hardworking boss Dr.Robert Astin(John S.Ragin),tough Police Lt.Frank Monahan(Gary Walberg),his partner Sgt Brill(Joseph Roman)and owner of the groups favourite restaurant Danny's,Danny Tovo(Val Bisoglio).It's CSI before CSI and in my opinion better because it's a very human series not all about hi tech equipment and explosions.Plus every episode is about something important like cancer treatment,abuse,alcoholism etc and tackles the subjects head on.The autopsy scenes are good as well because you don't see the bodies you just see the top half of Quincy and Sam and get Quincys description of what's happening.I think that's great because what you imagine can be ten times worse than what your shown in graphic detail.Jack Klugman is excellent as the coroner with an axe to grind and there's fine support from John S.Ragin and Robert Ito.It always makes me laugh though when instead of just doing autopsies he'll investigate and solve the case the detectives never solve it and I think in one episode Monahan says Quincy should get a Police pension for all the detective work he does.A slice of classic TV with memorable stories and characters Quincy is well worth a watch..
I first saw Quincy just under ten years ago when they showed it on BBC1 in the afternoons.
To be honest my favourite character altered between Sam and Astin but I like the cast as a whole, the Danny-Quincy banter (always trying to get that recipe) that dynamic storyline and what have you.
Quincy dealt with issues as relevant today as they were in the 70's and 80's.
Quincy was someone who genuinely cared and played excellently by Jack Klugman.
Quincy is still a good watch as the Klugman character is still up to date.
I really don't remember the first time I saw Quincy.
I only remember being enchanted by Jack Klugmans real and human portrayal of the Los Angeles county coroner.
The other thing I like is that some of the very serious issues dealt with in the series is balanced out with wonderful humour.
Watch any Quincy episode and you will see that it deals with serious issues in a warmhearted,sincere and real way that no other programme of the type seems to do. |
tt0802999 | Grand Theft Auto IV | === Setting ===
Grand Theft Auto IV takes place in 2008, in a redesigned version of Liberty City consisting of four boroughs, based on four of the boroughs of New York City: Broker (based on Brooklyn), Dukes (Queens), Bohan (The Bronx), and Algonquin (Manhattan). Adjacent to the city is the independent state of Alderney (Northern New Jersey). There are three minor islands present in the game: Charge Island (Randall's Island), Colony Island (Roosevelt Island), and Happiness Island (Liberty Island). Initially, bridges are locked down due to a terrorist threat, and players are constantly pursued by police if the bridges are crossed, but the blockades are lifted as the story progresses, allowing the player to traverse between islands. Grand Theft Auto IV takes place in a different storyline and timeline from the previous games in the series. However, the game takes place in the same canon as its expansion packs, The Lost and Damned and The Ballad of Gay Tony, and its successor, Grand Theft Auto V.
=== Plot ===
Niko Bellic, an Eastern European, arrives in Liberty City to meet his cousin Roman, pursue the American Dream, and to search for the man who betrayed his unit in a war fifteen years prior. Upon arrival, however, Niko discovers that Roman's tales of riches and luxury were lies concealing struggles with gambling debts and loan sharks, and that Roman lives in a dirty apartment rather than a mansion.
Niko defends Roman from his loan sharks several times, but is forced to work for Vlad Glebov, Roman's Russian loan shark. Niko kills Vlad after finding out he slept with Roman's girlfriend, Mallorie. After Vlad's murder, Niko and Roman are kidnapped by members of the Liberty City Bratva on order of Mikhail Faustin and his associate, Dimitri Rascalov. Faustin, not bothered by the murder of Vlad, hires Niko. Niko quickly learns that Faustin is a psychopath after being ordered to kill the son of Kenny Petrović, the most powerful man in the Bratva. After the Petrović family threatens retaliation, Dimitri convinces Niko to assassinate Faustin in order to prevent a gang war. When Niko meets with Dimitri to collect on the assassination, Dimitri brings Niko's former employer Ray Bulgarin instead, who accuses Niko of stealing from him a few years earlier. When Niko truthfully denies the allegation, a firefight ensues, allowing Dimitri and Bulgarin to escape.
Niko and Roman are immediately forced to flee to Bohan after their apartment and taxi company are destroyed by Dimitri's men in arson attacks. However, things go poorly as well in Bohan: Dimitri's men kidnap Roman in a failed bid to lure out Niko, who rescues Roman. Furthermore, Niko's girlfriend Michelle reveals she is a government agent and entraps Niko into working for her company, known only by its cover: United Liberty Paper. Niko kills several known or suspected terrorists for the agency in exchange for the file of the numerous crimes the police have on him and the promise of assistance in finding the traitor of his unit.
The Paper tracks down the man responsible for Niko's unit's betrayal, Darko Brevic, and brings him into Liberty City for Niko to decide his fate. Having dealt with his past, Niko is summoned by one of his employers, Jimmy Pegorino, who demands one final favour: to help with an extremely lucrative deal on heroin in collusion with Dimitri. Niko must either strike a deal with Dimitri, or exact revenge on him.
Should Niko go through with the deal, Dimitri again betrays him and takes the heroin for himself. At Roman's wedding, an assassin sent by Dimitri kills Roman with a stray bullet. After Dimitri kills Pegorino, he is in turn killed by a devastated and vengeful Niko. Should Niko choose to exact revenge, he ambushes and executes Dimitri. At Roman's wedding, Pegorino, furious after Niko's betrayal, targets Niko in a drive-by shooting, but ends up killing Niko's new girlfriend, Kate. With Pegorino targeted by the entire Liberty City underworld, Niko tracks him down and executes him. | violence, comedy | train | wikipedia | Fantastic acting, worthy of film awards, breathtaking graphics, beyond realistic physics, and just enthralling game-play make this the first truly next-gen game that goes beyond just better graphics, pushing the limits of what I thought was possible.
Something you might find difficult especially if you have it on the PS3 is that the controls are completely different to GTA3/vice city/san andreas but after a few hours youl find your feet and get endless pleasure doing amazing handbrake turns into things.
The screen has had a lot of the clutter moved away creating for a more movie like experience and the new mobile phone option adds something truly fun/helpful/original to an already groundbreaking series.
I would recommend to anyone playing the game to not seek out spoilers; the story is compelling and full of surprises, to the point where a plot turn will have you sitting in your easy chair, holding your controller, dropping your jaw saying "wow", with a little bit of drool rolling down your face.Yes. It's that good.Players of previous iterations of the GTA franchise will be happy to know that Niko is not some dopey guy who does whatever anyone tells him without reason.
And while the half-press-for-free-aim-full-press-for-auto-aim is initially a little annoying, by the time I had completed the fifth or sixth gunfight in the game, I hardly noticed it.The story is great, of course, and the voice acting is superb.
The setting, music, situations, and even graphics really make you a part of the whole experience.You get to explore the sandbox world of the game while getting into dangerous missions that include mobsters, criminal missions, and you even have time for your personal life.This is a great experience that demonstrates that new millennium systems capacity to recreate a parallel universe that will transport you in a parallel life to say something...Maybe I'm over praising this video game but believe me, until you play it, you will understand the whole experience....
Since some time now I have bought GTA 4 for my XBox 360 and its is far better then I expected, but before I begin my review lets look back on the previous GTA-games and what I personally think about them.I really enjoyed GTA 1 and 2, and even though many people have mostly forgotten about those 2D-classics, in my opinion they were still the best incarnation of GTA.
The graphics were still practically the same, the characters still looked like cartoon-characters and the overall story and gameplay wasn't good enough to keep me playing.Since San Andreas I never really thought about GTA anymore, until GTA 4 came out.
Speaking of realism; the game also features ragdoll-physics for the very first time which is very cool.The story is in my opinion the best in GTA, along with the various places you can visit to hang out with NPC's to play some darts, pool, or bowling.
You play as a Russian immigrant named Niko Bellic who comes to America with dreams of hope.There is a lot of driving and shoot-outs but that's what you expect from this kind of game.
Brucie's got to be the best character ever in the series.The missions are great, the taxi service is brilliant, finally the tedium of driving cross-city is over, and there's nothing better than running into a guy, making him retaliate and having HIM arrested.
This game has the best story line that truly makes feel for the main character Niko.
This game is extraordinary, the storyline, characters, game play.EVERYTHING IN THIS GAME IS SO AMAZING You are Niko Bellic coming from Europe to wash his past, and live the American dream alongside his cousin Roman Bellic, together they will conquer liberty city.Characters are so amazing in this game, and funny too!
the gameplay is very nice and the targeting from previous GTA's has improved.The game features a great cover system similar to that from Uncharted and Gears of War.The graphics are very realistic and detailed sometimes it looks just like real life.The online mode is really fun.
Pretty soon, Rockstar improved on their franchise greatly with Vice city in 2002, and then San Andreas in 2004, proving that they could push the capabilities of their game twice as far as they'd done before.And then 2008 arrived on the calendar.
You can just hotwire a 69 Charger (known in the game as a dukes) or steal a late-80's, Early 90's era Camaro (known as a Ruiner) and just go bombing through the city running people over, getting in trouble with the law, and hiring Sleazy women for their dirty services (you get to pick which one you want, and the game actually shows it happening this time!
When I first played this game I was amazed by the sheer realism just when the credits started and the main protagonist Niko landed in Liberty City.
I had played Grand Theft Auto III on Playstation 2 and the following sequels but when you begin to journey into the new and improved version of the game series, you begin to wonder how much effort Rockstar Games must have put into making this entire city come to life.The protagonist Niko Bellic is a very interesting character, not much is known about him except for the fact that he wants to live the American dream but also wants to put his very disturbed past behind him.With a variety of interesting characters, some top-notch dialogue and some excellent cutscenes, you begin to praise the game as not just a part of a terrific series but as one of the best games ever made.The storyline of this game is something that can only be seen in a movie with well-crafted dialogue, hilarious characters and character who is just as bad as he is good.
Even though some missions do become repetitive at times, side missions can rid the stress if you are having a hard time passing a certain mission or quest but once you're done with that you still feel like beating the game all the way to 100%.The graphics and gameplay in this game is also another achievement even if it borrows some of its duck and cover mechanics of numerous games the ragdoll physics and realistic environments take the game just that bit further.
When cars are being blown up, someone being run over or other various acts of crime happen you actually believe that its really happening right there at that very moment that makes it the best.The driving and combat mechanics has also been thoroughly improved, when Niko steals a vehicle its not as simple as getting into the vehicle and starting it, it takes time as Niko will break into the vehicle and then have to hotwire it to get it started which can cause suspicion for surrounding police officers, but the control of the cars is just as realistic and damage to certain vehicles is also amazing.Fighting or shooting is one of the things that make it a excellent game as well like ducking for cover, sliding on the ground, blocking a big punch or finishing them off is something that can only be seen to be believed as the ragdoll physics once again comes into play.Artificial intelligence in this game has been upgraded to its absolute maximum with bystanders moving out of your way as you walk pass or runaway when a weapon is pointed at their head they have become more clever and more realistic as they react to what is around them.Interactions with certain characters is also a well-praised experience, going out with friends or on dates makes this game just as interesting throughout as gaining friendship or companionship leads its rewards but at times when you're doing missions with them you do feel like you're the only one there especially when you're trying not to get hit by bullets or getting blown up by massive amounts of explosives.Police in this game can be very frustrating at times but can be very easy to get away from e.g. just driving a couples of kilometres down a straight road will pretty much fix your problems but when the heat gets too much you'll have more trouble trying to escape in one piece.Customisation is brought back as well, maybe not as much as San Andreas but it gets very close even though you can't customise Niko physically you can always make look more accessible to the outside world or just trying make him look like the biggest bad-ass that ever lived.There are many upon many of things I could add into this review but I don't think I can handle the mere strain of it all.
Like I said, awesome characters, excellent settings, funny dialogue and a story like no other, Grand Theft Auto IV is one of the best games ever made.Perfect 10 as it has everything you need in a game trust me whether it be on Playstation 3 or XBox 360 nothing can stop this amazing game..
Unlike GTA V, the characters in the game (like Niko) have a intriguing personality and has more sympathy.
where to begin the graphics alone are outstanding and the gameplay surpasses any other video game known to man, and the story well its better than the crap they make in Hollywood today its could go down as being as good as the godfather stories or scarface.
The stress and relationships of characters in the cut scenes really make you believe that they are actually real people.I never thought I'd come to a point where I called a game "perfect", however, I am stating that right now: GRAND THEFT AUTO 4 IS COMPLETELY PERFECT AND FLAWLESS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.
Grand Theft Auto IV is many things- open world (or "Sandbox"), violent, strategic and expensive.However, it lacks something else entirely: GTA IV IS NOT FUN.The gameplay is difficult, the load times are frustratingly awful and there's just a few elements in the overall procedure that serve as an absolute deterrent.For example, at almost any time during a firefight you'll probably get a phone call- forcing you to stand up and immediately expose yourself to incoming bullets.Second, the social networking system between characters is AWFUL.
don't get me wrong, i love cheat codes as much as the next player, but for gta 4, the cheat codes make the game so very boring, yet you find yourself in situations where you have no choice but to use them, which is disappointing (takes out all the fun).
Grand Theft Auto IV marks the beginning of Rockstar's HD era, where a vastly different approach was taken when compared to most previous titles.The GTA series has mostly been about entertainment value, absurdness & well constructed missions, but GTA IV is a lot more complex and morally ambiguous.
The cars are hard to control and do not turn as inhumanly quick as they would in other GTA's, which results in a game that is not very easy for the casual gamer to get a hold of, but all the more rewarding for the seasoned among us.Cutscenes often times feature many complex variaties in momentum, meaning that mood changes are very frequent.
Near the end of the game there is an event where his past will come back to haunt him, and a choice is given that is probably as morally difficult for the player as it is for Niko himself, and this changes his character significantly.
Without spoiling anything, the ending ( Primarily where the ending takes place ) is really symbolic for the satirical look that Rockstar wants to convey about the 'American dream'.Grand Theft Auto IV is loaded with superb voice acting, intelligent writing, a fantastic plot and storytelling, a lot of characterization, excellent cinematics & physics, great gameplay while also creating a fantastic study on moral ambiguity and what makes an innocent child into a murderous killing machine..
I like the Grand Theft Auto series, and I think even thought I've only played it for a week that this is the best in series so far and hope that this time of gaming continues.The basic plot of the game is your character Niko Bellic is an Eastern European immigrant who is invited to America by his cousin Roman who told him that he is rich, successful, lives in a mansion and having lots of sex with different American woman.
It is up to Niko to help his cousin out and rise up the criminal ladder.The graphics are amazing and very detailed, the games designers took get care to make the city and people as realistic as possible and make everyone different.
The Beat seems to play whatever R 'n' B crap is currently airing on real radio which is very disappointing as Vice City and San Andreas introduced me to a lot of great music that I never would have thought about listening to.
I can't help but be reminded of the state of the world when I listen to the talk shows in GTA IV, and I usually play video games to escape reality!
When i first played Vice City, i was Like OMG what a lovely game, you had bikes, cars, tones of guns and rewards after every 10 packages you find.
Your buddy actually has the audacity to say "take me home" before the game saves and progresses.This is not Grand Theft Auto, this is Taxi: The Liberty City Experience.Have you ever wanted to feel the bore and monotony of just driving, and driving, and driving, and driving, and driving, and driving, etc, etc, etc, etc?
Better than GTA V even, at least in regards to storyline and characters and the smaller details like radio and mission names.
I've played GTA: Vice City Stories (pretty good), San Andreas (Excellent) and then this (bad).
Absolutely blown away by the amazing graphics and the great gameplay, I thought this would finally be the perfect game, but to my disappointment I do have a few nitpicks about it.The story is about a European man named Niko Bellic who has had a tough life and was just looking to settle down and live with his brother Roman in Liberty City.
Doing what ever is necessary to get the money to pay back, Niko and Roman get mixed up with the wrong type of people which chains a whole series of violent and tragic events.Although Grand Theft Auto 4 is a very enjoyable game which is still in my top 15 favourite games, I have 2 tiny problems with it that have made me knock it down a few stars.Firstly, what is with the story?
Grand Theft Auto IV is one of the best GTA games ever in the whole series.
This game is truly a work of art but it is not for kids.Overall 10Graphics 10 Best Looking On HDTVSound 10Acting 10Story 10 A first for the GTA series.
If you've read about the game, it's pretty much as you'd expect: in it's favour, it takes place in a virtual city of unsurpassed detail; against this, game play does basically revolve around driving around and killing people, although I found enough specific challenges in the numerous missions to keep me hooked, even though I generally find mass slaughter rather tedious.
GTA IV is one of the best games i have ever played.
in the other grand theft auto games u can have cheats like: chrome cars, flying boats, drive on water and my favorite .
GTA IV has a great storyline, with a Russian named Niko coming over from Russia to live and work in Liberty City with his cousin Roman.
Some little things could be tweaked to make the game better such as, ability to buy properties(like you could on previous GTA games) currently you get given properties from missions etc.
The game may have had a major make over from its previous titles as far as not being so cartoony looking and going for a more realistic looking form.The thing i was worried about with GTA 4 is that i thought they were going for a more serious approach with it, with the graphics looking top notch compared to the originals i was wondering if there was going to be that GTA humor in it (pedestrians blurting out funny quote, funny characters, etc) thankfully its still there and it is pretty funny.The characters in the game are well played out and have some outstanding voice work, your character, Niko Bellic, can have some serious intense moments when fighting with a enemy in a gun fight that will get you pumped up when he shouts out these sentences, only because the voice work he does is to good." I gave this game an 8 out of 10 only because, they left out some things that i loved about GTA (planes, tanks, etc) and sometimes the controls can be unresponsive at times but over all this game is well worth buying for and i think everyone 360/PS3 owner should have one ( not for you young kids!) well if you decide to get it, Enjoy!.
The overall mechanics of the plot and the expansiveness of it all is cinematic and deeper than any other GTA game.The physics are far better than previous games which has caused some people to complain because they can't flip their cars a hundred times and keep driving, but I liked it.
I can't wait to see what a GTA game will look like in ten years' time.Too much has already been said about this game for me to add anything new or insightful, really, but I will end this by saying I disagree that it's "by far" the best game of the series.
Grand Theft Autos have always been excellent, but GTA IV, set in Liberty City, is the best one yet!
The story is strong while technically it is not only impressive in the grand scale but also right down to the detail, the little things that you discover that don't affects the missions but just make you feel like this is one really well put together game which of course it is. |
tt0113149 | Gazon maudit | Laurent (Alain Chabat) and Loli (Victoria Abril) are a thirty-ish married couple living in southern France with their young children. He is an estate agent; she is a housewife. Laurent has extramarital affairs.
Loli is unaware that her husband is unfaithful. Then one day, a campervan breaks down in front of their house. The driver is Marijo (Josiane Balasko), a 40s-ish butch lesbian who works as a DJ. She asks to use their phone. Loli has a blocked sink, so in exchange for using the phone, Marijo gets Loli's drain back in working order. Loli and Marijo begin an affair. Laurent is upset, but then his friend Antoine (Ticky Holgado) accidentally reveals Laurent's philandering to Loli. This seems to justify her romance. Marijo moves into the house.
Antoine then suggests that Laurent let Loli have her way, cease all hostility, and wait for the affair to burn out. Laurent agrees, and the household becomes a seemingly idyllic ménage à trois. But his strategy has its effect, especially after another lesbian couple, old friends of Marijo, happen by. Laurent welcomes them, but Loli becomes annoyed and jealous.
Marijo decides that the situation is not really going to work. She knows that Laurent wants her to leave. While Loli is away on a trip, Marijo makes a deal with Laurent. She will break up with Loli and leave immediately, if Laurent will give her something she has wanted for years: a baby. Laurent has sex with Marijo to get her pregnant, and Marijo departs before Loli returns. Laurent tells Loli nothing, as agreed with Marijo.
Laurent and Loli settle back down to their old life, but their relationship has been deeply affected. Then Loli hears from a mutual acquaintance that Marijo is living in Paris and is several months pregnant. Loli is astonished and shocked. She insists that she and Laurent go to Paris and contact Marijo. They find her working as a DJ in a lesbian dance club. Their intrusion provokes a quarrel with the club owner, who fires Marijo. Loli and Laurent take her back to their home, where she has her baby.
The ménage à trois is re-established, with the two mothers caring for their children. As a final twist, a handsome man (Miguel Bosé) moves into the neighbourhood and he and Laurent gaze into each other's eyes... | queer | train | wikipedia | This is a delightful light comedy about a married couple whose life change upon the arrival of a butch lesbian to their lives.
Nevertheless, the movie is funny, it's done with great taste and sensibility, and even though the characters are not 100% belivable, they are not stereotypical.
Victoria Abril is delicious, playing the wife whose disenchantment of the married life leads her to explore a lesbian affair.
What I liked in particular about this comedy, is that sexual orientation never becomes the main issue in the movie, and it's really secondary to the human relationships that develop in this bizarre triangle.
Overall, French twist is a fun light comedy which probably wouldn't raise an eyebrow in Europe but will need a very open minded audience in the US.
Loli, played by Victoria Abril, has given up a promising career as a dancer to become the wife of a womanising estate agent; and though she knows of one woman he has had an affair with and has forgiven him, she knows nothing about any of the others - not even her own baby-sitter!
So, when a butch lesbian, played by Josiane Balasko, appears on the scene, stopping at the house to ask for water for her van's radiator, she is a ripe fruit waiting to be picked.
The husband hates her so much and is so desperate to get rid of her that he is willing to do anything to get her to leave.But despite all the passion and jealousy this is a light comedy and not a heavy drama, and you have the feeling all along that everything will work out well in the end.
The moral of the story, affirmed at the end, is that the only things that matter are love, tenderness and affection and if we get those the source's sexual gender is immaterial; we are all bisexual.This is a bright, witty and observant comedy, well-acted, particularly by Victoria Abril,.
Playing Loli, a young housewife living in the south of France, Victoria Abril is as delightful as a spring breeze in Provence.
However, when the masculine Marijo, played poignantly by Josiane Balasko, enters their lives, the story takes many unexpected and entertaining turns which render a fairly common theme completely unpredictable.
OK, this picture is about sex, lesbians, homosexuality and triolism, we can see a few times Victoria Abril half or totally naked and Josiane Balasko smokes a lot of pot, but it is basically a comedy with no real provocation.
We know that the situations are implausible (a nice married woman falls in love at first glance with a butch-lesbian-truck-driver, who will have a baby with her husband) but the characters are funny enough to forget minor errors in the script and you will enjoy the way of cross that the unfaithful husband (Alain Chabat) will have to go through.3.
But if you find the plot outline attracting, if you ever wonder "What would I do if my wife leaves me for another woman ?", or if you want to see an uncommon film about relationships, you will not be disappointed !.
Instantly accessible to monolinguists - and yet its panache and pace could only be French (yeah, I know Abril is Spanish).Incidentally, I know we're not really supposed to respond to other comments from IMDb users, but it's interesting to note that the movie-loving community displays just as much intolerance and uptightness about sexuality as any other disparate group of people..
Abril's character charms both a lesbian and her inattentive husband who soon regrets his lack of regard for his live-wire wife.
Her sexuality is fluid---not really gay or straight but reponsive to genuine love and affection.If this film were about exclusively hetero characters it would probably not engender most of the outrage and invectives hurled at it.
At its essence, it's a light, well-acted film with decent writing and, frothy sexual politics typical of romantic comedies.
It certainly violates the rule book of romantic comedies US style: the homosexual characters have a more than ornamental role to play, the leads often behave in a less than likeable manner, and the morals our characters adhere to are thoroughly un-American.So, sounds like a lot of fun, doesn't it?
I generally liked it, but there were moments where I would have wanted the film to make a turn towards either something a bit darker and nastier or something more easily enjoyable.
I also was not happy with the casting of Josiane Balasko as the lesbian who seduces Victoria Abril, mostly for the very simple reason that she lacked sexual appeal to make this believable, but also because her butchness was too visibly a mask..
I am happy finally I found this movie here today, but astonished to find it carries a totally different new name that I have never heard of.This film is humorous and it explored politely, nicely on bisexuality, with an open tone & manner.
I really admire her courage & vision, plus her story- telling techniques.Anyhow throughout watching, I have been expecting anxiously for more visually explicit shots for more entertaining excitement, probably I was too much spoiled by the Artistic films....(Wink!) Anyhow the director, was considerate to make this film relatively conservative (probably a trade-off to let this film being able to suit more audience?), anyhow I still went away happy about this wonderful film.I would encourage anyone to watch this film, after watching it, you will go out of the theater & see a wider world, with a smile on your face.(From many films rating on this site, I was totally shocked to see how low this film was marked, it is so unbelievably low that I first started register here, to be able to balance this film as it deserves.
Even though I was expecting a funnier film, I was nevertheless pleasantly surprised by how these characters (especially the homosexuals) were written.
French Twist is a light comedy movie, which raise the issue of homosexuality to spectators.
Then Loli met Marijo who is a lesbian happen to visit to her house, and have a relationship.
It's prohibited for teenagers to watch the naked or sexual expression in Japan and U.S., but this movie does not hide such kind of scenes.
I guess she was frustrated by Laurent's attitude for women to woman because he had thought that women generally are obey men because man feed women, and should only house work and take care of children.
The film deserved some of the award such as best actor and best director since the main characters acting is vivid and entertaining.
I think the director have a unique way to show emotions between Marijo and Loli.
There is one scene when Marijo and Loli taking bath together, and this scene reveals the intense love of lesbian.
Also, Laurent's emotions and attitude towards Loli is quite complex after Marijo involve in their relationship.
Especially when Laurent agree to have sex with Marijo while Loli is away, I think that scene is a little exaggerated and awkward.
Since this film is comedy, this gender issue is also interesting.
I like the film because I personally love comedy movie.
This film support this kind of gender condition like lesbian.
I think the movie tries to tell its audience that if people love each other, it is okay to be whether heterosexual or homosexual.
Therefore, I like this film since not only scenes and shots are good but also the concepts are amazing.
As a comedy, the film stands out as it blends in the sexuality and gender issues in.
Personally, I think this movie is a successful one in terms of the story plot.
For European countries, it may be accepted to present controversial issues such as sexuality and lesbian relationships in a direct way compared to other countries such as the ones in Asia, where these are considered as taboos.Overall, I think this is an entertaining film and it is worth watching.
This movie is recommended to anyone who wants to know more about gender and sexuality issues, or anyone above illegal age..
French twist is a lighthearted comedy which centers around three characters in a love triangle not often seen in mainstream film.
The topic of the film may seem rather heavy but the director and actors do an excellent job of keeping the movie light and comedic.
Overall I think that the movie is definitely worth watching.
French Twist, also known as "Gazon Maudit" in France, is a French Sexual-Comedy film which playfully explores some aspects of homosexuality, gender roles, infidelity, and homophobia.
The subjects explored in the movie may sound heavy on paper, but in the actual context of the film were used more as a means to carry the comedy itself.
That is to say, the themes in the film, while not commonly explored, were not overly-subversive in a sense which would the film a "heavy" feeling.The comedic situations take place between the three main characters; Laurent, his wife Loli, and a lesbian DJ/drifter Marijo.
The film establishes quite early that since Laurent is an infidel and emotionally neglectful to his wife Loli, Loli engaging in homosexually promiscuous behavior with Marijo is not necessarily a betrayal to their marriage.
The psychology of this sort of 'revenge' against the neglectful husband is what prevents the audience from seeing Loli as a wretched being.Most of the comedy is based around awkward situations created by Marijo's attraction to Loli.
Homophobia is also explored in the sense that it seems as if his wife's homosexual explorations must be accepted by Laurent for him to progress as a character, and solve the issue between him and Loli.
"French Twist" is a film that is full of surprises from the very beginning to the very end.
A comedy made in France in 1995 gives us a plot that asks any man what he would do if his wife fell in love with a lesbian.
The characters, and their plights, are funny because the actors in this film give surprisingly good performances.
Victoria Abril, who plays Loli the housewife, does a great job in giving such life to her character while bringing enough emotion to make such a ridiculous affair believable.
He's a scum, but at some point in the movie, Alain is able to turn his character around and make the audience feel his plight.Kudos should also be given to both the director and writer.
Really, the pacing is what makes this movie such a joy to watch.Overall, "French Twist" is a very solid movie, and a really good comedy.
Mainstream comedies that deal with Homosexuality and bisexuality normally do so in one or two ways; they make fun of the alternate lifestyles or they use two women who are both very beautiful and seemingly straight and merely have them make out to excite the male portion of the audience that the movie is generally geared towards.
This is primarily because the Hollywood movie would be shot in a more exploitive way than this film.The plot is fairly predictable, however there are several twists that make this movie much more interesting then I would have originally thought.
"French Twist" is a mildly humorous situational comedy about an attractive women, wife, and mother who is married to a womanizer who becomes outraged when his wife falls in with a dyke.
The story is about a housewife named Loli (Victoria Abril) who calls a plumber for her kitchen drain and she meets Marijo (Josiane Balasko) who is a lesbian and instantly attracted to Loli.
Loli has a husband named Laurent (Alain Chabat) who is constantly cheating on her.
Its just a bunch scenes that are written into the film to make the characters react in a strange manner.
One thing that I did enjoy in this film is the performance of Ticky Holgado who plays Antoine.
It's insulting to think that a married woman with children would so readily entertain a lesbian love affair with a completely unattractive woman who stops by after her car breaks down.
If you're a guy you might think two chicks "doing it" is cool, but after watching this movie you get a better taste of what a homosexual lifestyle is like and frankly, it's not a turn-on.It was definitely provocative, but I couldn't enjoy it..
This particular film is about a very butch lesbian who aims to destroy Abril's shaky marriage.
The lesbian character is the most ugly, annoying, without-merit individual ever to be put on screen and it is unrealistic to think that Victoria Abril's character would want to be near her let alone make love to her.
He wife is one hot looking woman that I wouldn't cheated on myself but what's with the lesbian stuff in all these kind of movies huh?
I only like the ending just a little bit but, they should made it more good with the lesbian so called DJ fall in love with the husband and he fall in love with her but they didn't do the threesome way they did it their own stupid way..
I do think that the lesbian was portrayed as a human being, but the husband was a jerk and the wife- well I don't know too many women that are ac/dc....
French Twist is a sexual, yet also is a light romantic comedy film which shows the different aspects of gender roles and homosexuality which is not usually seen in a mainstream film.
For people who has watch this kind of film for the first time, this could be really shocking yet interesting and humorous plot of story.This film, shows how it is possible for a person to just change their sexuality in just a matter of flirting with the same sex, or it could also be possible that their real sexuality was hidden inside them for a long time and was just discovered when the right situation happens that pushes their real sexuality to come out.
On how Laurent criticizes Marijo because of her sexuality was not really super annoying, instead, all their clash scenes were very funny.
The director successfully turned a supposedly intense scenario of a homosexual love triangle into a very humorous and light scene.This film really did a great job on making the audience nervous and excited for what is going to happen with the married couple when a third party started to show up in the picture.
Over all I think that French Twist is a very unique film and will let the audience know that in love , gender doesn't matter..
French Twist explores the sexual fluidity that people possess with an upbeat and fun nature.
By categorizing the flow and charm of the film as a romantic/comedy, it draws and entertains the audience to a usually controversial and taboo topic, especially for American viewers.
Certain stereotypes for both genders are explored through the characters mainly of Loli and Laurent.
Although stereotypes of Loli's role as a housewife seem to be something pushed to her rather than she deliberately or naturally takes advantage of like Laurent does.
Although the character of Marijo is physically stereotyped as a butch lesbian, her relationship with Loli show a clear contrast between her relationship with her husband.
Laurent (Alain Chabat) is an estate agent, and a father, married to a Spanish housewife named Loli (Victoria Abril).
Indeed, to call Laurent a womanizer is the understatement of the year, with his friend Antoine (Ticky Holgado), they use their professional network as a bait for women, the side effect is that he doesn't have time for his wife and plays the workaholic card so often that it gives her all the reasons to feel neglected.
This feeling is accentuated by the fact that he's too exhausted to snuggle.Then comes Marijo, a truck driver, a butch, played by director Josiane Balasko, she bumps into Loli's house asking for water.
I couldn't believe he would flirt with this girl, or wouldn't recognize his daughter, it was written as if the writer had a personal record to settle with guys.Yet this is nothing compared to the ending, It was totally out-of-character to have Laurent immediately fall in love with a man.
The issue was not really about the fact that Marijo was a lesbian, but the fact that Loli couldn't decide who she should be with.
Fun movie to watch with a lot of hilarious scenes, but I don't know if I have learned something from it..
This movie might give a chance to reconstruct your ideas of gender roles and sexualities in a very French and really twisted way.
Marijo, played by Josiane Balasko, appears as a woman with non-standard behavior, and without any question about sexuality of herself.
In the way she acts, dress, and talk, you feel she has more attractive factors as a male than Laurant, played by Alain Chabat, does, with a common gender stereotype "females are attracted by reliable males caring only about them." The movie also succeeded showing a contrast between characters by showing Laurant, a straight-male, acts 'sissy' becoming emaciated while Marijo, a lesbian, always acts 'manly' whatever happens.
This makes you laugh out so loud with a great fun at scenes that Laurant treats Marijo's lesbian friends (includes her ex.) nicely as guests.
All the events in relationships in characters are caused by fast, simple, unstable, and 'easy-going' attitudes about physical and mental relationships of Loli, played by Victoria Abril; therefore there is no end to the trouble no matter the sexuality of her partners..
This movie is filled with many surprises and twists that keep the audience excited till the very end.
What I found really surprising and interesting about the plot was how sexuality was portrayed through Loli's attraction to Marijo rather than her husband.
Loli has thought she was straight her whole life which we can tell when she encounters Marijo for the first time.
However I personally believe this movie worked because it was done in Europe, and that America would not be open to these ideas. |
tt0108609 | Heung Gong kei on: Keung gaan | Kitty (Chingmy Yau) is a vicious young woman who has no qualms about stabbing girlfriend-bullying men in the genitals. Tinam (Simon Yam) is a cop who is undergoing a rather traumatic period: he shot his own brother by accident and as a result vomits every time he handles his gun.
When Kitty severely injures a man by stabbing him in the groin, Tinam attempts to arrest her but fails. Kitty later turns up at the police station and manipulates the facts to the point that Tinam has no choice but to start a relationship with her. This reveals Kitty as a subtle manipulator. Tinam, who has become impotent, finds that he no longer feels the same way about Kitty, who is content with leading him on.
Kitty's father is married to a new wife but the marriage is tense. One evening he catches her cheating on him with another man called Bee (Ken Lo). In the fight that follows, Kitty's father falls down the stairs and is killed.
Furiously determined to seek revenge, Kitty breaks into Bee's office and proceeds to kill him, his bodyguards and most of his staff (there is some indication that he is involved with organised crime). In the course of her escape she takes a woman hostage but, unexpectedly, the woman helps her out, disposing of many of the pursuers herself.
The woman turns out to be Sister Cindy (Wai Yiu) who is in fact a professional assassin. She was out to kill Bee herself before Kitty intercepted. Seeing that Kitty has potential, she proceeds to train her and gives her a new identity. The training includes the killing of enraged, chained-up paedophiles in Sister Cindy's cellar. Before long, the pupil outsmarts the teacher.
For her first mission, Kitty accompanies Sister Cindy and murders a member of the Japanese yakuza. This leads to a contract being placed on them and the assignment is entrusted to Princess (Carrie Ng), one of Sister Cindy's former protégés and a lesbian with an equally deadly young lover called Baby (Madoka Sugawara).
While investigating the murder himself, Tinam goes to check up on an air hostess whom the victim met prior to his death. The witness is Vivian Shang, who Tinam recognises as Kitty. She denies this but renews their relationship.
Sister Cindy proceeds to murder other people who could connect Kitty to Vivian Shang, including Tinam's superior and a witness to the groin-stabbing incident. Kitty does however stop her from killing Tinam himself. Kitty and Tinam consummate their relationship, but their different professions means that it will be difficult for things to go any further.
Sister Cindy for her part decides that Kitty has lost the killer touch, but on the other hand has found happiness with Tinam, and tells her to leave and make the most of it.
Princess, who is supposed to kill Kitty, becomes obsessed for her, leading to some conflict with Baby. They set about killing Sister Cindy who, with death approaching, puts up a good fight. But she is ultimately defeated due to a ploy used by Princess earlier that day. Princess had kissed Sister Cindy with poisonous lipstick, which, combined with some wine she has drunk, kills her.
Kitty goes into hiding but later confronts Princess, apparently willing to become her partner both in business and in bed. Princess subsequently falls into the same trap she set for Sister Cindy: when they kiss, Kitty passes on some poisoned lipstick of her own. Tinam then bursts in, shooting away at Princess' henchmen, apparently having overcome his vomiting problems.
In the battle, Tinam kills Baby and a furious Princess pursues him and Kitty back to Sister Cindy's home. The poison in her system catches up with her however and she dies with Kitty taunting her by claiming that she on the other hand will get to hospital in time to survive.
By this time, the poison inside Kitty has taken effect. Unwilling to lose her again, Tinam fires his gun into the gas oven causing the house to go up in flames with the two of them inside. | revenge, sadist | train | wikipedia | Worthy but altogether different follow-up to NAKED KILLER.
Advertised in some places as a sequel to NAKED KILLER, this is a much different film in style and tone but using some of the same principal cast members.
NAKED KILLER had a joyful exuberance in its blackly comic tale of rival lesbian hitwomen.
RAPED BY AN ANGEL is a much more grim tale of male/female relations both tender and brutal.
In typical Hong Kong film fashion, the cute scenes of Yau and Yam dating are intercut with the brutality of prolonged rape in a parallel story.
Like I SPIT ON YOUR GRAVE, the multitude of violent rape scenes make this a repellent film viewing experience while also being fascinating in its shameless exploitation of rape as entertainment, despite the use of comic relief to make this more acceptable to a wider audience.
While never eroticized, what this ultimately does is trivializes the act.
The film is undeniably effective but just don't expect another NAKED KILLER even though Chingmy Yau gets to play another tough chick character.
Well cast and slickly-lensed, this is not a film to watch on a first date..
It should not have had the "Naked Killer 2" title....
Alright, this movie should never have had carried the title "Naked Killer 2".
Well it had absolutely nothing in common with or anything to do with the first movie, aside from having the same two people in the lead roles and also having the same producer.The story in "Naked Killer 2" is about a perverted rapist (played by Mark Cheng) who preys on women in the apartment building where he has recently moved into.
He abducts, rapes and frames Man Man (played by Jacqueline Ng), but she gets help from her friend Yuk-Nam (played by Chingmy Yau) and her triad boss boyfriend (played by Simon Yam).Well, the story in itself wasn't all that bad, but it was suffering under the title of the movie and suffering severely by having both Chingmy Yau and Simon Yam in the lead roles.
I am not saying that they are bad at acting, far from it, but they both starred in the first movie and their characters died in the first movie.
Yeah, I know the ones in this 'sequel' is entirely different characters, but still...
I mean, come on, don't cast the exact same two people for the lead roles in a sequel that has nothing to do with the first movie.
It was just a massive fail on every level.The acting in "Naked Killer 2" was actually alright, and Mark Cheng actually put on a rather interesting performance as the deviant rapist, and he was the one that did the best job actually.
I will say that both Chingmy Yau and Simon Yam weren't doing their usual good acting here in this movie.Do not, and I emphasize on the 'not' part, watch "Naked Killer 2" immediately after having watched "Naked Killer".
I did that, and it was such a disappointing anti-climatic experience.
Watch them separately, and don't think too much of the title of "Naked Killer 2", because it is nothing more than a lame attempt on cashing in on the success of the first "Naked Killer" movie.
"Naked Killer 2" should have had a whole other title, because it is a whole different movie and experience..
I think it is better to see this as the first in a series (of five?) rather than a sequel to Naked Killer.
Whilst having been made with much the same squad this a very different film and has led many to see it who wouldn't otherwise, hence the surprisingly low average core.
This truly is a rape comedy and therein lies another problem, understandably for some viewers.
Oh and the 'angel' of the title refers, I believe, to the mask worn at the start.
Anyway despite or because of all that I love it and if you like sleazy cat3 films, you will too.
Jaw dropping stuff all the way with lovely girls, fast action and sex, nudity and of course rape barely without pause.
Even the brief police investigations and the court scenes are amusing.
Not for everybody but what is?.
Not for everybody but what is?.
Sleazy.
sleazy film, very cheaply made.
beware: the film is notorious for it's graphic sex/rape scenes, which are CUT OUT on the english release on the "made in hong kong" label..
Surprisingly enjoyable, given the subject matter.
I actually watched NAKED KILLER 2 before the first film, but that's no great shakes given that it's a thematic rather than direct sequel; the characters are different here.
The alternate title for this is RAPED BY AN ANGEL, and it's also a film that spawned a long-running series; the title gives you some idea what to expect of the subject matter.The surprising thing about NAKED KILLER 2 is that it's not bad at all.
For a film with a rapist as a central character, it's fairly densely plotted, with interesting supporting characters and some well-handled courtroom drama interludes.
Not what I was expecting from a scuzzy rape-revenge thriller.
Part of this success may be down to director Andrew Lau, who would later handled the INFERNAL AFFAIRS trilogy amongst many other movies.This was the third title of a 'Babes and Bullets' box set I picked up, the other two films being the disappointing EVIL INSTINCT and THE HUNTRESS: HER NAME IS CAT.
NAKED KILLER 2 is a much better film than either of those, although it's worth noting that the UK edition extensively cuts out all of the rape sequences.
I don't much like watching depictions of rape anyway so it was no great loss.
Simon Yam has a fine supporting role as a romantic Triad while Chingmy Yau grabs all of the attention as the kick-ass lead.
As usual for a Hong Kong thriller, there are bad taste elements, lots of sex but little nudity, jolting edits between romance and rape, some cool action, and a general high energy feel to the piece..
Creepy, Standard But Not Horrible.
Don't read the back of the DVD case, it outlines the whole film.
The film is about Mr. Chuck (Mark Cheng), who prefers rough sex.
Nam (the beautiful Chingmy Yau) spurns his advances at a party, so he befriends, then betrays her room mate Man (Jacqueline Ng).
He rapes her but makes it look completely consensual, and is found not guilty by a court.
He exacts revenge, then Nam does (again, the DVD case tells you how, I won't).
The film is somewhat creepy and Mark Cheng is sleazy, which means he did his job fairly well.
In many films, Chingmy Yau is eye candy mostly, but she gets to stretch her acting muscles a little here.
Its good to see that, she was a big star at the time.
The story has been told before and there are many "sequels" (I doubt they are true sequels, more just variations on this theme) but if you can handle it, its not bad.
There is a little nudity in it, but its not per-se gratuitous..
Now I know that box art can fool anyone, but why oh why did it have to be me?
The main heroine of this film is pictured on the dvd sleeve as wearing a tight revealing leather coat with a small gun that looks like a walther ppk or something, whilst on the back is a picture of two girls wearing not much and holding some guns.I expected one of those cheap 70s-type explotation movies with guns with big...guns blowing away people...unfortuently the closest you get is a tv advert for all things, milk.Anyway the plot revolves around some psycotic rapist who, in his smart suit, rapes girls who buys his properties, and 'cleverly' gets away with his crime every time by giving the impression to all his neighbours that he and the raped girl are lovers.Anyway, the rest of the film is cheaply made, poorly edited and just plain boring...nothing happens, we just see vengenace of the main heroine on the bad guy, and that's it...She's never a naked killer, and its not what the box says.
Avoid it.Overall: 0/10.
Formulaic and dull Hong Kong flick.
"Raped by an Angel", also known as "Naked Killer 2" is a formulaic Hong Kong sex-and-violence movie.
It is not as good as many others.
The acting is wooden, the violence muted and unrealistic, the consensual sex scenes dull and devoid of even the slightest hint of passion, and you can almost see the actors yawning during the rape scenes.
This is supposed to be a sex-violence-revenge thriller, but the plot is thin and devoid of suspense.
The only interesting part was a courtroom scene in which the rapist is one of the lawyers.
The movie has a category III rating (equivalent to our NC17) but is pretty tame by Cat-III standards.
The several rape scenes dubbed "explicit" and "prolonged" in some other reviews are neither.
They consist mostly of seeing the naked backside of the rapist standing up (briefly), seeing him leer as he unwraps a condom, and then seeing what is supposed to be a look of pain on a closeup of the woman's face, but actually looks more like indigestion.
The rapes themselves are implicit, and hidden by potted plants, furniture, and blankets.
The English subtitles are below average even for a Hong Kong quickie, and provide most of the comic relief..
Simon Yam in an entertaining role he'd probably be ashamed of by now.
"My girlfriend kicked his dick with no mercy, isn't it great?"The good thing about a movie starring Chingmy Yau is, it still may be as bad as it gets, but it has at least one redeeming factor, and that is, uh, Chingmy Yau. This "Naked Killer" Follow-up is colorful mainstream Exploitation including borderline Bad Taste and an action-packed finale with an insanely satisfying solution.
Add a fellatio-technique called "Ice-Fire-Stance", Milk-Advertisement featuring female mercenaries blowing things up in the jungle, Simon Yam, a chainsaw and excessive rape: typical Wong-Jing-Madness.
Surprisingly suspenseful thriller-plot, though..
The "Killer" still doesn't get naked..
The "Killer" still doesn't get naked..
This film brings back Chingmy Yau (Kitty from Naked Killer), and it also goes by Naked Killer 2, but there is nothing similar.
She is no longer "Kitty," but Yau Yuk-nam, who is being stalked by a rapist.Her stalker (Mark Cheng) and his girlfriend (Linda Cheung) like to play rape, but he brings a friend in one night, who really rapes her.
He then rapes her friend Chu (Jacqueline Ng), while she is gone with Tat (Simon Yam) After he beats the rap, things get very bloody as he takes revenge.Yau plots a revenge of her own after Chu is not found.Meanwhile, Cheng gets Tat out of the picture by seducing his ex and getting information for the police.What he doesn't is that there is a big surprise waiting for him.
He will get what he deserves..
"You dirty creeper!".
The "sequel" to the cult Hong Kong hit "Naked Killer" (which, unfortunately, I have not seen yet) is, according to all sources, a much different film.
Not the best way to get acquainted with modern Hong Kong cinema, but a fair enough ride for more seasoned fans.
Meandering and unpleasant at times, with the usual uneasy Hong Kong mix of different tones, but technically well-made; Chingmy Yau's charming presence and Simon Yam's good performance make up for a lot of other deficiencies.
Warning: the DVD subtitling is OUTRAGEOUSLY bad; not even eight-year-old kids make so many grammatical and spelling errors in each written sentence.
Category III Cinema: Raped by an Angel.
Raped by an Angel (1993) was a quasi sequel to the surprise adult hit NAKED KILLER.
Most of the cast was reunited with a script penned by executive Wong Jing.
Simon Yam and the super hot Chingmy Yau return in their starring roles.
A sleazy lawyer who likes young women rapes an actress.
Her friend, co-worker and roommate (Chingmy Yau) vows revenge.
So with the help of her boyfriend (Simon Yam) the two plan an elaborate scheme to get back at the lawyer who was let go on a legal technicality.
Chingmy plays a mind game with the lawyer that drives him into a sex craved lunatic.
One of Chingmy's friend's learns that she has the A.I.D.S. virus and she uses her in their shady plot.
The lawyer can't take it any more and demands to see Chingmy.
He tries to rape her.
But he finally catches her and has some vicious sex with her.
But when he turns her around, it's Chingmy's friend with A.I.D.S. The film ends with the police arresting him and the friends finally getting their vengeance.
Smiles all around.Highly recommended for shear insanity and un-P.C. humor..
More like "Chinese Psycho" than "Naked Killer 2".
The story is about a very well built stud Chuck (Mark Cheng) who's psychotic in a similar way to Patrick Bateman of American Psycho, but he's into rape.
He gets an urge to rape a girl on a slightest inflection, and is more calculating and ruthless than his American counter part.
He sets his target on Yuk-nam (Chingmy Yau) but plans to rape her friend Kit-Man (Jacqueline Ng) first and gets a copy of the key to her apartment through some tricky maneuvers.
He rapes her but leaves witness to claim in court that they were actually lovers, so he gets off the rape case Scott free.
Yuk-nam and her boy friend Tat Wah (Simon Yam) plans a revenge, and when Chuck tries to rape her she tricks him into raping her friend who has AIDS.
In the end, Chuck gets his crap beaten out of himself by Yuk, and police takes him away.Why they titled this movie "Naked Killer 2" is beyond me.
As far as I can see, there's no similarities to the plot or the character, although it's made by the same Wong Jing production and feature Chingmy Yau, and Simon Yam again.
The original Chinese title reads "Gon Gan" (not even Xiang Gang qi an zhi qiang jian) which simply means "rape", and this is the perfect title for this movie.Cinematography is beautiful as is with most movies that's made by Wong Jing, and features several beautiful Hong Kong actresses in semi-nude scenes including a shot of Chingmy Yau from the back in her most beautiful.
If I could credit Wong Jing, he sure knows a babe when he sees one.The movie's highlight is the nude rape scenes of several beautiful Chinese ladies , and shouldn't be seen expecting similarities to the original "Naked Killer".
It's an okay entertainment to be seen as Wong Jing's attempt at making rape movies. |
tt4386242 | R.L. Stine's Monsterville: The Cabinet of Souls | A small town Halloween festival finds itself intruded upon by an evil carnival with designs upon imprisoning and feeding off the souls of unwary teenagers. Targeted are four high school friends, whose two leaders, Kellen and Beth (not quite a dating couple), suddenly find themselves with alternate romantic choices (namely, carnival temptress Lilith and tall, handsome transfer student Hunter).
However, Beth notices that Dr. Hysteria's carnival is odd and that her friends have started to act on their more negative traits. This results in two of her friends turning into a clown and a witch. Kellen is later led by Lilith to a movie theater hidden in Dr. Hysteria's attraction, which shows the viewer what they dream or desire most; in his case this would be winning Beth's affection from Hunter. This, however, is what Dr. Hysteria uses to capture new victims to use as monsters in his carnival and to feed on their souls as sustenance. Beth is later led to the theater, but is unaffected by what she sees, as she chooses her friends over Hunter; she then learns Hunter and Lilith are Dr. Hysteria's adopted children. They want Beth to join them as her strength is what they seek in family; however, Beth douses them with a cocktail of exorcism materials, destroying them and their carnival. This frees, Kellen, their friends and another recent victim.
Kellen finally works up his courage and kisses Beth, to which she tells him that it was about time. | romantic | train | wikipedia | Enjoyable light horror with likable characters.
I'm a big horror nut but sometimes I like the soft stuff.
I've read a few R.L. Stine's "Goosebumps" novels and they're always an enjoyable read.
I feel like he captures teenage life quite nicely and he creates likable characters who you root for.
He's been well served by the television medium as his "Goosebumps" TV series is quite well done and I've just began watching his "The Haunting Hour" show and so far so good.
"The Cabinet of Souls" is, likewise, a very solid TV offering of light horror aimed (mainly) at kids and adults alike.
The setting is good; a traveling house of horrors with a mysterious owner who collects the souls of customers and feeds off of them.
It could very well be a premise for a full out gory R-rated film but it manages to generate a few creepy moments and is always entertaining.
The cast is likable and their characters as well.
They do possess qualities that are admirable and that's a nice thing for a parent to know if they'd like to sit down with their kids for something a little bit on the scary side.
Bad language is nicely sidestepped without the film feeling corny or something like that.
"The Cabinet of Souls" is an all around decent flick which many age groups can enjoy..
low expectations, great rewards.
I was actually looking for a different movie when I stumbled upon this through Netflix.
By the time I realized my mistake, I decided to give it a shot anyway.
I went in with the mentality that this was a kids movie because it is.
Anyway, I saw the plot coming a mile away but it was still fun to see the character's reactions to it.
Dove Cameron did a great job with her character and most of the others portrayed their intentions pretty well.
I absolutely loved the dynamic between Beth and Hunter.
I wanted, more than an adult woman should want, for a second movie to come out just to see what would happen if the bad guys came back.
I enjoyed this more than many of the other Goosebumps movies and I say it's worth a shot as a family flick.
Go in with low expectations and come out with great rewards..
Worth giving a shot before turning it down!.
I was amazed by this movie.
Thought it was gonna be just another cheesy kids horror movie, but I was surprised that it wasn't!
The movie had a good plot and the "twist" in the movie was unexpected to me, which made it even better!
Visual effects weren't that bad.
The makeup could've been done better, but for budget wise was pretty good.
Surprisingly, the guy behind the camera did pretty well!
The direction of the film had some good shots but mostly just basic film capturing.
Dove Cameron and Ryan McCartan were the two actors I recognized in this film.
Their acting was pretty descent.
I think Dove Cameron was the better actress out of this film.
It seems like she works with her role and makes her character the best she can!
Anyways, I really would take a shot on this film before turning it down.
I really think this movie will surprise you, but probably won't scare you!.
Timepass.
If you have nothing else to watch and this is the only thing on TV, watch it I guess.The biggest problem I had was with the weird camera-work.
Almost everything is blurred at the edges and I am guessing they were trying to give it a fairy-tale look with the blurring, but it just looks silly.The second problem is that the lead male and female have no chemistry.
The Hunter guy has more chemistry with the lead female and mostly because they actually are a couple in real life..
so yeah.In the end, acting is fine, girls are fine, mood is light and I was kinda hoping for all that.
But unlike Goosebumps, this movie wasn't very entertaining.
Teen problems mixed with campy horror.
Meh!.
Modestly enjoyable.
I don't watch horror.
Predictable.
And gore is just cheap schlock.But I love circuses and sideshows.
And there are many movies about them.
First main introduction was Ray Bradbury's Something Wicked This Way comes which was made into at least two movies.Anyway...This one is all a bit predictable.
It takes a while - i.e. too long - to get going and it changes protagonists half way through!
If you've one eye on the plot line it's a bit jarring.It's def YA.
Not just YA but childish YA.
Sub 12 maybe.
So although it has a great theme and some spooky moments, the childish parts really detract from the overall movie.But nice characters, well played and a suitable music score by Ryan Shore.But does the inane pop/hip hop music splattered throughout really appeal to the target audience?
Really?Yeah, I know that's twice I've said 'Really'.I can't help but think how much better it would have been if it had aimed at a slightly higher age range or, at the very least, not been dumbed down so much.
Hey ho...So, if you're a young and unfussy YA, go watch it..
R.L. Stine's Monsterville: The Cabinet of Souls (2015).
R.L. Stine's Monsterville: The Cabinet of Souls(2015) Starring: Dove Cmareon, Katherine McNamara, Ryan McCartan, Laine MacNeil, Briana Buckmaster, and Tiffany Espensen Directed By: Peter Deluise Review Hello Kiddies your pal the Crypt Critic is going to have a wonderful time at this Halloween Horror Nights, oh wait what this isn't Halloween Horror Nights?
Monsterville?
What in the hell is that?!
What in the hell is that?!
An R.L. Stine movie hmm, let me check this out.
Monsterville: Cabinet of Souls revolves around a group of friends Beth,Kellan, Luke and Nicole who are invited with the rest of the town to a new theme park that has come into town called the Hall of Horrors.
It's employers split them apart in attempt to use a spell to take their souls.
Beth is the only who seems to notice and must resit the spell long enough to save her friends.
This one seems like a fun time for the little children, the acting is decent not good but not cringe worthy.
When the picture started I actually thought Kellan was going to be the hero but no it was like an adult horror film where there is a final girl, in this case Beth is that final girl.
Which makes a great watch if you have a small girl to watch, what with all the feminism that's going on in television and movies these days.
The effects have the budget of a ham sandwich so they are of course not good at all, but with that said what could you expect from a TV movie.
Monsterville: Cabinet of Souls has a nice simple plot with a flowing narrative but with mediocre acting and no good effects, only good make-up for the monsters I'm giving this 2 and half pumpkins out of five..
The cabinet of souls will capture your Soul too.
When i was a kid i enjoyed goosebumps a lot, i assume that is what got me into liking horror movies.
So my sister told me about this new movie, and i decided to watch it, its very likable.
It got me pumped for Halloween in a nostalgic way.
It captured the original formula that the original goosebumps had, with the premise being about a haunted horror house capturing visitors and turning them into monsters, only to have their souls fed on by the villains.
Let me just say the practical effects and makeup look amazing, and clearly they had a bigger budget than other goosebumps.
The set looks great, the horror house made me go out and find a horror house that very night.The main characters are actually likable, the main lead is played by Disney star Dove Cameron ( who i have a crush on now), but of course shes already got 2 guys who like her, one of them has a childhood crush for her and through the movie hes trying to tell her that he likes her, kind of reminded me of my own real life crush on a girl i knew.
Also the villain is entertaining,kind of creepy ( he looks like the guy from "something wicked this way comes"), but is not really scary, also his introduction could have been way better and creepier.
However his daughter with the sultry voice, was well played and was one of the best characters in the film.
The script and dialogue was not awful, but it still felt like a Disney channel movie sometimes, despite being soft horror, there were some genuine creepy moments and a few jump scares,one of the characters turns into a very creepy clown, that looks just like the new penny wise!
the plot did get overly complicated for a goosebumps movie,like their was a love rectangle happening, also the only way to turn people into monsters is to show them their deepest desires,but this did lead to the love interest for dove having the most bad ass dream sequence ever, where he, dove, and his rival are fighting in a apocalyptic punk world, i loved that scene!
Other than that i didn't find too many problems with the movie, i actually kind of wish they did make it more scary but its just a goosebumps movie, its supposed to be training wheels for kids, to help them get more into the horror genre, just like i did.
its certainly one of the best goosebumps I've seen, it has awesome visuals, its a great Halloween movie to get you pumped and i recommend it. |
tt0069795 | Blackenstein | Big and burly African-American soldier Eddie Turner (Joe De Sue) stepped on a land mine while serving in Vietnam and lost both arms and legs. His physicist fiancée Doctor Winifred Walker (Ivory Stone) thinks she's found help for him in her white former teacher and colleague Doctor Stein (John Hart) who has recently won a Nobel Peace Prize for "solving the DNA genetic code".
In a tour of Doctor Stein's castle-like Los Angeles home, Winifred is introduced to his other patients: the ninety-year-old Eleanor who looks to be only fifty (Andrea King) thanks to Stein's treatments, and the bald Bruno (Nick Bolan) whose lower legs have been successfully re-attached via "laser beam fusion" and Stein's "DNA solution". Winifred is startled when she sees one of Bruno's legs is tiger-striped, which Doctor Stein attributes to "an unknown RNA problem" which he hopes to correct during the course of treatment. His sinister black assistant Malcomb (Roosevelt Jackson) seems overly interested in her reaction to this sight and in her in general. Meanwhile, the stoically suffering Eddie is being verbally abused by an obnoxious white orderly (Bob Brophy) at the local Veteran's Hospital. When Doctors Stein and Walker arrive to ask if he'd be interested in submitting to experimental limb transplant surgery that could correct his condition, he consents.
Doctor Stein gives Eddie new replacement arms using his DNA solution, and Eddie seems to be recovering well until Malcomb confesses his attraction to Winifred. Winifed tries to let him down gently, explaining that she intends to marry Eddie as soon as the surgeries are complete, and Malcomb seems to accept her statement, but he later vindictively sabotages the DNA solution used during Eddie's leg surgeries with the contaminated RNA, causing the former soldier to start to devolve into a primitive brutish state with hairy hands and a Neanderthal brow ridge. As his condition worsens and he loses the mental capacity for speech and rational thought, the stony-faced Eddie becomes a slowly shambling monster resembling an African-American version of the iconic Boris Karloff monster with a squarish afro instead of the usual scars and neck bolts. Although he lies in a near catatonic state by day, compelled by horrible cannibalistic urges the black suit and turtleneck-clad Eddie secretly leaves the house late each night in search of victims who he dismembers, disembowels and devours zombie-style, always returning in time each morning for his ongoing schedule of DNA injections with his doctors none the wiser.
Two police detectives visit Doctor Stein as the body count starts to rise (their suspicions aroused due to the fact that all the killings took place in the surrounding vicinity and that the abusive hospital orderly was the vengeful Eddie's first victim), but Stein is ignorant of the fact that there is now a murderous monster living in his basement laboratory. Winifred however has become suspicious of Malcomb and spends her time in the lab, examining the various solutions used during Eddie's surgery. One night, returning from his usual senseless rampage, Eddie hears screaming coming from Winifred's room. He enters to find Malcomb at her bedside and interrupts the attempted rape. Malcomb grabs a gun and empties it into the unaffected Eddie as Winifred flees. Eddie strangles Malcomb and then goes on to kill Bruno and Eleanor, the latter aging rapidly as she dies. Doctor Stein meets Winifred on the stairs, where she tells him Eddie is the monster. Together they down run to the lab.
Winifred busies herself preparing an injection of the DNA solution that she hopes will cure Eddie. When Eddie draws near, he seems moved by her terror and backs away, perhaps dimly remembering that she is his fiancée. Doctor Stein however attacks him from behind, provoking a violent response. After a brief tussle with his creator that ends with Stein being fatally knocked into the high voltage electrical equipment, Eddie leaves the house. The police arrive too late to stop Eddie but discover Doctor Stein's body and console Winifred. Eddie finds a brunette attempting to start a Jeep and spends several long minutes chasing her around an empty industrial warehouse. The police call in the Los Angeles County Canine Corps, and the Dobermans surround Eddie, knock him to the ground and, with a fittingly macabre irony, viciously tear the monster to pieces in the same way he killed his victims. | violence, murder, blaxploitation | train | wikipedia | Watching Blackenstein the Black Frankenstein (what a title!) is a one of a kind experience.
I can truly say that I've never seen a film quite like it.
Watch this one with your Z Grade movie loving friends and plenty of cold beverages.
This kitschy blaxploitation film was originally intended as a serious movie, which (ultimately) earns it some points in the camp department.
However, the movie's slow starting pacing pace, wooden acting, and (periodically) decent production value make for a largely uneventful ride.
Using sets from the original 1931 "Frankenstein," as well as similar art direction, "Blackenstein" was a movie that tried hard to be legitimate, and the first half of the film rises above typical exploitation schlock.
However, once the Blackenstein monster is created, the film begins to fall apart, and what follows is a terrible, "Blood Freak"-style horror movie, with laughably amateurish scene direction and gore effects.
The highlight is the awful acting, (particularly of Blackenstein himself), which makes for decent joke material, but I can't say we consistently laughed our way through this one.
BLACKENSTEIN is a terrible movie and its title wouldn't suggest otherwise.
Like ABBY (sort of like a Black version of THE EXORCIST), BLACKENSTEIN has practically no budget whatsoever and the acting is just terrible.
Believe it or not, the two Blacula movies aren't that bad--BLACKENSTEIN, however, is abysmally bad--so bad that bad movie fans might (but probably won't) love it.
One of the first things you'll notice on the DVD is that the print is really, really bad--though it does get a bit better later.
Instead, a sane researcher and his assistant work to attach dead limbs to living people who lost theirs in accidents.
While the transplant looks promising, no one realizes that the doctor's evil butler switches the genetic formulas and the poor Black man starts to mutate and become evil.
He, of course, goes on some obligatory rampages and since this is a so-called "Blaxploitation" film, you see two ladies' breasts--though it really made no sense at all and was very, very contrived.
The acting is purely amateur, the script is amazingly static and dull (something you'd never expect in a horror film--even a bad one) and the sets are cheap and make no sense.
It's really too dull for bad movie fans to enjoy and I found myself falling asleep from time to time--it was that unexciting.
By contrast, even the very worst Hammer horror film was light years better..
"Blackenstein" is a delightfully inept movie, some would even categorize it under so-bad-it's-great, and the script goes far beyond simply copying the original Shelley tale.
The actual Frankenstein plot is moderately altered as well, since the mad doctors (yes, two in this case, black & white brotherly messing with Mother Nature and God's creation together!) don't intend to re-insert life into dead body parts, but supply a wounded Vietnam veteran with new arms and legs.
"Blackenstein" is original and funny because of its ineptness, but after a while it nearly becomes unendurable to sit through.
Especially Roosevelt Jackson, as Malcomb the assistant, is the hammiest performer I've seen in a long time.
The DVD states that the operating sequences were shot with the same and carefully persevered scenery and sets of the original Frankenstein film.
"Blackenstein" is definitely not a good film, but nevertheless recommended to people with a morbid & insatiable curiosity for weird film-making..
At least Blackenstein is not a pimp or anything, though that's probably what viewers want from their campy movies.
Some Good, Cheesy Fun. Eddie is a Vietnam veteran who loses his arms and legs when he steps on a land mine, but a brilliant surgeon is able to attach new limbs.
Unfortunately an insanely jealous assistant (who has fallen in love with Eddie's fiancé) switches Eddie's DNA injections, transforming him into a gigantic killer.The most interesting thing about this film is that Bud Costello is credited as the property master.
This is not a great movie with great acting or plot.
Following on the heels of blacula and Dr black and Mr Hyde,blackenstein is a pretty good little b movie made by American international pictures,although not shown in the credits.blackenstein is laughable at some point,but good.i actually enjoyed it more than blacula.John Hart who played the lone ranger back in the day,is Dr stein a kindly Dr who has mad lab equipment in his basement.a former pupil of Dr stein comes to visit,played by lovely;Ivory Stone whose fiancé is a Vietnam vet who had his arms and legs blown off in combat.OK i guess you will see how this is going.for a 1974 movie its pretty gory.and yes the lab props were from the universal Frankenstein films borrowed from the late Ken Skrickfadden.blackenstein is a fun horror film for fans of the genre.cant figure out why a.i.p. is not in any credits,they may have disowned the film in the later years.if you never seen blackenstein then heres your chance.gruesome exploitation from the seventies..
After the huge success of "Blacula", Sam Arkoff made plans for a similar knock-off called "Blackenstein".
In the meanwhile, write-producer Frank Salteri decides to beat him to the proverbial punch by taking the Black Frankenstein concept, dashing out something resembling a script, gathering together a considerably less than stellar cast (including ex-mob moll Liz Renay and a couple of 40's has-beens who appear to have needed some extra bucks to pay the phone bill that month), and spending what appears to be about $30, slaps out one of the worst pieces of cinematic drek to have ever played inside the confines of a movie theater.
If the wooden acting and laughably inept gore effects don't get you, how about the inappropriate musical and stand-up comedy routines (such as they are), or the long-shot camera work during crucial scenes, or how the title character shuffles about with his arms outstretched, just like every parody of Frankenstein you've ever seen.For years, Sam Arkoff has taken the blame for this cinematic blunder.
if today they do a remake of blackenstien YES it would be scary now .THINK ABOUT IT.AND THE MOVIES THEY make now unless the music is really hard people are not that scared now.
but on the real tip the movie was not all that bad for it,s time that it came out.the end of it was a bit silly.
you don,t see that many black women getting killed in the white movies .
you don,t see that many black women getting killed in the white movies .
Probably trying to latch on to the success of Blacula(a rather good film), Blackenstein tells the story of a limbless Vietnam vet named Eddie returning only to be the guinea pig of a Nobel Peace prize winning doctor.
It seems that Eddie's girl, winsome Winifred Walker, a doctor with a PH.D in physics once worked under the renowned Dr. Stein.
Although on the surface this might seem like grand entertainment, the director and cast do an amazing job of breathing as little life into this film as possible.
The site of the good doctor's work is seemingly in a country estate, but later we hear from two policeman, not unlike members of the mob, that murders have been happening in the nearby vicinity.
The special effects consist of the old lab equipment of Kenneth Strickfaden that was used in the 30's Frankenstein films.
If you are looking for something akin to fun "trash" from that decade famous for just that, I think you will be greatly disappointed with Blackenstein..
A few of the 70s drive-in movies I've seen were a lot of fun.
A lot of your fun goes to scenes of mad scientists playing with liquid formulas and having to sit through useless scrap footage.
The way our stiff-looking creep in an afro walks around and spreads his arms defines the most horrendous acting performance I've ever seen.
I and my friends had a great time watching this collection of dismal performances, tacky set design, a confused patchwork script, and completely unjustified invocation of serious themes like Vietnam and racism in support of exploitationist trash.
The things we couldn't figure out were little things like: why does a black female physics student do graduate work with a white male medical doctor?
Why does the movie just stop dead right in the middle to present a couple of nightclub acts, then just pick up again like nothing had happened?
Stein is approached by Dr. Winifred Walker (Ivory Stone) for help w/ her boyfriend, Eddie Turner (Joe De Sue), a Vietnam vet who has returned home, minus several appendages.
Stein's monotone assistant, Malcolm (Roosevelt Jackson) is jealous of Eddie and Winifred.
Eddie mutates into BLACKENSTEIN!
Shambling forth in all new threads, and a head like a fireplug, the monster-formerly-known-as-Eddie sets off on a bloody rampage of limb-tearing / gut-unraveling death!
Ludicrous in every way, this "blaxploitation" movie is hyper-schlock in its purest form.
I thought fellow-blaxploitation horror flick "Blacula" (1972) had slipshod production values and was campy, but, wow, it's "Citizen Kane" compared to "Blackenstein." I understand the other IMDb reviews and voters who voted this movie 1/10, a rating I usually reserve for motion pictures that lack even the most basic of technical competence, for which in many ways this one is wanting.
But, I found its wretchedness to be amusing.The story is thin, the plotting repetitive (the monster interrupts three near rapes, Malcolm exchanges way too many creepy glances, and there are far too many lingering exterior shots of Dr. Stein's residence), the science-y stuff is ludicrous.
the monster is pathetically slow and his victims hilariously too stupid to just keep running away, or merely walking away at a comfortable pace, and the editing is some of the worst I've ever seen.
The cuts to close-ups of Malcolm and Dr. Walker, for instance, which are also poorly directed and acted--I didn't even know what the movie was trying to convey, at first, until Malcolm declared his love for her.Like "Blacula" and its sequel "Scream Blacula Scream" (1973), "Blackenstein" has at least one nightclub interlude, where we're treated to a stand-up act and some singing.
The dog joke, though, as with much of the movie, is bad, although it's not nearly as atrocious as the use of dogs in the film's conclusion.
The actor playing Eddie turned the monster has his arms and legs covered by blankets in too obvious of a way during the scenes where he supposedly has no arms and legs.
Choppy editing and dark lighting help hide the later makeup job, where he's made to look like a cross between Universal's Frankenstein monsters and a giant Neanderthal.
Additionally, "Blackenstein" doesn't deal with anything like the racial issues that elevated the Blacula films beyond mere camp.
The semi-mad doctor Stein is white, but there's also a female black doctor assistant.
I have nothing bad to say about it; it's all I could hope for from a low-budget, bad 1970s exploitation monster movie trying to rip-off the 1931 "Frankenstein," complete with pseudoscientific gizmos, beakers that are always burning with bubbling liquids, shadows cast on the walls, flickering lights, spinning things and other nonsense.
The film's lingering and repetitive shots and scenes also are put to good use in showing off the space..
Blackenstein (1973) * 1/2 (out of 4) A black man has his arms and legs blown off in Vietnam but Dr. Stein puts him back together again using his DNA potion.
Whenever you hear the title BLACKENSTEIN it's usually followed by "worst movie ever made" or something to that nature.
In all honesty I was rather disappointed that the movie didn't live up to its bad reputation.
Yes, it's a very bad movie but it's not nearly as bad as hundreds of other horror movies out there and I'd say if you're a fan of drive-in cheese from the 70s then you'll probably find yourself either smiling or laughing at this picture.
Being blaxploitation, it's mostly dumb white people being killed by the monster but the stereotypes are rather hilarious.
The monster looks very stupid but the death scenes are rather brutal, although the special effects are a joke.
I would tell you how the monster dies at the end but you really need to see if for yourself as it's reason enough to check the film out..
Blacula is the actual better movie but it's dull.
All the sequences of the monster killing others are utterly hilarious and mostly random with some victims being those that wronged Blackenstein and others being random civilians.
This movies is absolutely awful.
I truly feel like every copy of this movie should be destroyed to prevent additional people from wasting part of their lives on it.
Trust me, this movie should not be viewed, even to laugh at how bad it is..
When her boyfriend Eddie Turner (Joe DeSue) returns from Vietnam without arms and legs, Dr. Winnifred Walker (Ivory Stone) appeals to former teacher and Nobel Prize-winning Dr. Stein (John Hart) for help--and Dr. Stein, who has been fiddling with DNA, accomodates them by growing some new arms and legs.
and one of his first victims is an ugly white woman with a really bad hair-do and bad taste in pink nighties.On the surface, BLACKENSTEIN would seem everything a cult-movie fan could ever wish.
And it is true, there are about six "howlers" per minute in this film--actors who can't act, ridiculous dialogue, bad cinematography, awful special effects, extremely silly make-up, you name it, this flick has it.
BLACKENSTEIN (1973) ½* John Hart, Ivory Stone, Joe DeSue, Roosevelt Jackson.
Levey (Wham Bam Thank You Spaceman; Skatetown, U.S.A.), "Dr. Stein" replaces the arms and legs of a black Vietnam vet named Eddie, but something goes wrong and Eddie becomes a murdering, rampaging monster.
If you're interested in blaxploitation/horror hybrids like this, check out the vastly superior "Blacula" instead..
This has got to be the worst movie I have ever seen, an hour and a half of my life that I will never get back.
So really this is better then the original Frankenstein.
This black s.p.l.o.i.t.a.t.i.o.n remake of Frankenstein.
Doctor Frankenstein creates a monster out bead body parts.
This movie has a great story line.
Blackenstein – THE BLACK FRANKENSTEIN (William A.
Anyway, after the runaway success that the Blaxploitation take on "Dracula" i.e. BLACULA (1972) had been, it was inevitable that Frankenstein would also undergo a similar makeover – pity they did not wait for a better script or, for that matter, a more talented crew of both technicians and performers before experimenting!
However, neither is the make-up devised for it any better: after his cells are exchanged with those of another patient in white(!) Dr. Stein's laboratory – by a zombie-like assistant who lusts after his girl, a former pupil of the doc's – he gets an absurdly elongated and bulging forehead to go along with the recognized arms outstretched countenance and snarling!
Horror and blaxploitation with Malcomb & Eddie..
I wanted to originally call this the original "Malcolm & Eddie" but apparently the guy's name in this movie is Malcomb.
There were a number of black themed horror films that were made.
Of course, they also decided to remake Frankenstein.The movie begins as Dr. Winifred Walker has come to her mentor Dr. Stein in Los Angeles asking for his help.
Her boyfriend Eddie Turner is a Vietnam vet who came back to the U.S. with both his arms and legs amputated due to a landmine explosion.
He agrees to help Eddie.During the operation, which takes three steps, Dr. Stein's assistant Malcomb falls in love with Dr. Walker.
Winifred tells Malcomb that she can only like Malcomb as a friend because she loves Eddie and wants to marry him once he's recovered.
Malcomb then switches Eddie's DNA with the DNA of someone (something?) else and when they keep injecting the DNA in him, he mutates into the title character: BLACKENSTEIN!
All this while the doctors try to figure out why Eddie has mutated to this form.The acting in this movie is atrocious.
Malcomb, played by Roosevelt Jones, does come off as effective due to Jones' wooden acting since he is playing a simple but sinister man.
And boy, does Blacky move slow and look silly with his afro and threads.If you do like bad movies, this is worthy, but it is missing that special ingredient that something like Plan 9 From Outer Space or Showgirls offered.
There is better in every genre (blaxploitation, horror, so-bad-it's good or a mix) so you should look elsewhere..
Noted scientist Dr. Stein (stolid John Hart) and perky assistant Dr. Winfred Walker (a winningly spunky portrayal by Ivory Stone) try to restore dismembered Vietnam veteran Eddie Turner (an engagingly earnest performance by the hulking John De Sue) to his former self.
Alas, smitten and jealous servant Malcomb (deliciously overplayed with deep-voiced hammy brio by Roosevelt Jackson) tampers with the serum, which turns Eddie into a grunting grotesque monster who breaks out to embark on the expected murderous rampage.
The scenes showing Eddie tearing apart people are simply hilarious; the definite sidesplitting highlight occurs when our hideously malformed maniac disembowels a shrieking topless woman in an alley way.
If you like 'b' movies to just check off your list, Blackenstein should rate number 27.
Eddie, a Vietnam Vet, tragically wounded by a land mine gets the crappy version of Lieunenant Dan's new legs (and arms!) in a thrilling (not so thrilling) adventure of third rate science and fourth rate acting.
There are three really amazing things to see in this movie.
One: The 'science' laboratory set of Dr. Stein (LOVE the groovy funkified name shortening, really, I think it's a hilarious update to this century.) Two: the night club with an appearance by Cardella Di Milo.
Death by bad acting!This movie is a must see for everyone who enjoys a laugh at 70's cheese, and won't take the plot too seriously. |
tt0119843 | Oscar and Lucinda | As a child living in Australia, Lucinda Leplastrier is given a Prince Rupert's Drop which sparks a lifelong obsession with glass.
Lucinda's parents die and she is left a wealthy heiress after her guardians sell off the vast farmland that was her family's home. She buys a glass factory with her money and takes to gambling after her accountant introduces her to it.
Meanwhile, a young Oscar is being raised as a Plymouth Brethren by his father but after receiving a sign from God he decides to join the Anglican faith. While studying he is introduced to gambling and becomes massively successful, using his winnings to fund his studies and giving the rest to the poor. He earns a scholarship to study in New South Wales. On the boat over he meets Lucinda and hears her confess to gambling which he denies is a sin. They play cards together until Oscar becomes panicked at the sight of a storm.
In New South Wales Oscar loses his scholarship after he is unable to stop gambling. He goes to live with Lucinda who allows him to work in her glass factory. Inspired by a model of a glass church she shows him he asks her to make a real life replica to send to their mutual friend the Revered Dennis Hasset, betting that he can deliver it by Good Friday. Lucinda decides that they will each bet their inheritance.
Because he fears water, Oscar takes the church over land in an expedition led by Mr. Jeffries. He witnesses Jeffries murdering and raping Indigenous Australians and eventually kills him in self-defence after Jeffries attacks him.
He is successful in delivering the church. Weakened upon arrival, he is left in the care of a woman named Miriam Chadwick, who rapes him. Fearing that he will have to marry Miriam, and in love with Lucinda, Oscar enters the glass church to pray. He falls asleep and is drowned inside when the church, which had been resting on a barge in the water, sinks.
As Miriam is pregnant with Oscar's child, Hasset burns the papers confirming the wager, not wanting Lucinda's money to be inherited by her. She dies shortly after her son, Oscar, is born and the child is raised by Lucinda. | murder | train | wikipedia | The film had to do with love and gambling, yes, but there were elements of faith, guilt, family, destiny and survival that were wholly ignored in the press.
Like her minor role in _Paradise Road_, she steals scenes and breaks hearts with an undeniable charisma and resolve.Set in Australia, the story is surprising, and ultimately shocking in its constrast of the ideal and the real.
I loved the awkwardness of Oscar and Lucinda, and the way that we had a chance to see (at length} who they were before they ever met each other.
It made their attraction to one another make sense (something so rare in cinematic romances).I think this is Ralph Fiennes' best performance of his career, and he's proved his versatility.
Cate Blanchett was really the standout for me; I took notice of her right away, and determined to keep an eye out for her future performances (she did a terrific job in the flawed "Elizabeth").Of course, the film is beautifully made (I wouldn't expect anything less from Gillian Armstrong) and imaginative ...
I don't know what it is about Ralph Fiennes and Booker Prize-winning novels (like 1996's THE ENGLISH PATIENT), but this shows him to have a pretty good track record with them.
This novel was extremely difficult to follow, but director Gillian Armstrong, who also did a good job with her adaptation of the more straightforward LITTLE WOMAN, cuts through the confusing storyline to make an entertaining and thoughtful film about gambling, religion, and, of course, love.
She and writer Laura Jones can't quite defeat some of the overdone symbolism of the novel (like the glass church), but for the most part, this avoids the stateliness of many literary adaptations by being alive.Fiennes took awhile to warm up for me as Oscar, because this is a more outwardly nervous character than he's ever played before, and the voice he uses takes getting used to as well.
I love these two actors, Ralph Fiennes and Cate Blanchett.
In this film Ralph Fiennes and Cate Blanchett are the virtuosos and they simply dazzled me with their talent.The main story of Oscar and Lucinda is not very original, a tragic love story.
Their repressed world can make an interesting contrast to the lives of free spirits and native cultures.The dilemma Oscar and Lucinda gives us is that if we follow our feelings and obsessions, we will break away from many silly and confining customs.
Oscar and Lucinda goes to the heart of many of these conflicts which are also touched upon by the fine film, The Piano, and by the more obvious and superficial Sirens.With such weighty issues, there is much hand wringing guilt by several characters.
Based on Australian novelist, Peter Carey's award-winning book, Oscar and Lucinda, this is a faithful period piece about iconoclasts and their attempt to find love and purpose in strait-laced society despite their fears and obsessions.Ralph Fiennes and Cate Blanchett have glorious, quirky chemistry in the title roles.
Ralph Fiennes is such a mercurial actor that while watching this film, it's hard to believe this is the same man that played Amon Goeth in Schindler's List and Charles Van Doren in Quiz Show.Cate Blanchett was discovered by Director Shekhar Kapur and awarded the title role in Elizabeth as a result of her natural, unforced acting in this little-seen Gillian Armstrong film.
Regular readers of my comments will wonder why I elevate it to my "must see" categoryPart of the reason I want you to see it is because of how well it pairs with Cate's masterpiece, "Heaven." Now, that film can stand on its own as a transcendent cinematic experience.
Altogether a masterful piece of work from one of my favorite directors (Armstrong also filmed "Charlotte Gray," and "Little Women"), with an absolutely stunning, star-studded (before they were "big") cast.You simply cannot comment on the film without considering the two leading cast members.
If you're not in tears by the end, you've not managed to give your heart over to one of the most fascinating literary characters ever created.The sub-roles are all very good (Richard Roxburg in yet ANOTHER 'villainous' lead, but no one minds his untimely demise; Cirian Hinds in the upper-crust role of a minister shocked by his lady friend's gambling habits, even Geoffrey Rush as the unseen narrorator) and lend themselves to a highly romantic atmosphere.
In the course of this film you believe Oscar & Lucinda actually get to know one another.
Two eccentrics, one the rich owner of a glass-works (Cate Blanchette), and one an emotionally damaged and physically fragile young minister (Ralph Fiennes) are united in friendship, and eventually romance by their obsession with gambling.
After a slow beginning, Oscar and Lucinda meet and create a peculiar relationship with God on one side and the addiction of gambling on the other.
But we still get the picture and by the end of it Ralph Fiennes' brilliant performance as the saintly manic, bible guilt-ridden, phobia riddled Oscar, makes it worth the while..
I couldn't believe it.Despite the story problems, Cate Blanchett and Ralph Fiennes were excellent..
Lucinda's character is underdeveloped in the script, but played all-out by Cate Blanchett.
Here's a movie which appears to have a lot going for it: adaptation of a Booker Prize novel, directed by Gillian Armstrong, Ralph Fiennes straight from his triumph in the English Patient, and Cate Blanchett in her first significant role.
This is a strange story (whose plot I won't repeat for anyone wishing to be surprised) with characters that are completely unconvincing, despite the best efforts of Fiennes and Blanchett, in a story that might serve the fantastical imagination of certain directors.
After seeing it, I wondered why this wonderful film wasn't in more places.Ralph Fiennes and Cate Blanchett are dazzling in their roles, as a aqua-phobic priest and a defiant glassworks business woman.
Directed with sizzling intensity and flair by the Australian Gillian Armstrong, it pairs Ralph Fiennes as Oscar with Cate Blanchett as Lucinda, when they were at their most youthful, zestful, and charming.
Blanchett and Fiennes play two oddballs, whose childhoods are briefly but effectively sketched, in this strange tale set in the 1840s and based on a novel by the Australian novelist Peter Carey.
At times, it is almost like watching a wildlife film, with Oscar and Lucinda as the creatures with the strange habits.
They are so obsessed with gambling that they forget to fall in love until rather late in the story.
Great performance from Ralph Fiennes and a good one from Cate Blanchett.
Lucinda Leplastrier (Cate Blanchett) receives a large inheritance which she uses to buy a glass factory in Sydney.
Odd, unique, beautifully photographed character study/love story.
Odd, unique, beautifully photographed character study/love story.
"Oscar and Lucinda," made in 1997 by Gillian Armstrong, stars Ralph Fiennes and Cate Blanchett in the title roles.
The film starts out one way and becomes something else, and then something else again - it's quite a saga, and very beautiful to look at.Fiennes plays an Anglican minister, Oscar, who is a compulsive gambler.
Oscar then makes a bet with Lucinda that he can deliver a church - made of glass - to her minister friend Hinds, which means it has to travel across the continent.
If he can do it, it will be proof that he loves Lucinda.The vision of the glass church going down the river alone makes this movie worthwhile - truly stunning.Blanchett gives a beautiful performance, very organic.
The very last scene in the film pulls it out of what could have been a real downer.I can't say I loved it, but there are some wonderful elements in this movie.
Acting, story, costumes, casting, cinematography, sets (which include the amazing glass church).
The fullness with which this is explored, in the complexity of family history, religious influence, the restraint of both social construct and insecurity, make this a remarkable gem that deserves the overwhelming word of mouth that this film has accumulated.If this type of film (period piece, character studies, off beat story and characters) is not your cup of tea, don't waste your time.
Whenever I watch or think about this film my life seems to illuminate and sparkle just like the movie does..
Ralph Fiennes and Cate Blanchett are perfect as the two misfits in this love story/tragedy.
In this church stands Oscar and this is the proof of his love for a woman called Lucinda.
For those of you know a little about Stanislavsky and objectives in acting you'll know that in a role you must apply only one objective at a time, but cleverly pointed out by one of my friends, Fiennes defies this and plays multiple objectives making his character so much more deeper.
A less talented actor would not have been able to carry this off, but Ralph Fiennes, as usual makes it seem like water off a ducks back.Cate Blanchett shines as the strong female in the film - a successful female in a man's world.
Blanchett, not being the most attractive woman in the entire world is perfectly cast as you find yourself watching her and finding her incredibly sexy - and just want to jump and say Oscar and Lucinda - you are so perfect for each other!
The scene with Blanchett in the glass church is an amazing piece of acting.Gillian Armstrong (Little Women) triumphs with the breathtaking Australian and English countryside scenery, and certain shots just shouldn't work, but amazingly they do.Oscar and Lucinda is acting at it's best, and an amazing screenplay from such a dull, long-winded book..
"Oscar and Lucinda," directed by superb Australia director Gillian Armstrong , was very worthy of much more notice than it received in America.
Strong performances by the entire cast (especially the supporting character, Oscar's adoptive father, played wonderfully by Tom Wilkinson of 1997's hilarious "The Full Monty," who proves here that he can be an intensely passionate dramatic actor as well as a comedic one), together with intensely beautiful cinematography, a tight, well-woven plot, and incredible direction make this a film not to be missed.
Ralph Fiennes' incredible talent touches me once again as he portrays Oscar, a timid, nervous gambler with a heart of gold.
I love Cate Blanchett and also admire Ralph Fiennes's acting skills.
If I'm wrong, please correct me.The palette of colors, the wondrous settings, the cast -- the beauty of Ralph Fiennes eyes, Cate Blanchette's cheekbones --, the way nature and industry, religious piety and intemperance conflict and coalesce is too magnificent to describe in a short review.
Oscar and Lucinda is one of the best movies I have ever seen.
Also I think Ralph Fiennes should have been nominated for best actor in his performance.
"Oscar and Lucinda" reminded me why I keep watching movies, even though so many of them turn out to be disappointing - because every once in a while you stumble across one that takes your breath away.
Both were very odd and unconventional people (at least Oscar was - Lucinda struck me simply as a woman way ahead of her time, but Oscar would have been a misfit in any era), but through the course of the movie you get to know and understand and sympathize with them to an unbelievable degree.
It was especially moving because they were both such outcasts from society that - to use the language of gambling that permeates the movie - the odds were stacked against either of them finding someone who would love and understand them.
Besides, the fact we can get so worked up about the fate of fictional characters is a testament to how good this movie is.If you are a romantic, but hate conventional, cliched, sappy, superficial Hollywood love stories, this is the movie for you..
This movie is filled with magical imagry & layers of meanings.Oscar, while not the usual dashing character that Ralph Fiennes plays, is one of the most romantic.Cate Blanchett, at the beginning of her rocketing rise to fame is his perfect match.They make these unusual characters extremely engaging & endearing.
Ralph Fiennes is wonderful as Oscar and Cate Blanchett is quite good, as well.
Though I didn't like the film as well as Peter Carey's splendid novel on which it's based, I think it a good and quite unusual movie.
In "Oscar and Lucinda", Armstrong takes a quantum leap and creates her riskiest project to date, recalling the folly and bravery of Herzog's "Fitzcarraldo", a work that has come to signify the grandeur and illusions of filmmaking.
Like "Fitzcarraldo", "Oscar and Lucinda" is imbued with the same obsessions and romantic longings that border on madness--defying reality at all costs.
I believe this movie was quite splendid indeed.I especially enjoyed the part where Oscar said "The" It really was quite smashing.Coming from England I believe this movie was very accurate.My mates and I had a wonderful time watching this film; We believed it was "Sexcii" as the "hip" kids call it these days.Well I must be going now.Chereo!
The two titular characters -- one starting out in England, the other in Sydney, Australia -- don't even meet until about 40 minutes into the film; it's all the more impressive that we don't feel impatient for this meeting, realizing that their connection will occur as a result of the natural and logical development of the story.
Aside from Oscar and Lucinda, Armstrong also has to manage about 8 or 9 other characters who will be crucial to the plot.
In other words, the Narrator is a key element, rather than a superfluous chatterbox -- the case of most movie narrators.The story is set in the 1850's, revolving around a saintly young Anglican minister (Ralph Fiennes) who, trying to escape his gambling addiction, takes a ship to Australia.
On board, he meets Lucinda (Cate Blanchett), an ahead-of-her-time independent businesswoman from Sydney who is returning home after a buying expedition for her glass-works factory.
and, for Oscar, ultimate proof that he loves Lucinda more than any man.This is a wonderful story, chock-full of some pretty startling ideas -- for instance, that religious faith itself is little more than a cosmic gamble -- and immersed in the visual symbols of water (i.e., Death) and glass (declared here as a solid form of liquid).
True saints can never be with us for very long: they set examples for us, but they're soon called home to God. In any case, the movie's symbolism was telling you all along what Fiennes' fate would be.Sorry for the long review, but this is a great film.
And this movie also introduced us to the great Cate Blanchett, who has more than lived up to the promise that she manifested here.9 stars out of 10..
I hate to sound like a Philistine, but although I have enjoyed many an indy film that was slow and deep and unusual, I found 'Oscar and Lucinda' such a mish-mash of events, characters and crazy actions that I eventually was left simply shaking my head and wondering what on earth could happen next, while not really caring any more.
I hated Ralph Fiennes as Oscar, wanting to jump into the film and cut his hair or give him a new hat and wardrobe.
Yet it still seems strange to see the social stigma Oscar and Lucinda face for their obsession.
In fact, Oscar gets away with murder, but he can't seem to escape being punished for his gambling habit.This is part of the irony and humor of the film, and irony can be by its nature, very frustrating, especially when tragedy lurks so close at hand at all times.
No. We all want happy endings, but we all know too well that their existence is a blessing more than a given, and that has everything to do with why we crave them so much.Oscar and Lucinda are misfits, pure and simple.
Mid-19th century tale set for the most part in Australia, about the relationship between Oscar (Ralph Fiennes) an eccentric Anglican minister who has set out from England and Lucinda (Cate Blanchett) an eccentric Australian heiress.
Both characters have gambling issues and one is obsessive while the other is compulsive which I how they come to know each other.Oscar and Lucinda find themselves drawn to one another not only by their mutual addiction but also by their loneliness and isolation.
Their ultimate wager concerns the delivery of a glass church to an isolated settlement by Good Friday, which is further complicated by Oscar's insistence that it be delivered overland because of his phobia of open water - despite the hazards of the virtually untouched wilderness.Directed by Gillian Armstrong with strong performance by both leads and a rather impressive supporting cast including Geoffrey Rush as the narrator.
At the same time we meet Cate Blanchett, an ambitious young lady who enjoys gambling, does well at it, acquires a glass factory, and moves to Australia aboard the Leviathan.The two of them DO meet aboard the ship and spend a lot of time together in Sidney, playing poker and making wagers on all sorts of silly thing, such as who can finish scrubbing the floor first.
I don't know what to make of scenes like that.It's a very genteel story as befits the times.
First things first, Cate Blanchett and Ralph Fiennes are water and air for the world's film industry as we know it.
It was breathtaking (especially the floating church scene), it was heartbreaking, it was bittersweet, it was beautiful, it was thought provoking, it was marvelous, it was well narrated, it was well acted, it was well directed, it was picturesque!Oscar and Lucinda (Fiennes and Blanchett) are two young adults who love to gamble.
Oscar's a priest and Lucinda's socialite just coming out in society.
Lucinda then decides to build a glass church for their mutual friend, a priest who lives miles away and Oscar bets he can deliver it to him before Good Friday. |
tt0114489 | Soldier Boyz | The film shows a scene of a girl being kidnapped from a charity plane by Vietnamese rebels (a U.N. supplies [as in food and medicine] plane) in Vietnam. Then we are taken to the United States to a detention center in Los Angeles where the warden of the center and 6 of the toughest prisoners are hired to rescue the girl, whose name is Gabrielle Presscott, daughter of Jameson Prescott, CEO and billionaire. Warden Toliver and prisoners (by last name only, their first names are never revealed) Butts and Monster (black youths), Lopez and Vasquez (Latino youths, with Vasquez being a girl), and Brophy and Lamb (white youths). The group travels to Vietnam with three days to rescue Gabrielle, spending one day to train and the rest of the days to find her.
After winning a battle the group spends the night at a village brothel and has a small celebration, with Brophy sneaking away into the night. The group awakens to find the rebels with Brophy as a hostage and asking the villagers to hand over the rest of the Americans. The group decides to attempt a rescue for Brophy and are successful, however, Lopez and Monster are both killed during the fight. The group runs away into the jungle and is tiredly marching along when Lamb steps on a landmine. While Toliver is trying to disarm the mine, some rebels are slowly getting nearer and nearer to the group. Brophy once again sneaks away but sacrifices himself, bringing another death to the group. Toliver and his men finally arrive at the rebel base camp, with Toliver combing the camp for Gabrielle. After he finds her he returns to the others and hands each of them a set of explosives to be detonated by a timer.
After setting all of the charges, the group is found out and a battle ensues. The group kills scores of rebels but there is no apparent end in sight, forcing the group to retreat. The group is driving away in a stolen armored truck when a missile explodes inches away from the truck. The rebel leader has taken a chopper and followed the band of "soldiers". But Butts had secretly put a charge in the chopper back at the base, and detonates it, killing the rebel leader. The group heads home and the camera shows a chopper flying away into the Vietnamese sunset. | violence | train | wikipedia | I saw this movie late night on HBO or something like that several years ago.
The sheer stupidity of the concept just hit me several days ago.A group of misfits from school get taken to vietnam for a covert operation?
Ho hum.What amazes me is that someone wrote this script, someone looked at this script, and said you know this could be a good movie to make.
And wa la, we have a movie.Michael Dudikoff is as wooden as ever and the rest of the cast is just creepy.
I have seen my fair share of mindless action flicks, and enjoyed a lot of them, but Soldier Boyz is easily the worst I have seen.
He is so bad in this movie; he makes Van Damme look like Oscar material.
The story and script seems to have been written for the sole purpose of having a bunch of thugs and Michael Dudikoff running through Vietnam.
After about 5 minutes of watching this movie anyone with common sense can predict every single thing that happens in the narrative.
What we have here is yet another version of the formula that became popular with the making of "The Dirty Dozen" (though we have fewer soldiers in this movie, probably due to the low budget.) It could have been an entertaining version of the formula, but "Solider Boyz" utterly fails.
To begin with, the setup is ludicrous - would a millionaire whose daughter was kidnapped allow the lead soldier he hires to have a bunch of TEENAGERS who have almost no combat experience?
The jungle locations look skimpy, and some scenes seem to be hastily shot, like when the millionaire's daughter is captured.
As you can see, "Soldier Boyz" has problems going far beyond bad spelling..
A group of delinquents are recruited by Michael Dudikoff for a dangerous mission in Vietnam, forming a dirty half dozen (as the film was advertised).
Despite the unbelievable go-point, the movie's pretty good, and does a good job creating the feeling of a hostile and deadly war area with dire consequences for the people who go there.
One interesting element of this movie was watching Dudikoff acting with a cast of younger actors, and knowing his real-life passion for spending time with children, it makes one feel that he really believes in these kids despite the screw-ups they had made in their lives.
Fans of movies like THE DIRTY DOZEN and UNCOMMON VALOR should give this one a look..
Vietnam films were pretty played out by the time this films was made, so I'm not quite sure why this was a story that needed to be told, especially since essentially same story was told much better in the 1983 John Milius produced "Uncommon Valor" (which incidentally Dudikoff had a brief non-speaking role).
Dudikoff assembles his own Dirty Dozen out of a bunch of criminals and reprobates to carry out their predictable and dull mission.
Cary-Hiroyuki Tagawa, an actor too good for this tripe, does as much as he can with his ridiculous villain role as the bandit leader.
Overall, this is a pretty low rent Vietnam themed action film that's about 10 years too late..
Michael Dudikoff cares for delinquents
these are violent delinquents, who he would like to give a second chance to and if they choose to accept; freedom is there if they come back alive.
You know conning out the money of a rich tycoon who tries to hire him to rescue his daughter who has been kidnapped while doing aid work in Vietnam.
So Dudikoff (who's in prison, but we never know why --- maybe it had something to do with the death of his wife and child in a drive-by shooting?) goes about picking a ragtag group of delinquent prisoners to go gangster and popping caps (you'll know what I mean when you see certain gunfire sequences) in the jungles of Vietnam.
The whole thing is ridiculously obtuse and macho, but this routine b-grade in-and-out rescue mission entertains in sort of a teen version of "The Dirty Dozen".
It was so godforsakingly awful that ever the memory of it brings a foul taste to my mouth.....I normally like Robert Patrick but he must have owed his dealer some megabucks to need money that badly to be part of that travesty.....But, now, I have a new champion, a new movie that was so disgustingly awful that I am amazed and horrified that somebody actually ponied up the cash to:a) Buy such an atrocious script b) Hire the worst 'actors', and I use the term in its loosest possible incantation, to star in said film c) Find any professional movie makers willing to risk their professional careers to be even associated with this d) Thought it was a good idea to make this at allWhere do you start?The good points.....after thinking long and hard I decided that I wanted those 45 seconds back that a tried to find something positive to say.
This waste of film deserves to have a star in its rating taken away for every single person associated with the making and distribution of it.The bad parts....well the plot was amazingly stupid....I mean...you're ripping off one of the greatest classic war movies ever made and they botched it so badly they made Attack of the Killer Tomatoes look like a work of Shakespeare.
The actors....you know a movie is going to suck when the best actor in it is Michael Dudikoff.....he makes Vin Diesel look like he has all the talent, range and emotion of Sir Laurence Olivier.
Oh my god....maybe some of the Generation Y posters might think that the action scenes were OK.....obviously playing Battlefield 2 for 6 weeks straight does affect the brain....but I've seen more realistic and action packed scenes in silent Charlie Chaplin films.
You had boneheads...I mean supposed 'gangbangers', who look about as frightening as the local icecream man, running around with pistols 'gangsta style' one shotting everything in sight.....if that wasn't bad enough, some pelican is shooting an AK one handed AND thrusting the rifle forwards like he's stabbing someone with it with everyshot and he's one shotting hordes of Vietnamese extra's!
I've done my time in hell..watching this steaming dog turd of a movie....You want to end the war on terror...drop copies of this screaming abortion on the Inturdgents in Iraq and the Talibunnies in the 'Ghan....they'll run screaming AND you'll have the UN on your arse about using WMD's....How can crap like this get funding??
This makes Starship Troopers 2 look like The Longest Day. This is the worst movie I've ever seen in my life.
I watched in on Encore a while back, and have remembered it to this day because of how utterly terrible it is.Anyone who is comparing this movie to The Dirty Dozen is completely misleading, or has never seen the dirty dozen.
The The Dirty Dozen was a well directed movie with good characters and development and an actual plot.
Michael Dudikoff (In a not so appealing haircut)stars as a prison warden named Tolliver who lets out six prisoners to do a dirty dozen style rescue, mainly a V.I.P's daughter who has been abducted by communist Vietnamese soldiers (Ah, isn't the cold war over, guess not.) along the way Dudikoff a former soldier trains the prisoners and leads the attack on Vinh Moc (Cary Hiroyuki Tagawa) in this lively actioner which although stupid at least offers the action with a good amount of flair.
This movie was quite OK, not bad or good.
A former major (Michael Dudikoff) are asked to being sent down there to find her, he does it if he are allowed to bring six prisoners and that they will be free after the operation (if they survive).
I'm not against women in movies or in tougher character roles, but I don't think you need a women in every war-movie just because you wants to show that you are not against women in war.But the movie works because it has action.
If a movie can't handle the basic story and get some descent actors then no one cares about the message.But as an action-flick its OK..
Okay here's a first go at it: WHAT THE F#CK!?Let me give you a summary of the concept of this movie: Punks, Vietnam...
E. Everyone, and I mean EVERYONE, in this movie pulls a face when shooting as if someone said: "Here's a piece of concrete, eat it and then poop it out within now and 10 minutes or I will kill you with a fork." Can you imagine that look?
Okay, I bet I've demotivated you to watch this movie, thats good!
This movie is one hell of an insult to any Vietnam-veteran as well as any soldier in the world.
Cheers for comparing the average soldier's-skill to that of an untrained criminal, they will appreciate it.The only thing I liked about this movie?
As much as I love a good mindless action flick, and as much as I love Michael Dudikoff in those flicks, this one just pushes too far.
The acting is horrible, the characters cliched stereotypes, the plot nonsensical, and the action scenes are boring.
Dudikoff must really need money bad to do tripe like this.
It's movies like this and "The Shooter" that make "American Ninja" look like "The Godfather." Avoid at all costs..
Why do they even make movies like this???
Like some of the other reviews, this movie ranked amongst my top 10 worst (maybe even the worst) I have ever seen.
I saw the movie in German with no subtitles and was stunned to find that it all went exactly as I thought after seeing the first 15 minutes.Bad acting, worse plot, awful loop holes and over used movie formulas - why does the 'crazy' guy always get the shotgun or the feuding rivals become blood-brothers before the end.Holding an assault rifle sideways with one hand is never going to work and it made the action in American Ninja look respectable.
It doesn't even offer the deliberate comedy aspect of Commando and feels like a cheap version of the 'Toy Soldiers', bad kids do something good plot.Watch if you want to see a movie to add to your all time worst list..
What's even more amazing than the absurd plot, the cardboard characters, the incredibly inept acting, the racial stereotypes, the lousy camera work, the nonsensical editing, the cheap production values, is the fact that this many IMDBers took the time to write a 10 line review of this movie!
Spelling BOYZ with a "Z" is an obvious attempt to try to blend in with the cool gangster themed movies of that area.
The people who think this is a good movie is why the Internet sucks.
Ignoring the plot holes, the nonsensical story and ridiculous fight scenes the acting alone should have had this movie canned before it was ever released.The dirty dozen was an actually good movie.
The dirty dozen actually were soldier who served in war time, not gangbangers who don't even know how to shoot a gun.
But on top of the semi-plausible, but hooky plot in the Dirty Dozen, they decided to use real actors.The fact that good films never get made and someone spends money on movies like this is the worst atrocity committed by this film.If you just want to see some teen thugs shoot guns, badly, and see out of place and ridiculous explosions then this movie may be for you..
This movie is a stupid and cheesy 90's copy of classic "Dirty Dozen".
Unfortunately Michael Dudikoff ("American ninja") is no Lee Marvin ("Delta force") and "Soldier boyz" is one bad movie.
Everything sucks here – story , acting , dialogues , action scenes
The American youth here is nothing , but a bunch of stereotypes.
I mean who would care for such one dimensional characters like white skinhead (with a ridiculously fake swastika tattoo) , tough Latino girl , black "Monster" (that's his nickname !) rapist or Latino macho guy ?
He tries hard to be an experienced bad ass soldier , but he just isn't convincing in the role.
The best performance here comes from Cary Hirouki Tagawa ("Showdown in little Tokyo") experienced actor who specializes in playing villains.The funniest thing here is that it could actually be a decent and fun B-class movie if it was done right.
What kind of a leader would take into his team a psychopathic woman, a black serial killer/rapist,a skinhead, a Mexican gang member, a black gang member and some guy with who's martial arts he was just impressed with.
:S C) if the major wants 6 people in his team, I think he could be able to find 6 ex-soldiers in a prison, no?
A 40 year old veteran would for sure be a better choice than a guy who doesn't even know how to use a gun.
E) well actually you can see the results in the entire movie, they don't have the best shooting techniques in the world :D the Mexican runs around the forest with 2 pistols, shooting berserk; the black guy shoots half the time an M4 from 1 hand and kills a lot of Vietnamese...
When Gabrielle Prescott (Hansen), daughter of rich white man Jameson Prescott (Brandt) is kidnapped by the National Liberation Front leader Vinh Moc (Tagawa) and held for ransom, Jameson enlists Major Howard Tolliver (Dudikoff) to rescue her.
Thinking he can't do it alone, he enlists a ragtag team of prisoners, and together, they are the titular "Soldier Boyz" (even though one of them is female).
While this movie is a low-budget actioner with a "Z" in "Boyz" instead of an "S" (S's are just not cool.
The movie is fast paced, with some good action sequences.
During the extensive training, all the Soldier Boyz try to fight Tolliver and naturally they all lose.
(Yes, there is actually a Soldier Boyz game for your PC).For more action insanity, please visit: comeuppancereviews.com.
Passable B-movie actioner.
SOLDIER BOYZ is the kind of derivative B-movie action I enjoy watching once in a while, although I think constant exposure to these films would drive me insane.
This one is a low budget, updated version of THE DIRTY DOZEN, with a youthful cast and a plot that heavily relies on RAMBO: FIRST BLOOD PART II for its thrills and spills.
They just kind of head off and do their stuff in a series of explosive set-pieces that make fine use of bloody squib hits to up the ante of violence.Leading this shames is '80s action man Michael Dudikoff.
Character evolution is completely clichéd, with the bad guys turning good, and you can predict pretty much everything that happens.
Elsewhere the action is well delivered in a kind of '80s bombastic fashion, but there's too much silliness in the way the guys fight.
Not only do we have people shooting from the hip and using AK-47s one-handed, but one guy has watched too many John Woo films and runs around with his pistols tilted on their sides at all times.
First, I have to say, if you sit down to watch a movie and you will bash it for being preposterous or not true to reality, you are setting yourself up for disappointment.
I would suggest documentaries for you.This is a movie in which Michael Dudikoff plays a character named Toliver, who is a counselor at a prison or possibly a youth detention center.
When the daughter of an influential man is kidnapped while doing charity work in Vietnam, Toliver is asked to get her back.
Toliver was a bad *ss special operations soldier who gave up the life after his wife and daughter were killed in a drive by shooting meant to kill gang members.
He picks several and off they go to Vietnam to get the girl with the rich daddy back from the evil American hating Vietnamese kidnappers.Yes, the plot is totally preposterous and not at all plausible, but the movie is actually well done considering this was a made for TV movie.
Toliver is the typical iron fisted ruler who wants his "kids" to do well but won't let emotion show.Overall, not a bad way to spend a few hours time.
It's actually one of his best movies..
I'm not sure if the producers of this movie are aware of words like credibility never mind vermislitude As has been said if you've defeated countries like France , The United States and China in long lasting bloody conflicts how difficult is it to crack down on a bunch of gangsters who want to spoil a multi billion dollar trade agreement between America and Vietnam ?
If you set up a premise of " VIP's daughter getting kidnapped by bad guy rebels in third world country " wouldn't Columbia be a more credible location ?
Just the sort of people you'd want to hire to save some VIP's daughter being held in a jungle Yes that's the plot - a bunch of really nasty violent prisoners are given an amnesty if they can rescue the hostage .
Hey sounds like that movie from the late 60s with Lee Marvin, but where as THE DIRTY DOZEN had an internal logic to it this movie doesn't .
SOLDIER BOYZ continues to tell its story in this illogical , ridiculous , nonsensical manner .
Rugged ex-Marine Major Howard Toliver (played to the rough'n'tumble hilt by Michael Dudikoff) picks six hardened convicts from the prison that he runs to assist him in a desperate rescue mission in which they must go to Vietnam to save a kidnapped heiress.
Director Louis Morneau, working from a gloriously ludicrous script by Darryl Quarles, keeps the preposterous premise zipping along at a brisk pace, stages the exciting action set pieces with rip-roaring gusto, blows lots of stuff up, and clumsily shoehorns in a heavy-handed would-be poignant redemption theme for sappy good measure. |
tt0901686 | Mater and the Ghostlight | The short film opens with Mater playing pranks on the other residents of Radiator Springs. This sequence culminates with Mater teasing Lightning McQueen as if he had seen "the Ghostlight," a Route 66 legend recounted to Pixar by Dean Walker of the Kansas Historic Route 66 Association.
Sheriff admonishes him for mocking the urban legend, but Mater reminds Lightning that it isn't real. Sheriff points out that it IS real, shocking them, and then tells everyone the tale of the Ghostlight. The rest of the gang say goodnight and turn off all the store lights, leaving a nervous and scared Mater all alone in the dark.
During the body of the short, mayhem ensues as Mater is pursued by the Ghostlight, ultimately revealed to be just a lantern affixed to Mater's towing cable by Lightning and Guido. He drives into Willy's Butte and wakes Frank and his tractors and goes into slow motion where he sounds like a bull. The other residents of Radiator Springs watch as Mater drives around frantically with the "Ghostlight" on his tail, before Mater tires himself out and discovers the truth. The cars tell him it was all a prank to pay him back for all his pranks he played on them. Sheriff gently tells Mater that the only thing to be scared of on Route 66 is "his imagination." Doc jokingly adds that all Mater really had to fear was "The Screaming Banshee" before they all leave Mater, alone and frightened once again.
In a post-credits scene, Mater actually sees The Screaming Banshee but, not realizing it is him, warns him of the Banshee before departing, leaving the monstrous truck confused. | revenge, horror, psychedelic, storytelling | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0970462 | Tunnel Rats | A group of US Army soldiers, trained in underground warfare, arrive at base camp in the jungle of Vietnam. The soldiers spend the first day and night getting to know each other. The next morning they begin to explore the Viet Cong's underground tunnel network at Củ Chi. Led by Lieutenant Vic Hollowborn (Michael Pare) along with Platoon Sergeant Mike Heaney (Brad Schmidt) Corporal Dan Green (Wilson Bethel) and Privates Peter Harris (Mitch Eakins), Carl Johnson (Erik Eidem), Terence Verano (Rocky Marquette), Jonathon Porterson (Garikayi Mutambirwa), Dean Garraty (Adrian Collins), Samuel Graybridge (Brandon Fobbs), Jim Lidford (Nate Parker) and Bob Miller (Jeffery Christopher Todd).
Armed with nothing more than bayonets, pistols, grenades and flashlights, the US soldiers take to the tunnels in a search and destroy operation, and begin to encounter dangers including primitive but lethal booby traps, such as punji sticks, grenades rigged with tripwire, as well as roving Viet Cong. Meanwhile, Garraty and Johnson are killed first, and later Sergeant Heaney and Verano are both killed as Green escapes, and up on the surface Harris and Lidford escape to the bottom of the tunnel, and Lidford is killed later on, Porterson successfully escapes through the tunnels. On the surface, the Viet Cong also attack the US base.
As things escalate above and below the ground, soldiers for both sides are pushed to the limits of their humanity. Miller and Graybridge try to escape, with the former barely making it, but Graybridge is killed. The events implicate that all (or almost all) the protagonists are killed by each other, by boobytraps, or by the airstrike ordered by the wounded US commanding officer Hollowborn, who called on it when everything seemed to have been lost. Green dies in the tunnels. Harris convinces Vo Mai (Jane Le) that he isn't a threat to her or her family. Porterson retreats to the surface and later meets Miller at the camp where many soldiers have been slaughtered by the NVA. Porterson and Miller witness the bombings and their ultimate fate or survival is left ambiguous. Harris and Mai try to dig their way out, slowly realizing they are both trapped with nowhere to go and had been left to die. They remain in the tunnels until the end of their days. | violence | train | wikipedia | Another unfortunate film meeting "we hate the director because the internet told us to" preconceptions, 1968 Tunnel Rats is a complete success in what it sets out to do - create an overwhelming sense of fear and claustrophobia.There are war movies, and there are horror movies.
In Uwe Boll's stunning "Tunnel Rats," the increasingly interesting (but still no less maligned) German director has made what essentially amounts to a chronicle of the madness of war told in a confined, claustrophobic, and frighteningly intimate way.
I feel sorry for those people because they will miss out on a great many interesting and even inspiring film experiences in their life time.Tunnel Rats is one such experience.
It seems he's brought about quite an aura for horrifically bad films, and yet there I was watching Tunnel Rats and genuinely thinking it was a good effort.
Well surprise, surprise Tunnel Rats is actually a damn fine effort and it proves people are willing to jump on certain critical bandwagons just as easily as people are willing to jump on positive bandwagons.The film succeeds in the sense it captures the madness of war as well as delivering scenes of strong, bloody violence that repulses more than it does excite as these various action set-pieces and scenarios play out.
Boll toys with the audience in this regard, using each respective 'space' as both a safe haven and a potential death trap at various times to really good effect.The team assigned to deal with this tunnel network share some thoughts and memories from childhood the night before they ship out to begin work.
Shooting in low light and keeping his camera rock steady as his subject scurries and struggles about erratically, we feel frightened when people venture into the unknown and horrified when altercation with the enemy arises.Boll even finds room to develop scenarios within the already established conventions by including the character of Vo Mai (Jane Le) as this frightened Vietnamese woman who lives within the tunnels with her two young children.
I didn't notice it beforehand, but there is a certain electronic pulsating sound effect/musical number that plays on a loop during this time, which really captures the horror and the suspense you're witnessing as people scrap for their lives – it's fascinating to watch.Whereas Michael Bay can just fetishise action and gunfire with copious amounts of explosions and slow motion towards the end of Transformers as that becomes even more empty headed; vacuous and nonsensical than it already was, and Stallone can offer nothing bar mere break-neck action as the baddies get their comeuppance toward the conclusion of Rambo IV, Boll shows us that war is, in fact, Hell and war-zones are places you really don't ever want to be.
The two respective films have high IMDb ratings close to '7'; Tunnel Rats has something bordering on '4' – looks like that Boll-hate bandwagon is in full runaway mode, whereas the Stallone/Bay-love bandwagon is on an equally slick streak.
many of the characters were still 2 Dimensional but the music,action,plot made up for many of the mistakes.Some war films about Vietnam show the power of the American army, but this film at least shows the Americans being kicked about which I have only seen in Platoon.Uwe Boll has made a film and it is not a bad film..
Writer/director Uwe Boll has created a film which is very simply about the futility of war, in this case, set in the jungles of Vietnam.North Vietnamese fighters dug tunnels, sometimes hundreds of miles long, in which they hid, lived, and carried out surprise missions against the Americans.
These young men, some barely out of high school, walk blindly into a world they've never known.The ensemble cast does what they need to do -- this is not as much of a character-driven piece as other films of this genre, and the improvised dialogue isn't Hollywood war movie fluff.
When controversial German director Uwe Boll (HOUSE OF THE DEAD) first announced that he wanted to shoot an absolutely uncompromising, blunt and brutal movie about the cruelties of the Vietnam War, not just a few critics shook their heads in disbelief and predicted a major failure on all levels as they just couldn't imagine that infamous filmmaker, who once knocked out four internet bashers in a boxing challenge, to tackle such a serious subject with the needed amount of tactfulness and sincerity.
And I gotta admit that even though I'm quite a huge fan of Uwe Boll's work, I personally wasn't 100% sure either what to expect from a project like this...But now that I finally got my hands on a DVD of said film and ultimately got to see TUNNEL RATS (I missed the flick's short theatrical run here in Germany), I can say with a clear conscience that all those badmouths were once again a bit too fast with their criticism and concerns, cause apparently TUNNEL RATS turned out to be a pretty neat and well-done war movie, whose intensity and brutality will not leave you cold.The film, which is set in the jungle of Cu Chi in 1968, tells the tragic story of a group of young American soldiers lead by the hard-boiled Sgt. Hollowborn (Michael Pare) who get orders to explore and secure a complex tunnel system which the Vietcong use to move through the jungle without being heard or seen.
As soon the GIs step down into the dark and narrow corridors, however, they gotta learn the hard way that their enemy is way more accustomed to the unusual surroundings and skilled in the antics of guerrilla warfare than they are and hence it doesn't take long until one GI after the other has to face a merciless death and the defeat of the whole platoon seems almost inevitable
In an early interview, Uwe Boll once said that one of his main intents for TUNNEL RATS was to show the absurdity and senselessness of war.
And when they're left to die all on their own a thousand miles away from home, they don't feel like heroes at all and pride and glory are about the last things that they think of
The whole pointlessness of war is a constant and reoccurring theme in TUNNEL RATS and just like war itself ain't exactly fun and enjoyment, this film is also far from being your typical good time bubblegum blockbuster
TUNNEL RATS is very slow-paced, very raw, very dirty, very brutal, very pessimistic
and very honest.
It surely lacks the epic proportions of "big" war movies such as PLATOON, APOCALYPSE NOW and FULL METAL JACKET, but it makes up for this with sheer intensity and a great dose of suspense; the latter being mainly the product of Uwe Boll making really good use of the perilous environment throughout the whole course of the movie.
Being more of light-hearted kind of guy, I have to say that I personally didn't enjoy TUNNEL RATS as much as I enjoyed Uwe Boll's action-packed, over-the-top no-brainers such as HOUSE OF THE DEAD, BLOODRAYNE and IN THE NAME OF THE KING, but this doesn't change the fact at all that TUNNEL RATS is still one of Uwe's most atmospheric and coherent films so far and definitely worth watching for all fans of unsparing war movies such as JOHN RAMBO and Co..
American soldiers must ignore the personal danger, and enter into this cramped, nightmare world loaded with booby-traps, Punji stakes, water traps and the fanatical resistance of North Vietnamese and Vietcong soldiers and irregulars.Generally armed only with .45 pistols and flashlights, the Americans must find and kill their enemies at arms' length range, then find a way to get around the dead bodies in the tunnels.The directors of this movie deliberately emphasized the smallness of the tunnels - the claustrophobic surroundings are pushed into the viewers' faces relentlessly, and virtually take over the entire story.
We get to know the characters, more or less, though to keep track of names might be fruitless; we know these people more by type or by personality (one very pleasant touch is that one of the real walking clichés in war movies- the guy who prattles on and just can't wait to get home to his mama or wife or whatever- not only doesn't get slaughtered the first chance it should happen, but he becomes a momentary bad-ass in hand-to-hand combat right in the s*** of things.The lack of characterization could be a much bigger flaw to contend with if it were a firm character piece.
And as part of Boll's ambition to twist the much done Vietnam-War film - a particular kind of war film sub-genre in some respects - most of the runtime is spent underground as the Americans and the Vietcong square off, in the dark, sometimes not knowing who is going to come upon the other.
It takes away the caring, democratic view of Americans and replaces it with the true fact that they're no better than the people they're shooting at, and when it comes down to it, it's up to the individual soldiers.The movie also shows the physical war amazingly.
At some point it almost borders on insult towards Americans in its ridiculous and unsentimental portrayal of its fighting men.If like me, you watched this film hoping for insight into this fascinating aspect of fighting in the Vietnam war, I suggest instead you read Mangold & Penycate's Tunnels of CuChi, its what Boll should have done..
They just hate it because it's Boll directing.I love his popcorn-flicks, but I love even more when he comes in to more darker territories and shows us what the world is about.The ending is dark and cynical, but probably more real than any other Vietnam-movie.
Some of this is likely due to simple lack of funding; the campsite so different from a Vietnam War era firebase for example, but many details; the Palestinian/Arab neck-scarves instead of Vietnamese ones (the real thing is readily available on Ebay) for example, to mention a flaw not yet noted on IMDb, seem like carelessness.Despite the many flaws however, the overall effect is not nearly as bad as to justify spoof awards, and some of (not all!!!) the acting is actually rather good.At any rate, even if mainstream film goers don't favor this production, collectors of silly and flawed scenes might be interested to note this film as containing, in one (or perhaps more, depending on where you draw the line) of the lessor scenes, a portrayal of Americans/Westerners as can't-hit-a-thing cannon fodder, easily gunned down.
This movie is a squandered opportunity.Uwe Boll apparently thought the best way to make a statement about the pointlessness of war was by making a pointlessly long, wound-inducing, brutally ugly and disturbingly unoriginal genre film.Here, the director had a chance to redeem himself after a series of flops and turds.
In Postal, at least, he showed some promise of not taking himself too seriously, and while the end result there wasn't exactly a good film, at least it was entertaining.But don't believe the hype.In Tunnel Rats, Boll is aiming for a serious, realistic movie.
Emotions are shown without preparation or care, and we are left without any means of relating to these cardboard figures - shadows, as they are, of American stereotypes.From the first action scene on, and all the way through the laborious tunnel sequences throughout the film to the final scene, the movie shows signs of some of the worst pacing and cohesion in recent memory.
I've certainly never been sent overseas into a war zone.However, throughout this movie I found myself constantly wondering 'Why are they doing that?' For example: Though it makes for better lighting for the actor-- While crawling around in a tunnel, full of hidden enemies, it doesn't seem like it would take much training to know that shining your flashlight in your face instead of down the tunnel, just doesn't seem very smart.Not to mention using a flashlight without a red filter(to preserve night vision) seems doubly not that smart.Or soldiers who have fought tooth and nail to survive, only to stand like they are watching fireworks while bombs land on their heads.The only movie I can think of that features such inept soldiers is the last Hills Have Eyes 2 remake, but they were just in training, which is where this unit should have been left..
The movie is set during the Vietnam war, and follows the fate of a group of soldiers who are sent out to hunt and kill underground Viet Cong.
Prolific German director Uwe Boll has become something of a spittoon for film-going audiences with his much-hated video game-based action and horror movies, such as House of the Dead (2003), Alone in the Dark (2005) and BloodRayne (2005).
I was skeptical about his Vietnam War tale Tunnel Rats when popping the DVD in the player last night, but in the end the atmospheric film proved out to be fairly enjoyable.The story is set in 1968 Vietnam where a platoon of American soldiers is clearing the underground tunnels that the Vietnamese troops use in their stealth missions and connections.
However, I don't think the charm of the film is really in character drama anyway (indeed, according to Boll there was no script and the actors improvised their lines); the story works much more effectively once the action gets going because it manages to not feel like a generic carbon-copy of the Rambo series like I was worried it would.The claustrophobic tunnels are lit extremely scarcely with yellow hand-held lights that make the underground scenes feel very atmospheric even if (or because) it is sometimes difficult to see what exactly is happening on the screen.
Besides the visuals, the subdued score by Jessica de Rooij also supports the mood well, beginning as little more than a compilation of ominous tones but ultimately turning into a pleasantly low-key accompaniment for the battles that could have easily felt overtly banal with more bombastic music.The best scenes are saved for the last: the agonizing, nightmarish crawls through collapsing tunnels, the encounter with a frightened Vietnamese family hiding underground and the explosion-heavy fights in the Army base are all fairly suspenseful and done in a less cartoony way than could be expected judging from Boll's earlier efforts (that is not to say Tunnel Rats wouldn't present a fair share of gory violence though).
The downbeat ending is left somewhat open but makes its point clear in an enjoyably laconic way.Although Tunnel Rats is not quite a masterpiece, it is a fairly well made war film and would surely have a higher user rating if Boll's name was not attached to it.
However, every drama Uwe Boll has done which I have seen, this and Heart of America, have been good movies worthy of some praise.Tunnel Rats is hard to watch.
I was against Uwe Boll making a Vietnam movie, because he's German, but I think he put more effort into the drama than Oliver Stone did with Platoon.
Yes, I'm well aware of Uwe Boll and his exploits, even though I had never saw one of his movies until Tunnel Rats, and no, I didn't go into this movie hoping for a great war flick that would stand up to the best of its genre peers.
I like how film directors work hard to try their best to re-create the horror and brutality of war.
And one by one they all face various deaths thanks to the assorted weapons at the hands of the Viet Cong which include knives, guns and a sharpened bamboo poll.Unlike most other Uwe Boll films, Tunnel Rats tries too hard to develop character amongst the actors in the platoon.
(also, many of the actors don't appear to have been trained how to engage the enemy, or how to hold and shoot their weapons as soldiers of the Vietnam war era would have been).This movie was a real disappointment, and once the war scenes began it started to feel a little bit like a slasher flick or a Vietnam version of Predator (except without the Predator).In the end it never actually informs the viewer about the history or complicated issues of the Vietnam war, and it doesn't work as an anti-war film either - if Uwe was really trying to promote an anti-war message then it gets lost in a never ending haze of graphic violence.If you want to watch a movie that gives a more balanced portrayal of both sides, along with some important insights into the Vietnam conflict, and at the same time portrays the true horror of the Vietnam war without dishonoring the men who were forced to fight in it, then give Tunnel Rats a miss and watch We Were Soldiers instead..
SPOILERS!Uncapie here!Let's spend a "Holiday In Cambodia" where the people dress in black.Okay, now before everyone gets on my ass, this is the best film Uwe Boll has written and directed.Yes, I'm serious."Tunnel Rats" is a powerful, well-written story about the little known group of American soldiers in Vietnam of the same name based loosely on elements from the "Tunnels of Cu Chi" and real-life events that took place there.The pre-credits sequence is intense.
It plays like a cross between "Firebase Gloria" and "Cube", because sooner or later most characters end up underground, fighting for their survival.The best I can say about "Tunnel rats", and the most accurate way to describe it, is to say it doesn't feel like an Uwe Boll movie.
Story of a bunch of US tunnel rats in Viet Nam over the course of a couple of days is a really good, really solid action film.
You watch the film because, like the men in the tunnel you don't know what is coming next.
Also it was funnier."Stoic" was shocking and heartbreaking, much more than "A Clockwork Orange"."1968 Tunnel Rats" was a better war film than "Full Metal Jacket".As you see, Uwe Boll is way more talented than Kubrick. |
tt0047688 | Young at Heart | When songwriter Alex Burke (Gig Young) enters the lives of the musical Tuttle family, each of the three daughters falls for him. The family lives in the fictional town of Strafford, Connecticut. Alex's personality is a match for Laurie Tuttle (Doris Day), as both she and Alex are seemingly made for each other. When a friend of Alex's, Barney Sloan (Frank Sinatra), comes to the Tuttle home to help with some musical arrangements, complications arise. Barney's bleak outlook on life couldn't be any more contradictory to Alex's, and Laurie tries to change his negative attitude. Meanwhile, Laurie's two other sisters, Fran (Dorothy Malone), who is engaged to Bob, and Amy (Elisabeth Fraser), have feelings for Alex. The family welcomes Barney into their lives, but a feeling of genuine self-worth escapes him, though he is falling in love with Laurie. Alex proposes to Laurie and she accepts, which causes Fran to finally marry Bob, and devastates Amy. Aunt Jessie is the only one who knows Amy loves Alex. When Laurie goes to see Barney about attending the wedding, he tells her he loves her and that Amy loves Alex, but Laurie doesn't believe him until she goes home and sees Amy crying. She then leaves Alex at the altar and elopes with Barney. At Christmas, Laurie and Barney go home for the holiday. Laurie tells Amy how much she loves Barney and that she is pregnant, though she hasn't told Barney yet. Amy has since fallen in love with Ernie. Alex is also there for the holiday and has found success. With a black cloud perpetually hanging over his head, Barney decides to go with Bob to take Alex to the train. He drops Bob off at the store and after dropping Alex at the train, decides to kill himself, feeling that Laurie would be better off with Alex, as he would be a better provider. Barney drives into oncoming traffic during a snowstorm with his windshield wipers off. Barney lives, and with a newfound affirmation of life, finally writes the song he had been working on, finding his self-esteem in the arms of Laurie and their new baby.
=== Original ending ===
The character of the self-destructive Barney Sloan was originally written to die at the end of the film when Sloan drives into on-coming traffic during a snow-storm. Sinatra, whose characters in his two previous films (From Here to Eternity [1953] and Suddenly [1954]) perished at the end, thought Sloan should live and find happiness. Sinatra's growing influence in Hollywood was enough to have the ending re-written to accommodate his wishes. | romantic | train | wikipedia | This is a very re-watchable movie with a fine cast - Doris Day, Gig Young, Ethel Barrymore, Brian Keith etc.The standard songs are joined by some new ones written for the production - and they too are a total delight.
He quietly falls in love with kindhearted, upbeat Laurie Tuttle (Doris Day) who lives in a small town with her cheery family (father, aunt and two sisters).
Although it is only heard sung by Frank Sinatra at the beginning and end credits of Young At Heart, the title song was both a big hit for Frank Sinatra and set the tone for a very warm and wonderful Yuletide picture.Warner Brothers already had this property, this is a remake of Four Daughters, minus a daughter, with Sinatra and Doris Day in the roles originated by John Garfield and Priscilla Lane.
In his role as saloon singer/piano player/music arranger Frank gets to sing Just One of Those Things by Cole Porter, Someone to Watch Over Me by the brothers Gershwin and One For My Baby by Harold Arlen and Johnny Mercer.
Suffice it to say it was not a happy set.Still and all Young at Heart is one of the best films either of the stars did and really nice entertainment..
Unconvincing musical drama, a remake of 1938's "Four Daughters", has bright, cheery Doris Day picking brooding Frank Sinatra for a suitor over bright and cheery Gig Young.
There are some nice floaty songs, a few teary scenes and overall a nice mix of everything a good film needs, without anything harsh thrown in.Frank Sinatra and Doris Day are totally believable throughout and compliment each other perfectly.
In this case the three sisters and their infatuation with Gig Young, Doris Day's commitment to Frank Sinatra, and Sinatra's decision.
A musicalization of a classic “woman’s picture” is about as unappetizing a prospect as can get for me film-wise, but the polished Hollywood expertise here wins out in the end and makes for a refreshing and appealing movie that I had long underestimated (it was shown several times on Italian TV but I never bothered with it).Doris Day and, especially, Frank Sinatra are well-matched as star-crossed lovers in small-town America; Day comes from a classically-trained musical family headed by Robert Keith and including Dorothy Malone (with spinster aunt Ethel Barrymore watching maternally from the sidelines).
Amiable popular music composer Gig Young bursts in on their quiet, happy family life (all the girls naturally fall for his charms) but this is further exacerbated by the belated introduction of his arranger pal, embittered long-time loser Frank Sinatra.
Robert Keith is really no match for Claude Rains – who had played the father in Michael Curtiz’s original FOUR DAUGHTERS (1938) – but Sinatra does manage to make John Garfield’s star-making, Oscar-nominated turn his own.Curiously enough, the screenwriters of YOUNG AT HEART – Julius J.
Naturally, both Day and Sinatra get to sing in the film but they only have a modest duo of sorts at the very end; incidentally, I was let down by the finale not just because of its improbable “all’s well that ends well” qualities but also because, after Sinatra is seen toiling at his magnum opus throughout the whole movie, the result is just a corny love song!
The music is great, and while Young at Heart is one of my favorite Frank Sinatra tunes, Frank's rendidtion of Gershwine's Someone to Watch Over Me might be the best number in the movie.
Frank Sinatra is great as the self-hating Barney Sloan, and Doris Day as Laurie Tuttle..well, she's just perky.The downparts of this movie are made up for in great songs.
The acting, especially of the gifted Frank Sinatra, Doris Day and Gig Young was absolutely incredible.
I think you can guess what happens next.Ethel Barrymore, Dorothy Malone, and Robert Keith make up the adult family chaperones—would you leave your three daughters alone in the house with two strange men?—and a variety of composers contribute to the songs Frankie and Doris sing, although not every one was written for the film.
I will stay forever young at heart,thinking about this fine movie.At the age of nine,having already been captivated by Doris Day in "By The Light Of The Silvery Moon" and "Lucky Me",I was just old enough to appreciate her in this more mature outing.I had no knowledge of Frank Sinatra,the actor,other than mixed opinions as to his appeal.Therefore,my sympathy was with Doris all the way and this made the ambiguity of Sinatra's character all the more interesting for me.The real quality of "Young At Heart" is that it falls into a category all it's own.It is not real drama (until near the end),not a real comedy and not even what you might call a musical (there is always motivation behind the songs).It's a real credit to Doris Day that,in the face of real competition,she is able to shine brightly above the entire cast,and what a cast we have here.Ethel Barrymore,despite failing health,is the perfect 'Aunt Jessie',giving the story-line real focus and assurance.Dorothy Malone,in a relatively smallish role,has one affecting scene in the car where she admits to being unworthy of her husband (the amiable Alan Hale Jr.).Gig Young,never more charming than here,makes you sorry he loses the girl,even though one can almost understand where Doris is coming from.I'm not a Sinatra fan but he sings his songs inimitably and he is well cast as the melancholy,vagrant musician.Inwardly,I would have liked the alternate ending (hence my 9 rating) because Gig Young deserved better.However,I would not want to have missed the final duet between Doris and Frank ('You My Love' is a gorgeous song).All in all,a near perfect entertainment..
At the time they made this movie, Frank Sinatra and Doris Day were both on the cusp of filling out the iconic images they'd become in a few short years and show remarkable chemistry as (potentially...seemingly?) ill-fated lovers in a picture-postcard Connecticut town who get married and move to a tenement in Manhattan.
YOUNG AT HEART (1954) is an oddball family drama, incredibly downbeat in parts, with an ending that's 180 degrees away from the one in FOUR DAUGHTERS (1938) which, like this film, was adapted from Fannie Hurst's novel, "Sister Act." (Sinatra plays the part John Garfield played in the earlier film.) Except for a beach scene, it was all shot entirely on Warner Bros.
The strange but colorful supporting cast includes Ethel Barrymore, Gig Young, Robert Keith (Brian's dad), Dorothy Malone, Lonny Chapman, and pre-Skipper Alan Hale Jr. These actors are all fine, but I would have preferred to see the two stars in something that wasn't cluttered with so many other people.
YOUNG AT HEART's director, Gordon Douglas, went on to direct Sinatra in four films in the 1960s, including two of the star's best, ROBIN AND THE SEVEN HOODS (1964) and THE DETECTIVE (1968)..
And for Doris Day and Frank Sinatra fans - revel in the opportunity of seeing the only movie they ever made together.
Both are quite pleasant films but not a lot more.The film begins with a musical family--a father (Robert Keith), an aunt (Ethel Barrymore) and three daughters (Doris Day, Dorothy Malone and Elisabeth Fraser).
Just like in the first film, it's really not clear WHY Doris Day's character would jilt Young for Frank Sinatra's character since he isn't particularly likable.
Day is very good but Sinatra's theme song is among his very best, so it's hard to hate the film.
Epstein from a Fannie Hurst story called Sister Act. It stars Doris Day, Frank Sinatra, Gig Young, Ethel Barrymore, Alan Hale Jr, Elisabeth Fraser and Dorothy Malone.
Plot has the charming Alex Burke (Young) enter the lives of the musical Tuttle family, where each of the three daughters start to be attracted to him.
It's also impeccably casted, Sinatra plays bitter and twisted to Day's sweet and straight, Young has charisma in abundance, and Barrymore is grand as the all seeing, all knowing head of the family, Aunt Jessie.
"Young at Heart" is a beautiful story about the more mature love that grows in the relations of 3 daughters, (Laurie, Fran, Amy) & their boy friends (Barney, Alex, Bob).
This 1954 movie musical with some beautiful songs, especially one of my favorites "Young at Heart".
Doris Day as Laurie Tuttle; Frank Sinatra as Barney Sloan; Gig Young as Alex Burke; Ethel Barrymore as Aunt Jessie Tuttle; Dorothy Malone as Fran Tuttle; Robert Keith as Gregory Tuttle; Elisabeth Fraser as Amy Tuttle; Alan Hale Jr. as Robert Neary; Lonny Chapman; as Ernest Nichols.(7.5 out of 10 out of TCM).
Frank Sinatra is great in this film-the songs:"It Was Just One Of those Things" "One For My Baby" "My Love" and the title track are some of the best examples of his talents.Sinatra and Day disagreed on the ending of the script and the time to start filming..
Hired by Young to do musical arrangements, he meets the Tuttle family and sulks his way into Doris Day's heart.
All in all, the various love triangles that evolve and dissolve and the several good tunes -- sung by Day and, in turn, Sinatra at a time in their careers when they were both in top form -- make for a very entertaining, a very enjoyable movie.
Incidentally, while "Young at Heart" ends happily, there is no mistaking that it is a remake of the 1938 Priscilla Lane, John Garfield vehicle "Four Daughters" -- also a very enjoyable movie without the same happy ending..
Only Ethel Barrymore as the aged aunt doesn't fit--she apparently mistook this for the set of "Long Day's Journey Into Night"--why is she there?But throw in a totally unlikely element--Frank Sinatra, and it works.
A very good story line nonetheless, nice costumes and set, also good song performances from both Frank Sinatra and Doris Day..
Musical drama/soap opera about three sisters (Doris Day, Dorothy Malone, Elizabeth Fraser) and the men they fall in love with--film concentrates on Day and her romances with Gig Young and Frank Sinatra.
An odd combination of pop musical and heavy drama, but it works, and how!The performances are memorable by all concerned, with a gem of a performance by an ageing Ethel Barrymore, who steals all her scenes in a minor role.The music and the songs, with one exception, fit easily into the plot and don't detract from the continuity of the action.All, who were associated with this movie deserve an award.Even the reported tension on the set between Sinatra, Day, and the producers seem to add a touch of reality to the on screen relationships.
Everything looks perfect when a fun composer (Gig Young) takes a fancy to the youngest sister, Laurie (Doris Day).
The performances were spot on, with Frank Sinatra surly enough as Barney and the beautiful Doris Day sweet and sensitive as Laurie.
The Tuttles are a musical family: father Gregory (Robert Keith) and daughters Laurie (Doris Day), Fran (Dorothy Malone), and Amy (Elizabeth Fraser) are an instrumental quartet whose home lives are kept on even keel by non-musical Aunt Jessie (the legendary Ethel Barrymore.) When Laurie accepts a marriage proposal from handsome Alex Burke (Gig Young) it seems the most the family has to worry about is going from quartet to trio--a seemingly perfect set up for musical comedy.
The film was originally intended as a very direct remake of FOUR DAUGHTERS--but Sinatra greatly disliked the original story's ending and insisted on a rewrite.
FRANK SINATRA followed up his "From Here To Eternity" triumph by starring opposite DORIS DAY in a musical remake of "Four Daughters" called YOUNG AT HEART.
He gets even better song material than Day, including memorable versions of "Young at Heart" and "One for My Baby", but Day is compensated by a nice dramatic role that gets her brand of warmth and sincerity, as well as a duet with Sinatra on "You, My Love".ETHEL BARRYMORE is the elderly aunt and ROBERT KEITH is the father, while GIG YOUNG plays the young man that Day almost marries until she discovers that her sister is broken-hearted over their upcoming marriage.
This version of the tale has her succeed, avoiding the downbeat ending of the original in which the John Garfield character (played by Sinatra)died.It's pleasant, nostalgic and the kind of musical they never make any more.
Particularly sensitive performances from Sinatra, Day and Gig Young under Gordon Douglas' direction.
Seventeen years after John Garfield made his smoky screen entrance in "Four Daughters," and startled the movie world with his acidic performance, Frank Sinatra undertakes the role in a remake entitled, "Young at Heart."To me, it's a formula film, studio calculated to give stars Sinatra and Doris Day just the right amount of dramatic scenes interspersed with their favorite song numbers.Much of the public "bought it," and went with its patent soapy romanticism, while others weren't as smitten by its glossy contrivances.The cast here is top notch.
With Ethel Barrymore, Gig Young and Dorothy Malone as supports, lovely color and pretty sets, there's lots of heavy talent here.
Frank Sinatra plays Barney Sloan,a disillusioned song composer who falls in love with his partner's wife,who he eventually marries.But,his low self-confidence plagues him..
This is just a wonderful love story and perfect for Sinatra.The songs are great(My Love,One For My Baby and Young At Heart).Doris Day is okay,but she's not the greatest match for Frank..
However, even this would have been hard to take much longer.During this early part of the film Alex (Gig Young) appears as the son of an old friend of Day's father (Robert Keith).
His self-pitying attitude is actually refreshing here, albeit it may not be helping the character in his own life.In the cafe where he plays, while living in Connecticut to work for Alex, he does 3 standards--"Someone to Watch Over Me," "Just One of Those Things," and "One for My Baby, and One More for the Road." Well, Gershwin, Porter and Arlen never had it so good--these are definitive performances of songs all the big singers did.
The cake in YOUNG AT HEART is not nearly so alive--it may have been prepared by Aunt Jessie (Ethel Barrymore) but it still looks "bought." These 2 films were made within a few years of each other.
Seems Two Into One DOES Go. In musical terms this is, in many ways, two separate films; in one we have Doris Day singing the kind of sunny, feel-good songs she was recording successfully at that time - the mid fifties - and in the second we have Sinatra singing songs for Adults - with one exception 'standards' - as only he can.
For the remake Warners dropped one of the daughters, switched the locale to New England and turned Sinatra loose on father Robert Keith, aunt Ethel Barrymore and sisters Doris Day, Elisabeth Fraser and Dorothy Malone.
The fact that he doesn't appear for a good half hour merely adds to the feeling of two separate films because we've had that half hour to adjust to the 'homeliness' of the Tuttles and Doris Day has laid most of her 'cute' songs on us so that the whole effect is to lull us into cosy expectation of a 'nice' movie and then Sinatra explodes into the frame and hijacks the movie.
I have always liked Frank Sinatra and Doris Day both for their musical and acting qualities !.
Gig Young would follow 13 years after that.This is a highly entertaining film and the singing by Frank and Doris will just woo you to no end.
This was rather tacky.Amazing that all 3 sisters fell for Mr. Young, but no one wound up with him.Note that David Keith would co-star with Doris Day the following year, as Barney Loomis, family friend in the fantastic "Love Me or Leave Me," and then co-star with Dorothy Malone, as her father again, in Malone's Oscar winning "Written on the Wind." Of course, Malone wasn't as sweet there; she ultimately caused his demise.
There has been much discussion on whether Sinatra's character, Barney, should have died in that head on collision, as in the original ending, or lived, without apparent lingering disabilities, as we see in the film.
This film is a remake of 1938's Four Daughters which had Priscilla Lane in Doris Day's part and John Garfield in Frank Sinatra's part as the morose pessimistic musician who believes if not for bad luck he'd have none at all.
The film follows the plot of "Four Daughters" pretty closely, with Laurie (Doris Day) eloping with melancholy Barney Sloan (Frank Sinatra) in order to clear the way so that the man she really loved and was planning to marry (Gig Young as Alex) might fall in love with older sister Amy. Laurie decides to do this after she realizes Amy is in love with Alex.These attempts at manipulations of the heart seldom work out well, and such is the case here.
The happy ending is a terrible contrivance, but it would have worked much better with Garfield's Mickey than with Sinatra's.Nor did I ever once feel any chemistry between Frank Sinatra and Doris Day that convinced me they truly were a loving couple who I wanted to cheer for.
Basically Alex Burke (Gig Young) enters the lives of the Tuttle family, led by father Gregory (Robert Keith) with his three daughters Fran (Dorothy Malone), Amy (Elisabeth Fraser), and Laurie (Doris Day).
Laurie and Alex seem to be made for each other, and become engaged, but things change when his friend, musical arranger Barney Sloan (Frank Sinatra) comes along.
You can almost agree with Sinatra concerning the ending, but you can't see it going any other way, so this is certainly a film to try and enjoy for songs, including one or two Day and Sinatra duets.
The music is excellent, this is the movie that turned me into a Frank Sinatra fan, in particular the scene where he sings "One for my Baby" in the noisy bar. |
tt0264415 | Bhairava Dweepam | Jayachandra Maharaja (Vijay Kumar) of the Chandraprabha Dynasty deserts Vasundhara (K. R. Vijaya), a woman who gives birth to his son. Vasundhara, loses the child in a cyclone while crossing a river. She is found the hermitage revives her. Vasundhara, on learning the loss of her son attempts suicide. Concerned, Jamadagni creates a mystical flower on a bush, and tells Vasundhara that the flower will be in fresh and in bloom as long as her son is alive and well. Meanwhile, the child is found by tribals and taken to their village, Kotala Kona. The village chieftain and his wife adopt the child and name him Vijay (Nandamuri Balakrishna).
Once Vijay and Kondanna (Babu Mohan) go for a tree of water, which gives immortality. From there Vijay hears a song by a princess Padma Devi (Roja Selvamani) in a Vasanta Vanam (Garden). He admires her beauty and escapes from the scene. The soldiers report this incident in the court of Brahmananda Bhupati (Kaikala Satyanarayana) of Kartikeya Dynasty. Vijaya intrudes into the castle to the see Padma secretly. He speaks with padma and escapes from the king's castle successfully with his sword fight skill. As a result, Padma falls in love with Vijay.
Brahmananda Bhupati invites the young warriors to Swayamvara. Vijay and Kondanna arrives to the castle in disguise. At the same time Uttar (Giri Babu) & Dakshin (Subhalekha Sudhakar), sons of Jayachandra Maharaja's second wife too arrive to the castle. Confused Brahmananda Bhupati allows both parties to stay in the castle for one day. After a song with Padma, Vijay's disguise is revealed in the castle.
In a very far away Island, Bhairava, a wizard – who aims at winning immortality, is performing kshudra puja for the giant sculpture of dark goddess. Wanting to sacrifice a virgin's blood for the dark goddess, at a night, with his magic, he brings Padma, along with the bed, to the Island. In the trance Padma gives a word to the dark goddess that she will come back on the next full moon day for her offering. The same night, Bhairava sends Padma back her castle.
Next morning Brahmananda Bhupati calls in a court doctor to medicate Padma. The doctor reveals that she was affected by black magic. Brahmananda Bhupati is made to mistake that a tribal man like Vijay could have performed such black magic. Vijay is secured with the chains and brought into the castle by the soldiers. When Brahmananda Bhupati reveals that Padmani was taken ill, Vijay unchains himself and meets Padma in the castle. Padma reveals what happened at that full moon night. Vijay escapes from the chase of soldiers, but falls unconscious at a place near Jamadagni Ashram. Vasundhara and few men see Vijay in unconsciousness. After the death of Queen, Uttar and Dakshin grab the throne of Chandraprabha Dynasty, by leaving their father alone in a desert.
In Jamadagni Ashram Vijay comes out from unconsciousness. Vasudhara and Vijay do not recognize to each other. Vijay reveals the princess Padma has a life threat on coming full moon night. Vasudhara blesses Vijay, by tying a magical rope to his arm. The wizard fog comes again into the castle to put all into unconscious. Vijay sees Padma along with her cot is magically flying into the air. He jumps and hangs to a side of the flying bed. He is pulled down by some roots which come up from a cave near to the Island of Bhairava. Vijay slays the roots which results a hermit cursed nymph to regain her form. As a gratitude, the nymph blesses Vijay with a magical ring and reveals that Bhairava is about to sacrifice Padma on a full moon night.
Vijay enters the cave in which the Bhairava is performing Kshudrapuja to the dark goddess. Bhairava advices Padma to have a bath and wear sacrificial costume. At the pool in the cave Vijay brings back Padma from the trance. With the help of the magical ring, Vijay takes Padma on the bed, whilst Bhairava is performing puja facing towards the dark goddess. Bhairava sends a two headed dragon to stop Vijay taking Padma on the Cot. The dragon separates Vijay from the cot, but the bed reaches the castle. Vijay kills the dragon in the air. The dragon bursts out and Vijay is dropped down into the sea.
A couple of naughty devils (Suthi Velu) and (Kovai Sarala) finds Vijay falling unconscious on the desert shore of the sea. With the magic, the devils bring Vijay to consciousness. Their story was that they were devils in the court of Bhairava. They stood against the evil sorcery, for why Bhairva stuffed them in a bottle and threw the bottle at the shore of the sea, sharing a border with the desert. They were redeemed out when a blind man had kicked the bottle. To feed the hungry blind man, they grab the fruits from Tuumburadeva (God of music) temple. When the blind man is about to eat the plate of fruits, a white flying horse prevents him eating by kicking the plate. Thence the devils are making him to eat, but the horse is preventing him to eat by kicking the plate. The devils plead Vijay to convince the horse and make the blind man to eat the food, so that they can take the leave. Vijay with his art of music convinces the horse. With Vijay's plead to the horse, the blind man regains his previous form of king.
The naughty devils reveals to Vijay that Shata-ratna (100 gem) Necklace found in Yakshini Loka, would protect Padma from the threat of Bhairava. Vijay directs the king to Kotala Kona. Brahmananda Bhupati announces that he would give half of the dynasty along with his daughter in marriage, to the one who saves his daughter. As directed by the naughty devils Vijay travels towards the east and reaches Yakshini Loka, where he meets Lilliputs. In a comic incident Vijay saves Lilliputs. The Lilliputs help Vijay to reach Yakshini Loka and shows the locked room in which the necklace is placed. A Yakshini (Rambha) start to dance on seeing Vijay, whilst the Lilliputs begin to find the key for opening the door. In the dance Vijay finds the key tied to the ankle of Yakshini. In false romance with Yakshini, the Lilliput steals the key. Vijay enters into the room by facing hurdes and then enters a room of glasses. In the room of glasses he fights with a dreadful monster, which has life in the glasses. The case of necklace appears upon Vijay killing the monster by breaking the glasses. Yakshini curses Vijay who is rushing out with the necklace. To the curse Vijay totally loses his handsomeness and turns into a very ugly man. Yakshini reveals that the necklace will lose its power if either it is thrown away onto ground or if Vijay reveals out any one who he is.
On a full moon night, Vijay, in the form of an ugly man, enters the castle with the necklace and pleads Padma to wear it. Padma and others could not recognize who the ugly man is. In the panic, Padma wears the necklace, which drives off the death fog entering the castle. Brahmananda Bhupati remembers of his promise and arranges for the marriage between the ugly man and Padma. Bhairava sends a devil in the disguise of a priest by name Mattepa Sastri (Padmanabham) to upset the marriage. Mattepa Sastri says that the necklace was stolen by the ugly man from Vijay. In anger Padma throws the necklace down. As a result, the necklace loses its power and Mattepa Sastri vanishes from there along with Padma and appears at Bhairavudu. Brahmananda Bhupati realizes that the ugly man was Vijay.
Vijay returns to Jamadagni Ashram to meet Vasundhara. The ugly man reveals his flashback. Vasundhara realizes that the ugly man to be her son and reveals that Chandraprabha Maharaja to be his father. Vijay invokes the horse. Vasundhara prays for a goddess and takes all the ugly of her son. Vijay regains his shape to her prayer and goes to the Bhairava Dweepa on the white horse to save Padma from the sacrifice. In the fight Vijay slays the head of Bhairava with the sacrificial sword. Bhairava dies and it results in the collapse of the dark goddess along with the ruin of the cave. Vijay escapes out with Padma. The nymph appears again and regains the shape of his mother. Vijay reaches the castle with Padma. The movie ends with the happy marriage of Padma with Vijay and the union of Chandraprabha Dynasty and Kartikeya Dynasty. | good versus evil | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0087291 | Frankenweenie | Young filmmaker and scientist Victor Frankenstein (Charlie Tahan) lives with his parents, Edward (Martin Short) and Susan Frankenstein (Catherine O'Hara), and his beloved Bull Terrier dog, Sparky, in the quiet town of New Holland. Victor's intelligence is recognized by his classmates at school, his somber next-door neighbor, Elsa Van Helsing (Winona Ryder), mischievous, Igor-like Edgar "E" Gore (Atticus Shaffer), obese and gullible Bob (Robert Capron), overconfident Toshiaki (James Hiroyuki Liao), creepy Nassor, and an eccentric girl nicknamed Weird Girl, but communicates little with them due to his relationship with his dog. Concerned with his son's isolation, Victor's father encourages him to take up baseball and make achievements outside of science. Victor hits a home run at his first game, but Sparky, pursuing the ball, is struck by a car and killed.
Inspired by his science teacher Mr. Rzykruski's (Martin Landau) demonstration of the effect of electricity on dead frogs, a depressed Victor digs up Sparky's corpse, brings him to his makeshift laboratory in the attic and successfully reanimates him with lightning. Seeing Weird Girl's living cat, Mr. Whiskers, the undead Sparky escapes from the attic and explores the neighborhood. He is recognized by Edgar, who blackmails Victor into teaching him how to raise the dead. The two reanimate a dead goldfish, which turns invisible due to an error with the experiment. Edgar brags about the undead fish to Toshiaki and Bob, which, in panic of losing the upcoming science fair, inspires them to make a rocket out of soda bottles, which causes Bob to break his arm and Mr. Rzykruski to be blamed and fired due to his accused influencing and reviling the townsfolk for questioning his methods when he steps up for self-defense. So, the gym teacher replaces Mr. Rzykruski.
Eventually, Edgar's fish disappears when he tries to show it to a skeptical Nassor (who was told by Toshiaki), and when Edgar is confronted by Toshiaki, Nassor and Bob on the baseball field at school, he accidentally reveals Victor's actions, inspiring them to try reanimation themselves. Victor's parents discover Sparky in the attic and are frightened, causing the dog to flee. Victor and his parents search for Sparky while the classmates invade the lab, discovering Victor's reanimation formula. The classmates separately perform their experiments, which go awry and turn the dead animals into monsters — Mr. Whiskers holds a dead bat while it is electrocuted, resulting in him fusing with it and becoming a monstrous bat-cat with wings and fangs. Edgar turns a dead rat he found in the garbage into a wererat, Nassor revives his mummified hamster Colossus and Toshiaki's turtle Shelley is covered in Miracle Gro and turns into a giant Gamera-like monster. Bob's Sea-Monkeys grow into amphibious humanoids. The monsters break loose into the town fair where they wreak havoc.
After finding Sparky at the town's pet cemetery, Victor sees the monsters heading to the fair and goes with his classmates to help deal with them — the Sea-Monkeys explode after eating salt-covered popcorn, and Colossus is stepped on by Shelley, while the rat and Shelley are returned to their original, deceased forms after both being electrocuted. During the chaos, Persephone, Elsa's pet poodle, is grabbed by Mr. Whiskers and carried to the town windmill with Elsa and Victor chasing after. The townsfolk blame Sparky for Elsa's disappearance and chase him to the windmill, which Mayor Burgermeister accidentally ignites with his torch. Victor and Sparky enter the burning windmill and rescue Elsa and Persephone, but Victor is trapped inside. Sparky rescues Victor, only to be dragged back inside by Mr. Whiskers. A final confrontation ensues, and just as Mr. Whiskers has Sparky cornered, a flaming piece of wood breaks off and impales Mr. Whiskers, killing him. The windmill then collapses on Sparky, killing him again. To reward him for his bravery and saving Victor, the townsfolk gather to revive Sparky with their car batteries, reanimating him once more. Persephone, who has a hairstyle similar to Elsa Lanchester's Bride of Frankenstein, comes to Sparky as the two dogs share their love and kiss. | cult, psychedelic | train | wikipedia | You'll especially enjoy it if you've seen (a) James Whale's "Frankenstein" and "Bride of Frankenstein," and (b) Tim Burton's "Nightmare Before Christmas."The plot is basically the Frankenstein legend.
Charming complications ensue.This was Tim Burton's first film, and it's a great harbinger of things to come.
The film does a wonderful job of including nuances from the Whale flicks, from the electrodes on the dog's neck to the resuscitation lab to the brief parody of "Bride."There's enough scary-ish stuff (slightly more gentle than meeting the Almighty Oz) to keep kids going, and enough recognizable movie riffs and humor to keep adults going.
Apparently Disney thought it was too dark but with the exception of one shot of the dead dog it was actually pretty cute.Some of the performances were over the top (neighbors) but I am pretty sure that was supposed to happen - I mean come on we're talking about resurrecting a dog people.
For the most part the pacing is good since I almost never checked my watch.Good camera work for a young Tim Burton and overall decent movie which shows the latent talent of Mr. Burton before he got really famous.8/10.
Basically a spoof of Mary Shelley's classic novel, the movie features suburban American boy Victor Frankenstein (Barret Oliver) resurrecting his dog Sparky, who got run over by a car.
Original, cute, and obviously Tim Burton, this film is good for everyone, regardless of what Disney thinks (I guess they were afraid that kids would start digging up the graves of their old dead pets and end of shocking themselves.).
It's a delightful little film version of Frankenstein, seen from a child's perspective, and with charm and a sweet sense of humor.
I enjoyed this simply shot, fun little movie, a sign of great things to come for Tim Burton.
Tim Burton's talent clearly shows in his early short film!.
His jolly little film introduces us to the 10-year-old Victor Frankenstein who can't bear the loss of his beloved dog.
Victor, the young son, is crestfallen when his dog Sparky dies.The movie is very funny and original, and I'm glad that Tim Burton decided to do this movie in black and white, as he did 10 years later with his masterpiece Ed Wood.
This is only a slightly dark and very funny family film that is a homage to the horror pictures of the 1930s and 40s--complete with glorious black and white cinematography!
It was the first movie I ever remember watching, causing me to later in life become a huge Tim Burton fan.
I viewed the stop-motion animated 2012 expanded remake of this first, and this live-action original is much better because its plot is direct, and it's focused on referencing mostly only one monster movie, the 1931 "Frankenstein," although it ends with a poodle with a white-lightning-striped Nefertiti hairdo à la the 1935 sequel.
The movie would've been better without all of that, and this 1984 short film is the proof.It also doesn't reduce Victor's parents to negligible nincompoops, so it doesn't have the ridiculous message of the 2012 feature that children are smarter than adults.
I don't recall my favorite line from this film being in the 2012 remake, either: "I guess we can't punish Victor for bringing Sparky back from the dead." The windmill scene bothers me in both movies, though; the adults should've and could've ran in there.
Dog dies, Victor reanimates dog with household appliances in a scene that otherwise resembles the 1931 film with flashing and spinning gizmos and the spark of life from a lightning bolt, townsfolk react in horror towards the creature and form a mob per usual for Universal's classic horror films, chasing dog and Victor to a fiery windmill climax--in a miniature golf course this time, which is a humorous touch absent from the 2012 version.The one thing the 2012 one did better was the opening film-within-a-film, as it was a pastiche of the B-picture giant monster movies of the Atomic Age, which the outer movie, then, went on to parody.
Tim Burton's loving tribute to Universal's Frankenstein movies.
The story's about a boy who brings his beloved dog Sparky back to life using the same method as in Frankenstein.
It's a beautiful-looking film, shot in black & white, with lots of the clever touches we've come to associate with Burton over the years.
it's a little movie that oozes charm and nostalgia.Barret Oliver, the cute kid from 'The Neverending Story' (1984) and 'D.A.R.Y.L.' (1985), is once again terrific, here as Victor Frankenstein.
As for the "weenie", it probably is meant to make one realize it's a "kid's version" so that it's suitable for kids to watch and not scary like the original tale.This "piece of a watchmaker's shop" is the best thing Tim Burton ever did.
Only there are a few minor changes to the classic tale.In Frankenweenie, little Victor Frankenstein's much-loved pitbull, named Sparky, gets run over by a car.
The Frankenstein family then puts the family dog to rest in a very gothic looking pet cemetery, that looks something from Tim Burton's own Nightmare Before Christmas.
Including the last few seconds of the short, Sparky falls in love with a poodle with the same wacky hair-do as Frankenstein love interest in The Bride of Frankenstein.This is one of the two first directional debuts of the master storyteller Tim Burton (Beetlejuice, Batman, Sleepy Hollow), along side of his six-minute tribute to his idol Vincent Price, called Vincent in 1982.
Tim Burton's own masterpiece, Edward Scissorhands is in the same vein as this same short film, being that Sparky was his owner's creation and becomes very misunderstood due to the fact that he doesn't look like any other dog, while Edward was Vincent Price's own creation and soon becomes the outcast in suburbia because of his `scissorhands'.Tim Burton also decided it would be better if he filmed the short in black & white...
Exquisite!While Tim Burton was working for Disney as an animator, Disney decided to give Tim his own creative freedom, letting him direct and be the brains behind the story of two shorts for Disney: Vincent and Frankenweenie.
Pretty funny, eh?Any-hoo, this short is strongly recommended to all Tim Burton fans and fans of the Frankenstein franchise.****1/2 out of ***** 8/10.
I just recently viewed this film when buying the special edition of Tim Burton's 'The nightmare before christmas dvd'.
I think it is pretty clear that Frankenweenie is a pastiche of Frankenstein; partcularly the scene where Sparky is brought back to life by being exposed to lightening, just as Frankenstein did with his creation.Burton depicts the character of Frankenstein as an outsider as a result of his actions.
This is not as 'polished' as his current work (obviously), but you can tell it is a Burton film because of the use of dark humor.Overall, 'Frankenweenie' is not a very long film, and Burton did well to tell the story in the amount of time that he did.
Kids get enough rose-tinted syrup in the form of cough medicine, and as the Grimm brothers knew they like a good exhilarating scare as much as the rest of us.Frankenweenie sees a young Tim Burton reworking the Frankenstein story around a young boy and his beloved dog.
But this in no way diminishes what we see on screen, and it's nice that kids (a lot of whom won't know the Frankenstein story at all) will simply accept the movie in its own right, and be touched by it for its own message, which incidentally has a rather different slant to that of Mary Shelley's novel.This was one of Burton's earliest efforts at live-action, his work prior to this largely being in animation.
This film is based (obviously) on the original story on Frankenstein and yet it is about a dog who comes back to life.
The dog is the sweet part of this film, the rest of it is at times funny, at times a little mediocre and at times spooky.At the beginning of Frankenweenie, we meet a young boy called Victor and his dog Sparky.
Victor misses Sparky with every molecule of his heart and when his science teacher shows a way of using electricity to make animals come back to life, Victor is off and bringing his beloved dog back from the dead...Unfortunately, I spent the whole of this film wondering how scary it would get, which is why I did not enjoy it so much at the time.
I originally liked this film for the plot and for the dog, the human characters just came in the way a little bit for me, but now I see them as the enhancers of the story.
After all, Victor is the person responsible here for giving life to Sparky, just as Professor Frankenstein creates life in his monster in the original book (which I have not read, but know the basics about).This very good Tim Burton creation can be seen on the same DVD as "The Nightmare Before Christmas", which is very convenient.
After 'Vincent' Tim Burton made the short 'Frankenweenie', a spoof of, as well as a homage to the movie Frankenstein.
The boy then tries to bring his dog back to life.After this movie, Tim Burton was fired from Disney, for 'wasting studio efforts on a mg-6 movie'.
Yes. Otherwise we'd be watching 'The Fox and the Hound' drawn by him, instead of the masterpieces like Sweeney Todd and Charlie and the Chocolate Factory he makes today.This short is not as good as 'Vincent', but is still very much fun to watch, the story lines and environment incline towards Edward Scissorhands, and Shelley DuVall is very good as mother Frankenstein.8/10.
Frankenweenie is Tim Burton's first live-action short film, shot for Disney in the mid-80s, and has enough imaginations to overpass some overbearing cheesiness at times.
It's a sign of things to come for Burton, and the story and some of the side characters remind one of Edward Scissorhands (no one understands this 'creation', and becomes an outcast despite good intentions).
The beginning of the film, for example, showing a movie made by the son with the dog Sparky, seems like it's taken autobiographically from Burton's life as a kid.
In the end, Frankenweenie is kind of like an expensive student short film, where a style is emerging but not fully formed, and at the same time there's real entertainment to be had.
Seeing Barrett Oliver (Neverending Story) bring his dog to life after the dog died seriously tore me apart becuz at the time I had a dog myself and was close to him like Victor Frankenstein was close to his dog.
Tim Burton's Frankenstein: The Disney Version.
But a nice introduction of Frankenstein to kids.3(***)out of 4(****)starsA little side note:If you didn't already know, ten years later Tim Burton would do another black & white movie titled "Ed Wood" :).
If you keep track of upcoming movies (like I do), you may know that Tim Burton is releasing a film called "Frankenweenie" next month.
A simple, odd story about how far a kid can go to bring back his lovable dog Sparky!The concept is inventive and Burton has done a stupendous job with both the versions.
Frankenweenie (1984) **** (out of 4) Wonderful short about a boy's dog who dies after being hit by a car but the boy uses electricity to bring him back to life.
I read that Tim Burton was fired from Disney due to making such a dark picture that they felt they couldn't sell to children but this is probably the best movie I've seen from the director.
A sign of things to come for Tim Burton in this darkly comic tale of a young boy whose dog is hit by a truck and then resurrected a la Frankenstein's monster.
This is another cult Tim Burton short – although at 29 minutes, live-action, and featuring the likes of Shelley Duvall, Daniel Stern and child actor Barret Oliver (from the same year's THE NEVER ENDING STORY), it is a considerably more ambitious effort.Again, it draws inspiration from classic horror cinema and, in fact, its variation on the Frankenstein theme made for a belated addition to my James Whale retrospective of some months back!
The boy cannot get over its loss but, suddenly, during chemistry class at school (presided over by an uncredited Paul Bartel!), he learns how dead things can be literally reanimated via electricity.So he goes to work in the family basement – while his oblivious parents think he is acting strangely as a way of coping with the dog's death – and creates a makeshift Frankenstein (incidentally, that is the boy's very surname and he is, of course, called Victor) lab, complete with mounting slab!
Unearthing the dead pet from the nearby graveyard, the funeral set-piece is a veritable homage to the opening sequence from Whale's FRANKENSTEIN (1931), as is the fiery climax at the mill!Immediately after being revived, the dog (appropriately stitched-up, which however makes one wonder just how bad the afore-mentioned accident had been!) runs out into the streets again (the boy having fallen asleep from exhaustion) and, causing no end of havoc, terrifies the neighbors.
This movie is another masterpiece created by the wonderful genius we all know and love, Tim Burton.
So pretty much this is another masterpiece of a film created by Tim Burton.
Stars: Barrett Oliver, Daniel Stern, Shelley Duvall and Paul Bartel.This was Tim's first live action movie and it was great.
I don't even particularly enjoy Tim Burton's movies, but this one is really good.
The story's about Victor Frankenstein and his friendship with his beloved dog, Sparky (a Bull Terrier).
Barret Oliver, a familiar actor from "The Neverending Story" and "D.A.R.Y.L" (both awesome movies), as well as one of the best and cutest child actors of all time, is excellent in the role of Victor Frankenstein.
There is a bit of a "Back to the Future" atmosphere in this live-action short.I've read that Tim Burton will make a "remake" of this, but as a full-length movie.
A short film directed by Tim Burton, this is absolutely sublime.
It tells the story of a ten-year-old boy named Victor Frankenstein, based on Burton himself as he makes short films in his backyard, who is distraught by the death of his (very appropriately named) dog Sparky.
Barret Oliver, a prolific 1980s child actor best known for his roles in films such as "The NeverEnding Story", "D.A.R.Y.L." and "Cocoon", is pitch perfect as Victor, who manages to seem like a real boy in spite of the plot.
***SPOILERS*** Yet another black and white epic inspired by the great German films of the Silent Era (by way of the 1931 FRANKENSTEIN, no less), FRANKENWEENIE is a love story and it begins quietly enough, with no indication of the horrors to come.
What's that you have never seen the original 29 minute short created for Disney by Tim Burton?
Suddenly, Disney was a big fan of Tim Burton, in the hopes of cashing in a bit they added two shorts to the DVD releases of A Nightmare Before Christmas, Frankenweenie and Vincent.
Seems like their is a fine line between kooky filmmaker and bankable director.The story in Frankenweenie is a rather simple, heartfelt tale of a boy, young Victor Frankenstein and his dog Sparky.
I didn't wonder when I read that Burton was fired from Disney for "wasting" their resources on films like this.
P.S : unlike many, including Burton himself, I don't see this movie as a short remake of Frankenstein aimed at children.
Victor Frankenstein's beloved dog Sparky gets hit by a car.
For a fun and nostalgic look at the 1950s and its expressionistic horror themes, here's a slightly underground early short by Tim Burton called "Frankenweenie," a movie apparently that "wasted resources" from good ol' Walt Disney's estate.
In other words, a pretty creative, fun, nostalgic film that really didn't have an audience until Burton became the household name he is and got a super devoted fan base of goth kiddies from around the globe."Frankenweenie", as the name implies, is a take off of Frankenstein involving a child's favorite, Fido-like dog, Sparky.
Where the concept of a Frankenstein's monster as childhood best friend joke starts to drag, Tim Burton's love of making fun of suburbanite conformity takes over, and the two concepts run for a pretty decent 30 minute parody.Apparently, it was short films like this that got Burton fired from Disney.
Actually, there isn't any character that is sympathetic, which also has to do with the lame story and the fact that Burton doesn't seem to know what to do with this short story other than hauling in cliché after cliché - pretty much the only original thing here is the premise, but that is simply not enough.I can sense Burton's enthusiasm here and there though, like when the boy goes to work in the attic in order to spark Sparky back to life.
But all in all, this makes for a world of difference with Burton's wonderful (animated) short that preceded this, 'Vincent' (1982), and of course with other, later feature length masterpieces.5 out of 10." -End of first review-I've seen it again recently, and I really enjoyed the atmosphere, settings and animations.
And this is probably also my biggest criticism for Tim Burton's short film "Frankenweenie" from over 30 years ago.
Instead of learning to face the reality of death, Victor instead tampers with the natural order of things and brings back Sparky as a kind of mutilated zombie.Don't get me wrong, I really liked this short film.
Before making it big with Beetlejuice, Batman and Edward Scissorhands, director Tim Burton worked as a Disney animator, and made a few short films, this is another one of those shorts, a parody and homage to Frankenstein (1931), based on the classic Mary Shelley novel.
Basically ten-year-old Victor Frankenstein (The NeverEnding Story's Barret Oliver) liked to create movies starring his beloved Bull Terrier dog Sparky (his name is a play on the use of electricity in the film). |
tt0031322 | The Flying Deuces | While on holiday in Paris, Ollie falls so much in love with Georgette, the beautiful daughter of an innkeeper, he intends to marry her. Unfortunately, she turns down his marriage proposal because there is someone else, "very much so". (Unbeknownst to him at the moment, a Foreign Legion officer named Francois is her husband, and has returned briefly to see her.) Ollie is heartbroken to the point of committing suicide. Just as he about to jump into a river (with Stan joining him), Francois, happening to catch sight of them about to do so, convinces the duo to enlist in the Foreign Legion in order to forget Ollie's failed romance. When Stan asks him how long it will take Ollie to forget, should they join the Foreign Legion, Francois points out it will only take a matter of a few days. Enticed by Francois's offer, plus the fact that Ollie will completely forget his failed romance very shortly, they enlist.
Right from the start they wreak havoc in training camp, and when they are taken to see the commandant to be introduced to their daily legionnaire duties, he gives them a full litany of long tasks, for which their daily wage is 100 centimes, which, translated into American currency amounts to only three cents. Hardy flatly tells the commandant neither he nor Stan will have any part of it for only three cents a day, to which Stan concurs that they don't work for less than 25 cents a day. For this uppity attitude they are sentenced to very menial hard labor, washing and ironing a mountain of laundry, with legion officers constantly on their backs ("Go ON!! Get back to WORK!!! Whaddya think this IS?!!"). Finally and 'miraculously', Ollie manages to forget his broken romance completely, (thus no longer having to work in the legion) and, his and Stan's purpose in joining the Foreign Legion fulfilled, they prepare to leave the legion and go back home to the United States...but before they do, fed up with the harsh discipline and the endless punishments they had to suffer, Ollie intends to tell off the commandant on their way out. They are unable to find the commandant and unwilling to search for him. So Ollie writes him a very insulting farewell letter and signs it.
Before long they meet Georgette again, and Ollie is at first delighted that she has changed her mind and come back to him and proceeds to embrace and kiss her. Ollie, however, becomes un-delighted by Francois, the same Foreign Legion officer who had encouraged them to join the Legion earlier, who icily informs him that Georgette happens to be his wife and threateningly warns him to stay away from her, or else. After Francois leaves, the commandant appears on the scene and grimly tells Stan and Ollie he received their stern farewell note, and it has now become their death warrant. He then pronounces them under arrest for desertion. They are then taken to the prison, locked up and summarily sentenced to be shot at dawn. At one point the jailor forgets to lock the door. Stan amazes Ollie by playing The World Is Waiting for the Sunrise on the bedsprings. As he is about to play another piece, the jailor yells at them to be quiet. Later in the evening, someone throws a hint informing them that they can escape by means of a tunnel leading from their cell to the outside wall. Stan brings on an accidental cave-in which causes the underground path to lead to, of all places, Francois and Georgette's dwelling. In no time at all, the whole legion engages in hot pursuit of the boys, who manage to flee to a nearby hangars and hide out in an airplane, which Stan accidentally starts up, forcing the boys to fly it until it ultimately crashes. Stan manages to emerge seemingly unharmed from the crash, but Ollie has died, seen ascending into the heavens, complete with wings. Eventually, however, he is reincarnated (earlier in the film, the duo contemplated being reincarnated) as a horse (complete with mustache and hat), which pleases Stan. In the final seconds of the film, Ollie makes his famous remark, "Well, here`s another nice mess you`ve gotten me into". | romantic | train | wikipedia | Stan Laurel won a special Oscar in 1960; Oliver Hardy died in 1957 and remains one of the most underrated comics in film history.
This was Laurel and Hardy's first feature film away from producer extraordinaire Hal Roach.
While this is in no way Laurel and Hardy's best work, it still contains enough gags and silliness to entertain fans and the younger set.
Not all of it maintains the pace or the level of their best short features, but there some good scenes and some fine moments that reflect the comic duo near the peak of their form.The story tries to squeeze as much as possible from Stan and Ollie joining the Foreign Legion in order to help Ollie forget his troubles.
That notwithstanding, judged purely on its own terms, this is a splendid way to spend an hour or so.Within the Laurel and Hardy canon, this can be defined as a late Hal Roach film, an era in which originality was fading a little, but they were still entirely in their element and always enjoyable - unlike, perhaps, in their years at Fox. I should say that this film is indeed no masterpiece, and is put together in a slightly slapdash way at times; although the plot does stand up reasonably well - the shift to the Foreign Legion negotiated by a clearly unbelievable coincidence of Reg Gardiner turning up by the riverside.
But it is the lovely 'Shine on Harvest Moon' musical sequence, sung majestically by Hardy and soft-shoed winningly by Laurel (to be joined by Hardy at the end), that is the most memorable part.
Great stuff, well timed - these reflective moments in many ways make the film, mark it out from slightly more routine L&H features of the time.Support includes Reginald Gardiner, fairly competent as the 'French' military cad; Georgette (Jean Parker), the 'dame', as Stan refers to her; a very adequate stooge and coquette, ever brushing her tresses.
And, to properly round things off, we have James Finlayson: the lovably crotchety Scottish foil for the boys, ever bursting at the seams in his indignation at them."The Flying Deuces" is not a great film, but it has many genuinely wonderful moments; well worth a viewing for anyone, whether familiar with this double-act or not; everyone ought to be, as they are one of the most beautiful and abiding attractions ever to have graced the cinema..
Hoping to forget Ollie's blighted love life, the Boys join the French Foreign Legion.
Making their escape, they unwittingly become THE FLYING DEUCES when they find themselves in a runaway airplane...While not one of their classics, in their typical slapstick fashion Stan & Ollie make this a very enjoyable film to watch.
Oliver is in love with Georgette (Jean Parker), but his heart breaks when he finds out that Georgette has someone other.That other is Francois (Reginald Gardiner), who is Georgette's husband.So Stanley and Oliver join the Foreign Legion to forget Georgette.There is also Francois at the Foreign Legion.The boys have many adventures there, like going to jail and escaping from there.And it is hilarious to watch the boys flying an airplane at the end.The Flying Deuces from 1939 is a very funny Laurel and Hardy comedy and I'm sure it's not a disappointment for any Laurel and Hardy fans..
This sets up some very funny business and the selfsame Reginald Gardiner who doesn't know Ollie is sweet on Jean persuades them that the Foreign Legion is the place for them.Of course upon arriving in North Africa, the Legion proves a bit much to their delicate sensibilities.
What's interesting in The Flying Deuces is that in most Laurel and Hardy films, dumb and dumber always flop no matter what they scheme.
It's refined slapstick, made up of facial gestures, anger, repetition, big life decisions like falling in love, suicide, joining the French foreign legion, and flying a plane without much control of a wheel.
It's not a very complex storyline, as Hardy falls for a girl, can't get her, feels down about it almost enough to jump into the river, but gets a word of advice right before it happens by a fellow traveler to join the foreign legion to forget about it.
But they get in over their heads by joining, and want to quit, and soon become the biggest bumbling boobs to ever join up, leading to many chases, and that death-defying plane ride (or is it?)It's the kind of film that unless getting head-on into Laurel and Hardy's distinctive and influential comedy timing will only really be of interest if passed on down as a child.
I still remember most fondly the song and dance number Laurel and Hardy do in a moment of a jam (Shine on Harvest Moon, I think it was called), and the supporting character work is also a fine plus.
And, quite frankly, one of those quintessential wacky end scenes that keeps me smiling, and laughing depending on who I'm talking with about it, where a certain horse with a mustache and hat appears saying "another fine mess you got me into." A pick-me-up comedy of manners and pratfalls, it'll always have a place in my collection not only for nostalgic reasons (it was one of the first videos I ever owned), but for its stamina so many years later..
Poor Ollie at first decides to end it all and take his good pal Stan with him, until he gets a better suggestion to just join the Foreign Legion to try and forget his troubles.
A good solid comedy from Laurel and Hardy, nearing the very end of their best period in the Hal Roach movies.
Not that I don't love Laurel and Hardy, but it's hard for me to find one of their feature films where I am completely entertained the whole way through.
Edward Sutherland, stars the comedy team of Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy in their first feature film away from their home lot of the Hal Roach/MGM Studios.
Aside from their usual antics, there's also James Finlayson, their frequent foil, doing his familiar double-take as a harassed jailer in the latter portion of the story, and Charles Middleton (of BEAU HUNKS) adding some more of his usual no-nonsense flavor as their commanding officer.This time around, Stan and Ollie (as they are simply billed in the closing credits), are Americans from Iowa vacationing in Paris.
After some failed attempts, thanks to Stanley, Francois (Reginald Gardiner), a legionnaire who happens to be passing by, advises Ollie the best way to forget his troubles is to join the foreign legion, which they do.
Although the title promises air travel, it really doesn't take off until much later where Stan and Ollie escape jail and a firing squad, leading to a merry chase around the base before seeking refuge inside an airplane that takes them to the air but not with the greatest of ease.In true Laurel and Hardy tradition, slapstick and chase scenes are the focal point along with Oliver telling Stanley the familiar phrase, "Well, here's another fine mess you've gotten me into." There's also a nice musical interlude where Oliver displays his fine vocalization to "Shine On, Harvest Moon" (by Nora Bayes and Jack Norworth) at the post courtyard while Stanley does his own style of dancing.
There's also another musical moment where Stanley plays a harp on a prison bed spring to "The World is Waiting for the Sunrise" in the best Harpo Marx tradition while waiting to be shot at sunrise with his pal for desertion.In the wake of home video, movie rentals and cable television in the early 1980s, THE FLYING DEUCES, was easily accessible by numerous distributors.
In recent years, American Movie Classics has presented the complete 68 minute print into its lineup of Laurel and Hardy festivals from 1994 to 1999; followed by Turner Classic Movies where THE FLYING DEUCES premiered January 5, 2006.While not quite as spectacular or hilarious as some of their comedies for Hal Roach, yet better than the ones Stan and Ollie made during their declining years over at 20th Century-Fox (1941-1945), THE FLYING DEUCES is something to consider whether it be from the wild airplane ride, the cameo appearance by talking horse with a familiar sounding voice, or for the comedy team of Stan and Ollie.
Of all the comedy teams in film to date, none have ever surpassed the popular duo of Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy.
An independently-produced effort while contractual disputes with Hal Roach were on-going,THE FLYING DEUCES is possibly the best non-Roach Laurel and Hardy vehicle,because at least Stan Laurel was allowed some say on the plot and script content.The original draft was apparently woefully unsuitable(as were virtually all their wartime Fox and MGM features),and the story itself is pretty thin(an obvious reworking of BEAU HUNKS)and the production rather cheap.What saves the picture from mediocrity are some familiar names in the supporting cast like Charles Middleton and (especially) James Finlayson from the Roach studios,with others like Richard Cramer,Arthur Housman,Eddie Borden and Sam Lufkin in much smaller parts.With such performers in support it does at least give it the feel of a Roach film,with the addition of their favourite cameraman Art Lloyd behind the scenes another plus factor.That said,the comic material itself is not of a particularly high standard,maybe because of the initial weakness of the original story and draft,and the amount of pancake makeup they both wear cannot disguise they were beginning to age somewhat after their Roach studios peak.Despite funny gags and individual scenes,THE FLYING DEUCES is rather patchy,and one yearns for rather more of Middleton's stentorian tones(their simply isn't enough of him in the film)than Ollie's simpering over Jean Parker.Her on-screen husband Reginald Gardiner starts off in amiable conversation with the boys persuading them to join the Foreign Legion,but he turns decidedly unsympathetic and hostile once they've enlisted,especially when he finds out that Ollie is in love with his wife.Much comic potential is not explored because unlike BEAU HUNKS(which was not perfect but shorter and rather better),there are few jokes about their tribulations in the Legion itself;the best scenes are some charming,if slightly irrelevant, musical interludes,involving Ollie singing 'Shine On Harvest Moon' while Stan performs a nifty soft-shoe shuffle,Stan playing 'The World Is Waiting For Sunrise' on his prison cell bed mattress(Ollie taps his feet amusingly during this number!),and some funny business with their best ever foil James Finlayson.The rest frankly is something of a disappointment,but we can be thankful at least that Laurel and Hardy are still in character here,which was not the case in their films from 1941 onwards,because of big film studio interference and reluctance to give Stan Laurel artistic control.THE FLYING DEUCES is certainly no classic,but is still fairly enjoyable and a decent L & H film thanks to producer Boris Morros' decision to give Stan a degree of creative freedom.Now why didn't the producers at Fox or MGM do that?.
Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy wreak havoc on the French Foreign Legion in this film.
Stan and Ollie had been a team for a dozen years when they made "Flying Deuces." Their best full length films were those produced in their first 13 years as a team at Hal Roach studios.
It's a very solid L&H film.The Plot.Oliver is heartbroken when he finds that Georgette, the innkeeper's daughter he's fallen in love with, is already married to dashing Foreign Legion officer Francois.
Having just reunited with Oliver Hardy after Hardy briefly went solo in Zenobia due to some contract dispute with Hal Roach, Stan Laurel and Ollie would be loaned to independent producer Boris Morros for The Flying Deuces.
In this one, Ollie is trying to forget a girl who turned him down for marriage so he and Stan join the Foreign Legion.
Plenty of funny gags abound during the first 30 minutes while the last 40 is uneven especially toward the end but the boys are charming throughout even during the number "Shine On, Harvest Moon" with Hardy warbling while Laurel dances though I did wonder if Stan really played the harp in a later jail sequence (probably not, judging from Ollie's reactions).
In fact, before his death, Sutherland said of Laurel, "I'd rather have worked with a tarantula." He probably had a much better time the following year when he introduced another comedy team on film that had just finished a Broadway run in "Streets of Paris"...
I'm not the biggest Laurel and Hardy fan, I really like their silent work, but their sound films don't sit well with me.
I have to say that this actually started REALLY slowly, with Ollie getting depressed over losing a girl and trying to commit suicide (while a escapee shark trolls nearby!) but soon the story, and my interest picked up once they joined the Foreign Legion, after that it became a light light piece of work, but OK for an hour sit-through.
There is very good reason why Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy are widely considered comedy geniuses and one of the most highly regarded comedy duos there is/was.
Even their lesser efforts were not unwatchable and had their good parts.While 'The Flying Deuces' is a long way from being one of Laurel and Hardy's all-time best and from being a classic, it is still very enjoyable and one of their better faring later films before their decline period, even with its faults.
James Finlayson and Charles Middleton are the supporting cast standouts and Jean Parker is a charmer as the love interest.Many funny moments here, with one of the better and funnier opening scenes of their later films and a deliciously wild ending.
It only has three or four funny moments in it and has possibly the dumbest (and worst) endings of any Laurel and Hardy movie.
What a woefully unfunny movie "The Flying Deuces" is, and if it's representative of Laurel & Hardy (which I've heard it's not), there's not much chance of me liking their other stuff.
To forget her, he joins the Legion, taking Stanley with him.Laurel and hardy are a strange sort of comedy.
Being a bit of a romantic, his reaction is to try suicide, but before he can go through with it, he is told that the best way to forget is to join the Foreign Legion.
Prior to joining the Foreign Legion, the two have some really funny scenes.The logic of a Laurel and Hardy film is worthy of Lewis Carroll.Spoilers follow: One really funny scene is when they were in prison, sentenced to be executed at dawn, and Stan uses a set of bedsprings as a kind of harp, to play music to while away the hours.
This was a poor Laurel and Hardy vehicle--probably because it was their first film outside of Hal Roach Studios.
Some of the plot lines go nowhere, ie: Ollie in love, and the escaped shark;The lines are often said with little to no emotion, and the pacing is sometimes bad (a more frequent musical score probably would have helped these two problems), but it is still a very amusing film with plenty of moments you just can't help laughing out loud at.
In 1939 - 1940 Laurel & Hardy's long contractual relationship with Hal Roach was coming to an end.
The owner of the elephant is Harry Langdon, and there were rumors at the time that Roach was toying with a new teaming of Hardy and Langdon.Under the circumstances of Roach's antics, it is just possible that the decision of Stan and Babe to make "The Flying Deuces" with Boris Morros as producer was a counter-move: a type of testing the waters to see if the boys needed Roach to be there in order to make successful comedy features.
"The Flying Deuces" is not one of their greatest comedies (like "Sons Of The Desert") but it is a very amusing one.Although a story and screenplay is listed as the source of the film, one imagines the real source goes back to a short subject movie made a few years earlier called "Beau Hunks".
The rest of the short deals with their hard life as legionnaires (under Commandant Charles Middleton) and the fact that the horrified Hardy keeps finding that every man in the Foreign Legion is there trying to forget Jean Harlow (as is the leader of the Riffs!).As you can see there are elements in "Beau Hunks" that are picked up in "The Flying Deuces".
When they are going to their quarters, Stan and Ollie break into a soft shoe and song of "Shine On Harvest Moon" (no doubt influenced by similar moments where they did singing and dancing in "Way Out West" the year before.
It's been years since I watched a Laurel and Hardy film, but viewing "Flying Deuces" was a great reminder of just how brilliant they were.
Here the boys sign up for the French Foreign Legion when their Paris vacation ends with Ollie's marriage proposal being rejected by the lovely Georgette (Jean Parker).
This is the second L&H film in which they enlist in the French Foreign Legion to forget a woman Ollie is infatuated with.
They try to fly away in a stolen airplane, though neither actually know how to pilot said plane.There are good bits-where Stan plays a set of bedsprings like a harp, and where they make their escape from confinement.
As the 1930's came to a close, it became apparent that the comedy team of Stan Laurel and Oliver Hardy was reaching a turning point in their career.
For this entry, their first after leaving the Hal Roach studios, they are playing Americans in Paris who decide to enlist in the Foreign Legion so Hardy can get over his unrequited love for French waitress Jean Parker.Of course, as the boys were apt to do, they get into nothing but trouble as they fail to live up to Foreign Legion standards.
An amusing moment has the boys breaking into a light dance to "Shine on Harvest Moon", and only in a Foreign Legion jail cell would Stanley find a harp. |
tt0089756 | Out of Control | Jaswinder (Ritesh Deshmukh) goes to the United States of America promising his parents that he will return soon and his sister's marriage will be set. In America, he meets an American girl named Sally (Brande Roderick) and marries her for his visa.
He obviously forgets the promise he made to his parents. Meanwhile, in India his parents have found him a new bride, Richa (Hrishitaa Bhatt). His sister calls him to India by telling him that their father had a heart-attack. He returns to India and to his astonishment he gets engaged to Richa.
He strongly detests the idea but marries her and escapes to the United States and tells Sally that everything and everyone was fine in India. Back in India, his parents are amazed at his behaviour and Richa is surprised that her husband left soon after marriage, as he was supposed to take her to New York. Jaswinder's father (Amrish Puri) and Richa follow him to New York. As they reach New York, they are met by Flower (Satish Shah) who tells and inspires Richa to become a modern girl in her appearance. Jaswinder doesn't tolerate her and soon chucks her out. Sally does not know anything about this. But after some time, Jaswinder ends up falling in love with Richa and does not want to be separated from her. Will Sally find out? Will Jaswinder and Richa end up leading a happy life in the end? This plot forms the rest of the story. | violence | train | wikipedia | Group of Teenagers are stranded on island, play around, then fight smugglers to survive.
This movie stars Martin Hewitt (Endless Love) and Betsy Russell(Private School)as boyfriend and girlfriend who with a group of friends are traveling to Hewitt's father's island in the Pacific Northwest for a party after their high school graduation.The movie is slow and has a rather weak plot.
Their plane crashes and leaves the kids stranded on an island.
They swim, play "Games" and do what every teenager would do if they were stranded on an island with beautiful women.
Then they discover that a group of smugglers are trying to kill them so they must fight them off and try to get off the island.
A corny movie but if you like beautiful women and great scenery, then this movie is for you..
hey is it out on tape or DVD still.
hello , to whom it may concern , i would like to get this movie to own , but i am not sure if it is available to own on DVD or VHS ...
i love this movie and i would love to know how to get it at a price that is not to out there .
if you know what i mean ..
well anyway i love the hair styles and the clothes and all the actor's and actresses they are all great i love Jim Youngs he is my favorite well any way hope someone can answer my question ..
wiskerskitty88@yahoo.com if you can answer me i would love it thanks.
and i love this movie i am a big fan of Jim Youngs and i use to watch this movie everyday all day the minute i woke up till i went to sleep , sometimes i would stay up all night watching it because i loved it so much thanks again.
Pretty bad.
There's a germ of a good exploitive drive-in movie here - teenagers stranded on an island getting into sex games, then fighting drug smugglers who arrive and threaten to kill them.
It might have worked had it not all been presented in such a dull and unimaginative way - as well as if the teenagers were a likeable bunch that we cared about.
It doesn't help that the movie was severely cut up before its release (look at the running time), with a narrative device added to explain things that not only doesn't explain much, but is pretty annoying..
1980s time capsule.
This flick is hilarious to watch today.
The bad outfits, the bad hair, the gratuitous nudity!
It's everything a teen wanted.
Sure the plot is not in Oscar contention, but this is entertaining bad TV and eye candy.
There is also one (at least!) editing screw up of note: when you get your one and only overhead shot of the entire deserted island, the picture is taken from a mountain on a nearby island (or more likely the mainland).
You can see branches at the bottom of the screen!
Oops..
A dose of "nausea-stalgia" from the Reagan era.
If you ever have trouble locating any of these Reagan-era teen comedies, it's probably because they're on permanent reserve for regular showings in the Ninth Circle of Hell!
Nevertheless, this one is somewhat unusual in that, while it certainly is an exploitation flick rather than any kind of serious film, it doesn't really fall into the typical categories like teen slasher movies, teen sex comedies, etc.
It actually starts out in an interesting way with private plane full of wealthy prep school kids crashing onto a deserted island on their way to an after prom party.
It looks for awhile like it's going to be an adolescent version of "Lord of the Flies" with sex and girls (an excellent idea that oddly enough has never been done--although the Japanese film "Battle Royale" came close).
Primitive savagery rears its head briefly and things threaten to spin wildly out of control during a primitive, ritualistic game of "strip spin-the-bottle".
But then a bunch of idiot drug smugglers show up(played by be-stubbled, pony-tailed actors who look like they got ejected from a casting call for "Miami Vice" for being too unconvincing).
At which point the movie turns into a really stupid sub-sub "Rambo" 80's action movie (Oh, the humanity!) In keeping with its general schizoid nature, the female cast of this movie is excellent, including Betsy Russell (pant!), Claudia Udy (drool!), and a young Sherilyn Fenn (slobber!).
Russell and Udy have memorable nude scenes, and Fenn easily wins her own private wet t-shirt contest during an early swimming-in-the-lagoon scene.
The male cast, however, is insufferable.
The narrator (who talks right to camera)is a fat, bespectacled, and above all, incredibly annoying loser.
He's kind of like "Piggy" in "Lord of the Flies" except that unfortunately no one bashes his head in with a rock.
He even gets laid by a very decent-looking girl before it's all over (if you've ever seen any of the movies like this, you know that's NOT a spoiler).
Then there's a pretty-boy "rebel" who's named "Cowboy" even though he doesn't look like he'd know one end of a horse from the other (he does get to know one end of both Betsy Russell and Claudia Udy from the other though).
Perhaps, worst of all though, is the prom king character, played by none other than Martin "Endless Love" Hewitt (Aiiiiggggggggggggh!!!!) I don't if all this adds up to a recommendation or not, but as far as these "nausea-stalgic" Reagan-era teen movies go, you could a lot worse I guess. |
tt0056967 | Cry of Battle | The film begins on December 8, 1941 with the Japanese attacking the Philippines. Dave McVey Jr., the son of a rich American businessman with extensive holdings in the Philippines, is attacked by murderous bandits. He is rescued by Careo, a Filipino patriot who has put together a group of anti-Japanese Filipino guerrillas. Carero hides Dave with an elderly Filpino and his granddaughter who teach Dave Tagalog.
Careo returns again to tell Dave that his father has left the Philippines, but Dave is joined by a fellow American, Joe Trent, a rough merchant sailor who was third mate on a cargo ship that was sunk by the Japanese. Joe's ship was part of a merchant line owned by Dave's father. Joe figures that Dave's father will reward him for keeping his son safe. Joe gets drunk and rapes the teenage granddaughter. When the girl starts screeming, Dave has no choice but to flee with Joe.
They meet a band of armed Filipinos led by Atong and the English-speaking woman Sisa. The quick-thinking Joe tells the band that if they bring them to Colonel Ryker, an American officer in charge of a guerrilla unit, Ryker will reward them. Ryker tells Dave that the Japanese would probably give him a comfortable existence and might repatriate him to the United States due to his father's extensive business dealings with Japan. Dave replies that his father's connections to Japan were from before the war and he would rather fight with the guerrillas. The group join Ryker's unit in fighting the Japanese.
Joe is promoted to lieutenant and is to accompany a Filipino captain on a raid against a Japanese-held sugar refinery and railway. Joe brings Dave, Atong, Sisa and a group of their original band on the mission. After the captain is killed, Atong kills one of his own men over the captain's pistol. Joe makes Atong give the pistol to Dave. Not wishing to complete their mission, Joe sends Dave and Sisa into a village to ask the locals for food. As they are negotiating, Joe's band massacres the villagers to steal their rice, with Joe shooting Atong during the raid. Sisa quickly switches her loyalties to Joe. | violence | train | wikipedia | Corrections in film and trivia..
I was the producer of "Cry of Battle".
The production name, Petramonte,is Stein(stone)berg(mountain) in Spanish.
The rape scene was with Van Heflin trying to rape Pinang, played by the Phillipina actress, Marilou Munoz, not Rita Morena.
For Trivia: I shot around Rita Morena so that she could fly back to LA for the Acedemy Award.
She got an Oscar that year, returned and continued shooting.
The working title was "To be a man".
The book called for an young adult.
Making the David McVey character younger with James MacArthur, it was better contrast as a much younger man.
We shot a number of days using jitneys (old cars used as buses) horse drawn carts in crowded streets.
This was that start of the Japanese attack.
All of that work and footage went into the trash can and we ended up with a simple line about the date..
This MacArthur Ain't Returning.
I'm sure that the title of this film Cry of Battle was no accident and I'm sure many a piece of change was spent on admission to this feature because folks thought they were seeing a re-release of the more well acclaimed Battle Cry. That was a big budget studio effort which had Van Heflin as a Marine Colonel during the Pacific War.Cry of Battle also starred Van Heflin as a less admirable character and my guess is that the American players who appeared here did this as a boost to the Phillipine movie industry.
Heflin shares top billing with Rita Moreno and James MacArthur with a cast of Filipino players.The premise of this film is borrowed a bit from the ending of Stalag 17.
William Holden in that film tells Don Taylor in no uncertain terms that he is helping him escape because of anticipated rewards from Taylor's rich family.
James MacArthur is the rich son of an American planter who like many Americans is stranded there after Pearl Harbor and the attack on Clark Field.
He meets up with Van Heflin who is a merchant seaman similarly stranded.
Heflin figures there might be a big reward in helping MacArthur out.Teaching him the facts of life involves rape for Heflin, but he's got an instinct for survival and he teaches MacArthur.
They join up with a newly formed band of Filipino resistance and meet the captivating Rita Moreno who's a survivor herself.
The rival gets good and heated.I'm sure flush from her Oscar in 1961, Rita Moreno could have gotten parts in bigger pictures than this.
But I do believe the Americans were just helping the Phillipines get some American dollars in receipts by appearing here.
She's quite the fetching girl temptress in this film.
Van Heflin has never played a more loathsome character in his career.
Yet he actually makes this guy likable, not an easy thing to do playing a rapist.
But he's that skilled a player, he never gave a bad performance.Fans of Van Heflin, including myself, would do well to see this film and see just how wide a range of characters that man could play..
A movie showing the contrasting lives and interaction between two men, one good--one bad, during WW2.
This movie will not be a favorite of those who thrill to color and glitter.
It is a Black/White film but this goes well with the story as it was set in an era when B/W films were common and expected.The actors were not in a very glamorous or beautiful setting until near the end.
Depicting the typically poor Filipino lifestyles and modes of living of those times, it is historically true-to-life in costume, food and customs.There is the contrast of a good man, innocent in his lack of worldly experience, and a bad man who was shown as a typical, although a bit stereotyped, sailor who did not care for anyone but himself.
A girl is raped (Rita Moreno) by the bad man near the end of the movie although this is shown in the best of taste, no details are shown.
It also leads up to the dramatic ending and leaves the viewer with a keener sense of satisfaction that justice was done.
However, even though this and the earlier rape of Pinang were shown with a great degree of good taste, quite unbelievably so for rapes, but to an adult mind they are clearly understood.
This permits the movie to be shown to all ages and it could be somewhat useful in juvenile development.Viewers with adult understanding do not come away lacking and young minds are not affected by it because they only see a girl being carried away or crying afterwards and nothing more than this.
Actual violence to the girl is not shown nor is language given that is offensive to young ears.
These scenes are done in a way that no one is disappointed by a story lacking in important details.The times for the setting were rough times.
The actual language was no doubt rough and vulgar, to some degree, but this was not made part of the story because the story stood on its own merit and did not require such sensationalism.
A study in appropriateness is thus shown to the viewer and nothing is lost.The actors were marvelous.
As a linguist and traveler to the Philippines, I know that the language used is authentic; Rita Moreno is admirable in her use of the language because her native Spanish is a large part of the language heard a few times in the movie.The Filipino actors are among the best the Philippines had to offer at that time and still are 100% believable in their roles.
One comes away feeling that the viewer is sharing part of real life where nothing is artificial or ill-construed to gain viewer interest or merely to fill space in the allotted time for the movie.
In fact, there is nothing extraneous in the story and viewers benefit best by making sure to not miss a single word so that get full impact.
A satisfying and complete understanding of the story is the result.This movie is highly recommended for younger viewers as well as older ones because it comes off well in teaching children and young adults that the world is composed of both good and bad people and that good does indeed overshadow evil, especially in the end.I found that the movie was thoroughly enjoyed by both Asians and non-Asians.
No one who enjoys a good story, well put together and well-done, is left lacking.
In fact, some don't mind seeing it again not long afterwards.
It is somewhat historical but mostly it is believable and this is pulled off by the story itself combined with the superb work of the actors..
Lost Diamond.
Cry of Battle is a WWII film that portrays a side of the war not normally focused on, the conflicts in the Philippines.
The film overall proved to be quite interesting in both the historical and plot aspects.
Specifically the plot was just not focused upon a love triangle, but also corrupted friendships and the theme of man vs.
man.
The film held many underlying themes that were projected both to better tell the story and also display the historical context of the film.
The three lead actors (Van Heflin, James MacArthur, and Rita Moreno) rightfully portrayed their characters developing them throughout the movie.
All in all Cry of Battle is one of the thousands of war films glossed over during the mid twentieth century, except it actually was a diamond lost in a pile of rocks..
Hard-bitten war movie is unsentimental and unsympathetic.
Disney movie veteran James MacArthur does a real about-face in this impossibly tough war-drama about a young American man in the Philippines during World War II who is forced to grow up quickly after being unceremoniously placed into battle against the Japanese.
Silvery black-and-white cinematography, some intriguing ideas, but mostly a grating, ungainly picture which MacArthur's youthful finesse can't quite elevate.
Van Heflin, as a hard-drinking soldier who's also a rapist and murderer, gets stuck with the worst scenes, though Irving Lerner's direction is good and there are gripping sequences for fans of this genre.
An hour and a half I'll never get back.
For some unknown reason, Joe, 3rd mate on a merchant ship, is given a spot promotion to 2nd Lt, and given a squad of Philippinos with orders to attack a Japanese sugar processing plant.
This is the last we hear of the plant.Tagging along, again for unspecified reasons, is the snot-nosed scion of an unseen mogul who falls in love with the heroine.
The heroine, alas, is something of an opportunist, and ends up in bed with Joe just because.
Naturally, the green-eyed monster makes an appearance.The only thing this film has to do with war are the 17 or so Japanese soldiers who occasionally make their appearance.
Most of this movie deals with the angst felt by the snot-nosed kid in his never-ending attempts to pry the heroine away from Joe.I found this film to be a grand waste of time..
Fine Actors In A Pointless Story.
"Cry of Battle" was released in 1963--the same year that "Spencer's Mountain" hit the big screen.
Both star James MacArthur in a coming of age story, but it would be difficult to find two films so different from each other.
Where "Spencer's Mountain" is filled to the brim with scenes about the virtues of family bonds and living in harmony with the land, "Cry of Battle" is nearly morally bankrupt.
In fact, I am surprised the novel was chosen for filming.Set during World War II, the film features MacArthur as the son (David McVey) of a wealthy businessman, trapped on a remote island of the Philippines.
He is befriended by a creepy opportunist named Joe Trent (Van Heflin)--a man for whom he feels both revulsion and loyalty.In refreshing contrast to the script, which is distasteful, is the performance of Rita Moreno as Sisa, a Filipina who is caught up in the tragedy of the war and the stormy relationship between the two men.The final scenes try to resolve the moral ambiguity of the film, but end up being abrupt, unsatisfying and enigmatic..
Taking the moral low ground....
"Cry of Battle" is definitely a different sort of war movie.
Clearly, it's NOT the sort of film you would have seen during WWII and even in 1963, it was pretty adult and modern in its sensibilities.When the film begins, David is living with his rich family in the Philippines when WWII breaks out.
He's nearly killed by a group of thugs--after all, law and order have disintegrated.
But he's fortunately saved by some Filipino insurgents--men who have taken to the countryside to fight a guerilla war against the invaders from Japan.
However, one of these benefactors, Joe (Van Heflin) is a completely amoral sort of guy.
Sure, he'll fight and kill the enemy but David is horrified to find out that he's also just raped a local girl!
David naturally hates him but is forced to stick with him due to the war.
Over time, they fall in with another group of rebels and David's naivete about these people and war is challenged, as he finds Joe isn't the exception to the rule...there are many others with severely challenged moral compasses...to say the least.
Can David manage to remain morally pure while also becoming a man who must kill?
And what of his lady, Sisa (Rita Moreno)?
I am a bit surprised that Van Helfin agreed to play such a sleazy character.
As a supporting actor, of course he had to play jerks now and then...but a rapist?
It certainly is one of his more challenging portrayals!
Overall, a very good but strange war film...and seeing James MacArthur (Danno from "Hawaii 5-O") playing the lead makes it all the more interesting...and jarring!.
A big dud of a war movie.
I normally review films with a positive bent, but make exceptions from time to time.
Only a few people have commented on "Cry of Battle," and I wonder if any of them saw the same movie I did.
I don't see how it can be considered a war movie at all.
There are two short scenes with any shooting between the "good" guys and the Japanese.
There isn't much intensity about evading capture.
And the one supposed mission to knock out a Japanese warehouse never comes to pass on film.
So, most of this film is about crime.
Van Heflin, one of the stars, is a rapist, a racist and a murderer.
Most of the "good" guys that he and James MacArthur tag along with are bandits taking advantage of the war.
They rob, pillage and kill their own people.
Some may argue that this shows a part of reality that is seldom shown about war, especially in the Philippines.
Was there really such a situation with all bad eggs doing no good?
There have been a number of good films made about resistance fighting in the Philippines during WWII.
They show the struggles, the persecution of the Filipinos by the Japanese, and the heroic efforts of the people.
This film shows none of that, and only alludes to one true resistance group fighting the enemy.
The plot is weak to start with, and the characters and acting for the most part are all quite bad.
MacArthur is fighting mad about Van Heflin's rape of a young Filipina.
In the next scene he's almost forgotten about it.
Van Heflin spends much of his time getting drunk on the local coconut liquor.
In the movies based on true stories about the Philippines, the few Americans and the Filipinos themselves were rightly scared, wary of the Japanese and too alert to go on frequent drunks.
And, just think of all those other war movies we have seen that show Americans getting drunk while trying to elude the enemy and save their lives.
Is it any wonder why there aren't any?
The only way I can see that this film relates to a war movie is that it bombs out.
Or, maybe the filmmakers just wanted to make a movie about ugly and dumb Americans..
Cry of Battle- A Battled Stinker.
I thought that Rita Moreno wanted to break out and have someone sing for her as was done two years before in her supporting Oscar win for "West Side Story."This picture, as far as I was concerned, was a first-class stinker.
You don't feel a World War 11 atmosphere in the Philippines.
The Japanese enemy is rarely seen and you begin to wonder who the good and bad guys are in the film.The Van Heflin role as Joe is so complex and complicated; you don't really know where he is coming from.
Rita Moreno is not exactly Pilar (Katina Paxinou) in 1943's "For Whom the Bell Tolls."James MacArthur, as the spoiled son of a wealthy American businessman stranded in the area, is about the only bright spot in this rather dull film. |
tt0290057 | Scooby-Doo and the Cyber Chase | In a college computer lab run by Professor Kaufman, two of his students; Eric Staufer and Bill McLemore are working when a virtual creature - the Phantom Virus - comes out of a new game based on the Mystery Gang's past adventures and tries to attack. The next day, Mystery, Inc. themselves come to the college and learn from their friend Eric, that the virus had assumed a lifelike form thanks to an experimental laser which is able to transmit objects into cyberspace, and is now rampant across the campus. The gang goes on the hunt for the Phantom Virus, where the virus chases Scooby and Shaggy through the college. Unfortunately, the whole gang, including the virus, somehow gets pulled into the game after 'someone' activates the laser. Left with no other choice, the gang fight their way through the ten levels of mystery and adventures to complete the game in order to escape it, with the goal of finding a box of Scooby Snacks to complete each level. Their efforts are impeded on each level by the Phantom Virus. The first level is on the moon, second is in the Roman Colosseum, third is in the dinosaur age, fourth is under the sea, fifth is in a (shrunken) backyard, sixth is in ancient Japan, seventh is in ancient Egypt, eighth is in a medieval fantasy setting, and the ninth is in the North Pole.
After a while, they finally reach the game's tenth and final level, where they meet their virtual counterparts (who resemble themselves from previous series, with the exception of Shaggy and Scooby). They team up to confront the Phantom Virus, who wreaks havoc across the final level and summons his friends-various villains from the gang's past including the Creeper, Jaguaro, Gator Ghoul, the Tar Monster, and Old Iron Face. To make matters worse, all the monsters are real. The climax takes the two gangs to an amusement park, where they fight off the creatures and attempt to retrieve the last box of Scooby Snax. During the fight, they use magnets to fight the virus, whom they discover is severely weakened by magnetic forces. Cyber-Scooby distracts the virus long enough for the real Scooby Doo to retrieve the Scooby Snax, beating the game, deleting the monsters, and the Phantom Virus once and for all.
The real gang bids farewell to their virtual selves and head home. Back in the lab, the gang reveals that they now know the culprit, who turns out to be Bill. Bill is arrested by Officer Wembley and confesses that he created the virus to scare Eric away and take all the credit for inventing the laser. He was outraged when Kaufman chose Eric's video game design over his, despite Bill being at the college two years longer, and he felt more deserving to win the cash prize at the science fair. Kaufman then protests that students alike are all equal. Bill was the one who beamed the gang into the game, hoping they would not survive because he was afraid that they would find out that he created the virus. The gang and Eric play the new Scooby-Doo game, during which Scooby interacts with the gang's virtual counterparts once again by feeding Cyber-Scooby some Scooby Snax.
The post-credits scene includes the gang telling what their favorite parts of the movie are. | psychedelic, horror, violence | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0467506 | Zhai bian | The film begins with the description of an obscure occult practice in which people feed aborted fetuses blood to raise 'young ghosts'. These ghosts become powerful and bring fortune to families but at the same time can be commanded to bring death. We then see an entire family hanging in a room and a young woman crawling beneath their feet. She then proceeds to hang herself. After the grisly opening the film fast forward to present day. A young architect is inheriting the house, recently back from abroad. After some argument, he manages to convince his dancer fiance to live with him, and they celebrate one night in the house.
The next few days, strange things begin happening. Their friends start showing up at the house at midnight with no memory of how they got there. Footprints begin appearing on the floors, followed by strange noises. One of the friends is later found dead in their apartment, their neck bearing markings of being hung where no rope is present. The detective, suspicious of the couples late night visitors spends the night at their house hoping to catch them sneaking in. After being witness to the strange occurrences himself, he finds his himself showing up at the couples house late at night with no memory.
In an effort to discover the mystery behind this strangeness, he handcuffs himself to his office, but that night, his body is found in the couple's house, his hands pulled from his sockets. The young fiance, disturbed by these events, seeks out the only living relative of her husband, the one who signed the house over to him. She finds her, and the answer to the mystery, in an insane asylum. The family who used to own the house used to raise ghosts in the manner described at the outset of the film. They would pay for dead fetuses on the black market and fed it their blood.
After a while, he kisses the black arts, took a toll on the family, leaving some disabled or terminally ill. The family would take these cripples, and imprisoned them in the house using their blood for the ghosts. One of these cripples is the last living relative. Diagnosed with a brain tumor, she was cruelly sacrificed for the families wealth, driven to animal like living conditions. She had a twin sister who gave birth to the young architect, but she was crippled by the event and was put to the cruel fate her twin suffered. At the same time the brain tumor disappeared and the other twin returned to raise the baby for her own.
The other twin, driven mad by her fall from grace, slashed her wrist and fed the ghost her blood, and commanded it to hang her entire family. Now her vengeful ghost haunts the house, sparing only her twin sister for having experience the same suffering as her. The couple, hoping to remove the ghost, take the shriveled fetus's from the attic and give them to a priest to care for. But the ghost kills their other friend, hanging her from an invisible rope in a bathroom stall. During his fiance's dance performance, the architect steals the fetus back from the priest, and returns home. His fiance is there, and she reveals the terrible news to him. She's pregnant. In a tearful moment she decides to stay with him forever, cursed by his child's imminent birth to continue the Yang family bloodline.
The architect then knocks her unconscious, confessing his terrible secret. When he was still a child, he tried to free his true mother from her imprisonment, but having failed was drawn deeper into the family fold. He is the final member of his cursed bloodline, and tragically, he will be the last. He pounds his fiance's belly with his fist, trying to force an abortion and end the chain of horror. She awakens in a hospital, her fiance having committed suicide. In a final moment the doctor informs her that they have been able to save the baby.... | suspenseful, flashback | train | wikipedia | The overall rating is terrible (though 11 votes is not representative of anything), and the film definitely deserves more.To me, it has a good story, for once.
It avoids Asiatic horror movie clichés and creates a mood of its own.
Under a seemingly classic form and approach lie lots of elements that makes this movie much more special than you'd expect it to be in the first 10 minutes.It's well worth a try.
To be perfectly honest, I saw it in a festival, and one develops a certain tendency to see the good things in the four to six movies you watch every day, so I can't rule out that I might react otherwise if I saw it today.Still, I am confident this is more than just another Asian horror-flick, and that, if you're curious and open-minded, you'll find something to feed your movie-hungry appetite....
The architect James Yang (Jason Chang) returns to Taiwan after living for twenty years in England since he has inherited a family home.
James invites his girlfriend Yo (Terri Kwan), who is a dancer, to move in together with him to the house.
Their friends Yi-Chen (Yu-chen Chang) and Cheng mysteriously appear in the house with no memory of how they arrived there.
He decides to stay in the house, but strange events happen also to him.
Yi-Chen decides to investigate the only relative alive in the Yang family and goes to an asylum to interview James' Aunt Sue Yang.
Will she find who is haunting the house?"The Heirloom" is a creepy and dark Taiwanese horror movie with a story based on a Chinese legend of dead children ghosts fed with blood and raised to bring fortune to the family.
This legend is totally unknown to Westerns and maybe this might be the reason why this film is underrated in IMDb. However, the screenplay is well-written; the direction of Leste Chen is effective, supported by good performances of the gorgeous Terri Kwan and Jason Chang and beautiful cinematography.
Fine supernatural horror film,but nothing really impressive..
"The Heirloom" tells the story of a young architect James Yang who inherits an old family house in Taipei.He moves in and bring his long time girlfriend Yo along.James quickly starts having bad dreams connected to long buried memories form his childhood.It seems that the house hides a dark secret,in which thirty years prior the entire family attended bizarre rituals an ended up committing suicide all at the same time.Each relative hung on a rope to die.Taiwanese horror flick "The Heirloom" is not as good as it's reputed to be.The visuals are certainly impressive,but the script is quite weak.The total lack of scariness is seriously disappointing.Overall,"The Heirloom" is a rather mediocre horror film from Taiwan that left me unsatisfied.My generous rating:7 out of 10..
This was a great Thai film with some really amazingly beautiful visuals.
I could not stop thinking about this movie for a couple of days after I saw it, which to me is always a sign of a good film!
The film is basically about this family that raises a baby ghost, which according to Chinese and Taiwanese beliefs can bring a family lots of money and good fortune.
Well, this family certainly had wealth, but they did not have good fortune!
In the beginning of the film, we see that they have all hung themselves in some sort of bizarre mass suicide.Twenty years later a distant relative returns from China to claim the house, from ancestors he never even knew he had.
It begins to get really creepy when a secret fourth floor is discovered and the real family history inevitably gets discovered.
But overall it was the really awesome visuals, coupled with an interesting story that did it for me and made me want to recommend this one..
Here it is 2006, and who on planet earth is paying attention to Asian horror movies any more?
Clearly, if the Asian Wave of Horror has washed itself down the drain, who could be left but a bunch of sixth-generation Sadako wannabees, right?Actually, scrap all that.
If J-Horror has truly gone stale, and no one is paying attention (or money) any longer, maybe the filmmakers still hanging around the soundstage are the true heroes--maybe those directors who continue to unapologetically explore the genre are the truly dedicated artists who believe there's still meat on them thar bones.If this theory is true, that means "Zhaibian/The Heirloom" offers something to the genre that is decidedly different, new, convincing, or at least creative.
More specifically, it creatively turns back the clock on horror films, and transports the viewer backwards in time to the glorious era of classy 1970s horror flicks that relied on plot turns, creepy settings, and characters.
Although narratively the film shares next to nothing with American classics like "Rosemary's Baby," "The Changeling," or "Audrey Rose," I couldn't suppress the urge to make the comparison (repeatedly while watching).
There's some ineffable quality about "The Heirloom"--maybe the photography, the color palette, the dilapidated mansion as setting, or the wistful music-- that kept me saying, "Jeez, this reminds me of The Omen more than the 2006 remake of The Omen." I think there's no hiding the fact that this film is awash in that "ephemeral something" borrowed from those 70s classics; the director is clearly influenced by the era and style (even the lead women wear bell-bottoms rivaling those donned by Cristina Raines in "The Sentinel").
Again, I'll reference the recent remakes of so many genre classics--The Omen, The Amityville Horror, The Hills Have Eyes.
What I often see in these remakes is not an understanding or embracing of 70s high-class horror style, but instead mere mimicry (often shot-for-shot).
Unfortunately, the film never regains its pace before the end--but it's still eye-candy worth savoring.Ultimately, seeing a film like "Zhaibian/The Heirloom" is like tripping upon some long lost 70s American horror classic I've never heard of.
(It's just that the story is steeped in Buddhist tradition and is peopled by Asian actors, heh.) In so many intangible ways, it's like watching "The Manitou" or "Burnt Offerings" for the first time.
On the other hand, I suppose many movie buffs (and especially younger horror buffs) would shrug off this 70s appropriation, saying "That's old stuff.
Good supernatural horror film.....
I thought that the Asian film called The Heirloom was a good supernatural horror film.
An architect called James Yang returns from the UK with his girlfriend called Yo, to inspect an old mansion that he has inherited on the outskirts of Taipei, they move into their new home.
Yo's journalist goes missing and the James's friend Cheng gets strangled in a bathtub.
they soon find out that the house may have strange or murderous powers.
To find out the truth about the house, James and his girlfriend Yo start to begin to investigate the history of James's family and uncover a tale of mass suicide..
Decent for a first try, but plain awful as a horror movie!.
After all, it was featured on a local newspaper along with snippets of an interview with the film's director, who stated it was his first horror movie, after directing mainly music videos.That alone should have told me all I needed to know.But like a protagonist in one of these horror movies, I trudged eagerly forward, blissfully ignoring those warning signs.
Now, having bore witness to this travesty, I must say that it was just plain bad for a horror movie.
I am a fan of psychological horror (like the 1963's The Haunting, The Others, and the Japanese masterpiece, The Ring), but this film did nothing for me.
It had only one single scene that was averagely scary in suggestion, but that was placed early on in the movie, and was ruined by MTV style jump-cuts...
obviously the director's music video routes showing through here.And though I don't always enjoy shock-a-thon type scarefests, well placed moments certainly work wonders for a film.
Unfortunately, this 'movie' has not a single scary jump-in-your-seat type jolt.
Strange that for a horror film, nothing in it is even remotely scary.
What little resembled horror in this film was borrowed from other Asian movies that did a much better job (Shutter comes to mind).
At times, it sounded almost like a disconcerted rendering of an old fashioned Gothic horror movie.
Likewise, the premise of the film is quite an interesting one, but thrown into this neophytes hands is nothing but a jumbled mess.Now I suppose that while this is decent for his first try, but the director should go back to directing those music videos.
For now though, all you parents out there, this is probably a horror movie you can show your kids without fear of giving them nightmares....
It is nice to have Taiwan step up and join the Asian horror genre.
However, this movie wasn't really particularly a great one, but still the effort was made.
The DVD brandishes "among the spookiest ever seen in Asian horror", to that I can only assume that the reviewer isn't particularly experienced in the Asian horror genre."The Heirloom" tries to tell a fairly simple story, but director Leste Chen manages to totally kill off the storyline by making the story told in a confusing way and often gives up on continuity throughout the story.
It was a shame, because the storyline itself was good, but it was just subjected to an improper hand unable to handle it well.
It was a real shame, because the aspect of the whole storyline with the child ghosts/spirits was really interesting and the story did have potential for something greater than it turned out to be.As far as it being a horror movie goes, then "The Heirloom" is surprisingly devoid of scares and spooks.
There wasn't even a single shock moment in the entire movie.
And compared to Asian standards, then this wouldn't be considered even remotely scary.The people cast for the various roles were doing great jobs, although it was an uphill battle against a messy script and a confusing storyline.
However, Terri Kwan (playing Yo) and Jason Chang (playing James) were doing good jobs carrying the movie against all odds.But regardless of the messy outcome of the final cut of the movie, then it is good to have Taiwan marked on the horror market as well, and I am hoping to get to see more horror from there - and hopefully movies that aren't as confusing and badly scripted as this one.I am rating "The Heirloom" a 4 out of 10 rating, because the movie did have potential and was well produced, just a shame about the butchery that was done to the storyline..
This movie had a decent buildup the first fifteen minutes.
Confusion is one thing but lack of suspense is not something that can be overlooked in a movie like this.
But even then it is hard liking this movie when essentially not much is going on.
As a great fan of Asian cinema, specially horror, I've think I've seen it almost all, and lately all films unless few exceptions were very repetitive, non-imaginative and quite predictable and boring.
Before watching 'The heirloom', I didn't know what to expect...Another film about haunted houses...child ghosts (with long black hair...ha ha!)and the new inhabitants chased all along the way...?
Yes, it's about a haunted house and a child ghost, but not the usual meaning...I don't want to spoil the film but it's about a dark tradition of worshiping spirits that lead to death to almost a whole family.
A relative who's being abroad inherits the house and it's when strange things starts to happen...all related to the past...the fiancée and a friend starts investigating and they discover the horrible past of the family...
What I liked most of the film is the creepy atmosphere and that the horror is merely suggested, there are few 'terror' images, not the usual scares, but there's a tension during all the whole film that keeps you at the edge of your seat.
The acting, specially the lead actress, who is very good, is quite o.k. Hope Leste Chen keeps this way of film-making!
James(Jason Chang)an architect, inherits a massive mansion with a disturbing family history.
His stage-star fiancé Yo(the stunning beauty Terri Kwan)was planning to go abroad but decides to remain and live with James.
Soon their friends, who visit them in the creepy abode, fall prey to supernatural terror..they fall unconscious only to awaken inside James' home unannounced and bewildered.
Soon, Yo discovers, when meeting James' Aunt in an asylum(..and through newspaper clippings from her reporter friend experiencing the strange phenomena), that James' family committed a massive suicide and that they had performed an evil ritual concerning a child spirit and blood sacrifice for fortune and the elimination of enemies.
Even worse is that James' mother was locked away by the family for being afflicted with an illness..as part of the family's curse for performing the ritual, their offspring, for the most part, were born diseased or ill.
James was a healthy child sent away before the mass suicide occurred.
When James' friend..and colleague..is found murdered by what appeared to be a hanging from a rope(..we see that he is murdered by a rope not visible meaning some specter or ghost had committed the deed), the family curse rears it's ugly head once again.
When a cynical detective, who scoffs at the mere mention of some ghostly involvement in James' friend's murder, suffers the same fate, the idea that anyone who remains in the home for any major length of time could be in danger becomes quite prevalent.
Could it be James' long-dead mother blazing a trail of murder?
Can James protect Yo from the same grim fate others are suffering?While I shrugged my shoulders at the reasons behind the horror taking place to the cast of this flick, I certainly believe this director, Leste Chen, is a major talent.
Being so young is even more impressive because I found the film visually intoxicating while not being so blown away by the plot or characters within it.
It's to his credit that this film is loaded with creepy atmosphere(the stunning sequence in the opening with all this hanging bodies while a woman crawls in agony sure opens the eyes wide)and has a eerie mood that remains from start to finish.
One aspect that majorly plagues this movie(as it does "Amityville Horror")is why this couple remains in the house when it's quite clear something's amiss..a certain evil they should get as far away from as possible..
Another Example Of Why I'm Not Real Big On Asian Ghost Films....
THE HEIRLOOM had a pretty decent and twisted concept - unfortunately, it didn't deliver on it.
The first 40 minutes of the film were pretty much completely unnecessary and could have been summed up in 10 minutes or so.
We only get into the "meat" of the story during the second half - and even then the film doesn't deliver on what could have been a pretty cool subject...A guy inherits a house from his family that was a breeding ground for ghosts.
Strange things begin happening around the house and as the (slow-moving) story goes on, we find out exactly what went down in the haunted house...The ghost-breeding concept was pretty cool - and had this part of the film been expanded on, it could have been good.
Unfortunately, the whole explanation of what happened in the house was summed up in about 10 minutes in a scene where the main character's girlfriend speaks to one of his relatives in a mental institution.
The film also fails by falling into many of the typical stupid horror trappings - people staying in a house that is OBVIOUSLY haunted instead of leaving like they should have in the first 5 minutes, etc...Despite decent camera-work and acting - this one just felt too "typical" to me - hence my mediocre rating.
Die-hard Asian ghost-film fans will probably love this one...personally I found it extremely average...5/10.
I found this film quite interesting though very slow pacing at times.
Hence, I do not really need to look at the subtitles to understand this film.
Though this films may not be as scary as J-Horror films, I think it does a great job in creating a creepy atmosphere.
Very much like Ringu, tension and fear builds up to only one very terrifying scene.
Just like ringu, this terrifying scene occurs in one of the most unexpected moments in the show, that makes the scene scary.
It is about a strange tradition a family has in which people who are unhealthy have to get locked up.
However, the storyline was done so well that I found this film very entertaining.
The acting, especially the main character, in this movie did a very great job.
It creates a good and creepy mood but the story itself just doesn't hold up.
A young man inherits a home from his family, though he really doesn't know any of these relatives.
Oddly, when friends visit the man and his fiancée at the house, these friends begin acting strangely--as if in a daze.
So far, so good as far as the plot goes.
Then, the fiancée finds out about an aunt that lives in an asylum and she tells them a super-bizarre tale about a curse on the home due to a frightening and stupid ritual that has been in the family for many generations.
What all this means is pretty confusing as well as the bizarre tale of the family members.The music, lighting and setting for this film all give it the eerie and ghostly quality the film needs.
So at least from an aesthetic point of view, this horror film is very competent.
In fact, the people often just acted like zombies and the acting was especially poor and unengaging.Overall, not especially interesting or satisfying, but at least it set a lovely and scary mood. |
tt0102371 | The Magic Riddle | Cindy, short for Cinderella, lives with her widowed stepmother and two stepsisters, Bertha and Ertha. Cindy is forced to do all of the housework and is effectively a servant. The widow hates Cindy because when her late Grandfather died, he hid his will which the widow knows passes all the family inheritance to Cindy. The widow purposely keeps Cindy busy so that she won't find the will, giving the widow time to find it first. The widow is also planning to marry her favorite daughter, Bertha, to a handsome young man named Phillipe, though he is smitten with Cindy.
One night, Cindy falls asleep before finishing her chores, but an old lady sneaks into the house to finish the chores for her. Ertha, Cindy's kinder stepsister, encounters the old lady, who reveals that she is Cindy's Grandmother, and was kicked out of the house by the widow after Grandfather died. The same thing happens the following night, but the widow wakes up and chases Grandmother away. Ertha, who witnessed everything, tells Cindy about it.
The widow is afraid that Grandmother will help Cindy find the will. Following the advice of her magic mirror, the widow puts on a salesman disguise and visits Grandmother in the woods, tricking her into entering The Castle of a Hundred Doors, from which there is no escape. Cindy, dressed in a red riding hood, arrives at Grandmother's cottage too late and is chased away by a "wolf", which is actually the widow in disguise.
Cindy sits by a lake, telling her hopes to an ugly duckling, unaware that Phillippe is listening. Phillippe reveals himself and gives her a ring as a token, but their meeting is interrupted by the widow, who orders Cindy to work. While in the barn, Cindy discovers the widow's wolf costume and realizes what happened. Bertha, who is jealous of Cindy, chases the pigs away from the farm and blames Cindy for it. Ertha advises Cindy to escape to Grandmother's cottage, which she does. There Cindy discovers seven wooden dwarfs and one wooden puppet Pinocchio. They come alive when she kisses them, and they tell her that widow took Grandmother away.
The widow wants Cindy back at the house working for her. She discovers Cindy's music box and decides to lure her back by holding a masked ball. Cindy wants to go, as it is a chance to see Phillippe. The dwarfs make her a costume, but warn her that since her mask is made of snow it will melt at midnight. At the ball, Cindy's disguise works and she gets to dance with Phillippe. Meanwhile, Ertha and Pinocchio dance together. When the clock strikes twelve, Cindy's disguise melts and she runs away to escape the widow, her friends following close behind.
When the widow mocks Ertha for falling for Pinocchio, Ertha retaliates by telling Phillippe that Cindy can be found at Grandmother's house. He heads out to find her, but finds the Castle of a Hundred Doors instead. The dwarfs also find the Castle, but they too get lost inside and unable to escape.
The widow goes to the cottage wearing another disguise devised by her magic mirror, this time pretending to be Pinocchio's mother. The widow hypnotises Cindy with a magic apple to fall asleep, and in the commotion the widow accidentally falls into a well. Pinocchio, now alone, searches for help and stumbles upon the Castle. When he enters, one of his shoes is caught on a nail and starts to unravel. Eventually Grandmother is found, and everyone groups up and follows the trail out.
When they arrive back at the cottage, Cindy is woken up by a kiss from Phillippe. Grandmother explains to Cindy about the will, and that the answer is in his Magic Riddle, a poem which ends with: "Only Pinocchio knows". It turns out that the will is inside Pinocchio's nose. Grandmother reads the will, confirming that all of Grandfather's possessions go to Cindy. Cindy and Phillippe's wedding is held at what used to be the widow's house. After the celebrations, the dwarfs and Pinocchio turn back into wood, their task completed. But when Ertha kisses Pinocchio, he comes back to life to be with her. | fantasy | train | wikipedia | A less than magical fairy tale hodge-podge. Let's just get this off the bat. Love animation, some are among my favourite films ever. Love fairy tales and have done since childhood. Loved the idea of mixing fairy tale characters together. Love musicals, always have done despite it being a maligned genre on IMDb.So part of me really wanted 'The Magic Riddle' to be good, with all that being considered. Wanted it to be one of those underseen, underrated gems that were easy to defend. Sadly, 'The Magic Riddle' didn't do it for me, didn't care for it much as a child and care for it even less through adult eyes. Just for the record, this is coming from somebody who has been known to defend poorly received films, animated or not while understanding why most would find fault with them, and have gone against the grain more than once, though usually critics and me are on similar pages.'The Magic Riddle' is not a terrible film, it just isn't a particularly good one either. Loved the idea of mixing fairy tales/popular stories and their characters (who doesn't), but it is not exactly a fresh idea and has been done far better with much more wit, charm and magic in Sondheim's 'Into the Woods' and the 'Shrek' films.A few things in 'The Magic Riddle's' favour. There are a few good songs, the beautiful, tear-jerking "Ordinary Miracles" and Cindy's song to the ugly duckling faring the best.Cindy is a very likable protagonist, the best animated character (which is saying a lot) and the most interesting.The ugly duckling is adorable and the grandmother is endearingly befuddled and luckily doesn't over-explain all that goes on.However, while marginally more polished than some of Yoram Gross' other work the animation is too often rather ugly to look at, constantly looking like it was made in haste with the character designs and very flatly coloured. Only with Cindy and some nicely detailed backgrounds does it become above serviceable."Ordinary Miracles" and Cindy's song to the ugly duckling aside, as well as a suitably whimsical and sometimes atmospheric incidental score, the rest of the songs are filled with cheese, basic rhymes and are either forgettable but also derivative. This is including one of the most blatantly obvious and poorly written villain songs in all animation.Cindy aside, the characters don't really engage. Phillippe has very little personality, Pinocchio is very annoying and the villain, generically named as The Widow, couldn't be less menacing or hideously animated if she tried. The other fairy tale characters are fun to spot but feel underused.Parts of the writing are funny, too much of it is cheesy and chaotic and highly suggestive due to the inconsistent and muddled nature of more than one writer being involved. The story is confusingly messy and feels very over-stretched, complete with plot strands that either feel underdeveloped or pointless.While one admires that only two or three people were involved with the voice acting, it is a very mixed bag, Cindy is good but other voices really don't fit the characters or grate, especially Pinocchio.All in all, less than magical and didn't do much for me. 4/10 Bethany Cox. A beautiful non-Disney film that just leaves you breathless. I really love most Disney movies, but this one has to be the only non-Disney fairy tale (or really fairy tales) that I know of next to Don Bluth's "Thumbelina". This movie as actually made up of several fairy tales put together. The main one is "Cinderella" (the main character's name is even Cindy), but it also has "Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs", "Pinnochio" (as one of the seven dwarfs), "Little Red Riding Hood" and other fairy tales put into it. Yoram Gross has done some amazing movies like the "Dot" movies, but I say that this one by far is the best he's ever done. All the songs the characters sing are funny and sweet and the song that it plays during the end credits, "Ordinary Miracles Around Me" just makes me want to go into the water-works- it's that beautiful of a song! I extremely strongly suggest that every one should watch this movie if they haven't seen it (adults will also find it a crack up). This movie is one of my most beloved childhood movies; I have so many good memories of this movie and I plan to make more.YOU MUST SEE THIS MOVIE A.S.A.P!!! |
tt0087237 | Fanny Hill | Frances "Fanny" Hill is a rich Englishwoman in her middle age, who leads a life of contentment with her loving husband Charles and their children. The novel consists of two long letters (which appear as volumes I and II of the original edition) addressed by Fanny to an unnamed acquaintance, who is only identified as ‘Madam.’ Fanny has been prevailed upon by the ‘Madam’ to recount the ’scandalous stages’ of her earlier life, which she proceeds to do with ‘stark naked truth’ as her governing principle.
Fanny’s account begins with the loss of her parents at the age of fourteen followed by a journey to London, and ends with her eventual union with Charles about five years later. The intermediate narrative is filled with an immense variety of sexual experiences, which are described with a clinical degree of vividness, whimsy, wit and humour. A rich store of imaginative metaphors and outlandish similies is brought to bear upon the sexual organs and actions of several participants, both male and female, in their various states of arousal and exertion (cf. the 'Excerpts' below). The plot has been described as ‘operatic’ by John Hollander, who opines that “the book’s language and its protagonist’s character are its greatest virtues.”
The first letter begins with a short account of Fanny’s impoverished childhood in a village in Lancashire. She loses her parents to small-pox, arrives in London to look for domestic work, and gets lured into a brothel. She is a clandestine witness to two separate sexual encounters (one between an ugly older couple and another between a young pretty pair), and is a far from unwilling participant in a lesbian dalliance with a bisexual prostitute named Phoebe. Charles (who is a customer at the brothel) induces Fanny to make an escape, which she manages to do with her virginity intact. Soon thereafter, she loses it to Charles and becomes his lover. Charles is sent away by deception to the South Seas, and Fanny is driven by her desperation and destitution to become the kept woman of a rich merchant named Mr H—. After enjoying a brief period of stability, she espies Mr H— in casual congress with her own maid, and goes on to seduce Will (the young footman of Mr H—) as an act of calculated revenge. However, she is soon discovered by Mr H— in flagrante delicto with Will. After being abandoned by Mr H—, Fanny becomes a prostitute for wealthy and discerning clients in a pleasure-house run by Mrs Cole. This marks the end of the first letter.
The second letter begins with a rumination on the tedium of writing about sex and the difficulty of driving a middle course between vulgarity of language on the one hand, and `mincing metaphors and affected circumlocutions’ on the other. Fanny goes on to describe her adventures in the house of Mrs Cole, which include a public orgy, an elaborately orchestrated bogus sale of her ’virginity’ to an enervate rich dupe called Mr Norbert, and a sado-masochistic session with one Mr Barville involving mutual flagellation with birch-rods. These are interspersed with narratives which do not involve Fanny directly; for instance, three of her companion girls in the house (Emily, Louisa and Harriett) describe their own losses of virginity, and the nyphomaniac Louisa seduces the immensely endowed but imbecile ‘good-natured Dick’. The only scene in the novel involving male homosexuality occurs towards the end, when Fanny espies upon a scene of anal intercourse between two young boys. (This episode was expurgated from several later editions.) Eventually Fanny retires from prostitution and becomes the lover of a rich and worldly-wise man of sixty (described by Fanny as a ‘rational pleasurist’). This phase of Fanny’s life brings about her intellectual development, and leaves her prodigiously wealthy when her lover dies of a sudden cold. Shortly thereafter, she has a chance encounter with Charles, who has returned as a poor man to England after being shipwrecked. Fanny offers her fortune to Charles unconditionally, but he insists on marrying her.
The novel contains several sharply drawn characters, such as Charles, Mrs Jones (Fanny’s landlady), Mrs Cole, Will, Mr H— and Mr Norbert. The prose is richly textured and consists of long sinuous sentences containing a profusion of subordinate clauses. Its morality is conventional, in that it denounces sodomy, frowns upon vice and approves of only heterosexual unions based upon mutual love . However, there are sly hints in the concluding paragraphs of the book (“You laugh perhaps at this tail-piece of morality…”) which tend to cast doubt on the sincerity of these moral pronouncements. | pornographic | train | wikipedia | I got myself the John Cleland book, and the DVD with Lisa Foster, expecting the worse.
The storyline is good, it was very well filmed with lots of good period pieces, quite authentic as well, and follows quite well the book.
Let's put aside the over acting by big names like Oliver Reed and Shelley Winters, they were good and amusing, but at best were the support act.
The movie, the story, called for lots of nudity, and I did not feel that any nude scenes were unnecessary, or out of context.
Nudity aside, she could act, the story line required the show of innocence, a sense of naughtiness, excitement, adventure, sadness, elation, Lisa Foster showed all of these.
I am sure that when the movie was first released, Lisa was probably put into some sort of category like 'actress who likes taking clothes of', and may have accounted for the lack of good roles after that.
Shame that she made the movie 20 years too early.As a woman, and a married woman with kids, I am not afraid to say that Fanny Hill is a very good movie, and Lisa Foster is a very good actress.
The first thing that comes to most people's mind is the erotic nature of the movie, with lots of sex and nudity.
They would not be wrong, with lots of sexual implications, male and female nudity, and sometimes quite explicit, but this is not a hardcore movie.
And in Lisa (Raines) Foster, an extremely beautiful actress.
But let's look at the whole movie.First, the story, from John Cleland's once banned (and still is in some countries) book has a good story, and probably had some truth in his days.
A young girl coming to misfortune after the death of her parents, eventually finding happiness.Second, the film itself was well shot, well lit, good scenery, with a good accuracy of the period, follows quite well the spirit of the novel.
Well known stars such as Oliver Reed, Shelley Winter, Wilfred Hyde-White) contributed interesting characters, I guess to give gravitas to the movie to the relative unknown star, Lisa (Raines) Foster and to encourage cinema goers.
I have not seen anything she has done apart from this role, and I thought she was excellent, and I am not referring to the nudity, which is not shocking, although she is extremely beautiful with a very pretty and well defined face, great eyes.
She clearly carried the movie, and did not need the stars (although they were amusing) It is a pity that she has not acted in more roles after this.
I would certainly like to wish her luck.I believe that this movie has been a good contribution to the erotic genre.
Very good erotic movie.
Prompted by a possible adaptation of Fanny Hill for British television, I watched, with intrigued, two film productions of Fanny Hill.
This production stars Lisa Foster, or is it Lisa Raines, as Fanny Hill.
The fuss is the copious about of nudity and sex in the film, often quite explicit, as required by the book.
The most amount of nudity is provided by the incredibly beautiful and sexy Lisa Foster.
She has a most fantastic, and sensual body, quite innocent, which by account of her date of birth and date of making the movie, quite right too.What's good?
The movie is beautifully filmed with what I would say authentic period pieces, and good scenery.
The story is good, I read John Cleland's novel some time ago, but retains much in memory, and I was pleasantly surprised how closely the movie as a whole adhered to the novel.
First, the big names, in Oliver Reed, Shelley Winters and Wilfred Hyde-White were amusing, and interesting.
Now, for the unknown actresses in Lisa Foster and Maria Harper, the latter did not have much to do, but was very good and very naked in one lesbian scene with Lisa Foster.
It is sad that she did not find more roles after Fanny Hill, but I guess, the stigma attached to an actress 20 odd years ago who spent a large part (not that large actually, no more than 10 minutes) of the movie naked could not have helped, unlike today.
Shelley Winters, though amusing, can be irritating at times (the other Madamme that Fanny worked for was better).Overall?
It has laughs, it has sex, and it has an incredibly beautiful and sexy actress (Lisa Foster is not in the Penthouse / porno category, with large breasts, she is very pretty, with a fantastic body, all well proportioned, Monica Belluci offers a different kind of beautiful and sexiness).
I thoroughly enjoyed it, watch it at your earliest opportunity.What of the other, later, production of Fanny Hill?
You will have to read that review, but I preferred this, I gave both a big 10, but Lisa Foster as Fanny Hill makes the difference..
Despite this, it contains so much nudity, especially from the very sexy Lisa Foster, that it should have come with a health warning, in a positive manner, mind you.
My apprehension that movies generally don't live up to books (apart from Lord of the Rings), especially an adaptation of an erotic novel, soon evaporated.
See beyond these, and you will see a rather good movie, with a nice story line, sets, scenery, plots and some excellent acting from Lisa Foster, the lead and real star.There are a few things that needs to be said about Lisa Forster, and this are not what I feel, but what my club member also thought and agreed.
The nudity, and not just from Lisa, are all necessary and tasteful, nothing pornographic, and the amount is not overwhelming.For all of my fellow members, the movie made the book so much more interesting and, put things into perspective, or bring a book to life.
What a fantastic book, my imagination ran absolutely wild, and when I found out that a movie had been made, through IMDb, off I went in search of a DVD.
So much of what I saw in the movie, was what I imagined when reading the book.
OK, so Lisa Foster looks older than what Fanny is supposed to be in the book, but apart from this, I did not imagine Fanny to be much different.
She is a very good and beautiful actress, with or without her clothes on, and I felt she acted according to the requirements of the part, which called for a sense of naughty innocence.
OK, you have to put up with the silliness of the established actors like Oliver Reed, Shelley Winter and Wilfrid Hyde-White.
These guys were good, don't get me wrong, but the real star is Lisa Foster, no doubt about this, she clearly carried the movie very well.
With the amount of nudity involved, it should probably be classed as an erotic movie, but the nudity is always so tastefully done, without a hint of pornography, and there is no unnecessary nudity.I am impressed with what I have seen.
Fanny Hill is by no means a badly made film, but it was a disappointing failure even though it is closely based on a historically important book, John Cleland's "Fanny Hill - Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure", with which most of us born in the U.K. became familiar through Eng. Lit.
As I remember these classes, they started with Shakespeare, continued with Shakespeare again, made reference to Christopher Marlowe, recognised the importance of Samuel Pepys both as diarist and historian, and of Boswell as the father of biography, discussed the role of both Daniel Defoe (Moll Flanders) and John Cleland (Fanny Hill) as early writers of novels, and then rapidly progressed into the riches of nineteenth century English prose.
Both Moll Flanders and Fanny Hill are erotic novels that have earned a major reputation far beyond the British Isles.
The dust cover of my copy of "FannyHill" carried the comment that 'this is one of the most celebrated fictional works of all time', adding that 'it is many years since Fanny Hill was published even clandestinely' and 'open publication is a novelty made possible only by the more sensible standards of our age, and by a deft editorial touch'.
During the decade prior to Fanny Hill, most British sex comedies treated the sex act as intrinsically humorous - we need only remember films such as "Can you keep it up for a week?" or "Confessions of a Handyman".
However they were the style of film that British directors of the period felt constrained to produce if ever the words "sex comedy" were uttered,.
and this style could hardly be less appropriate for a meaningful movie presentation of the classic novel Fanny Hill.
Fanny Hill should have been an important erotic film comparable to Emmanuelle and, like Emmanuelle, it should have remained a film that cinema buffs still periodically search out to view again.
Fanny Hill is quite well filmed and is a period piece with all the trimmings -stagecoaches on narrow dusty roads, period costumes, delightful old houses etc.
The acting is probably at least of average quality.I believe this film failed because the story is treated as a romp which under a different title might have still been watched.
Some recent British Directors are capable of creating erotic films, and had Fanny Hill been directed by, for example, Ken Russell it might have been much more successful.
One last point - John Cleland's book is written largely in autobiographical form, with Fanny herself relating her experiences as well as explaining how she viewed them.
A more recent Brazilian film production under the same name (Fanny Hill 1995 - written and directed by Valentine Palmer) attempts to recreate the story with Fanny's voice alone explaining what is going on during each scene.
This version of the once banned Fanny Hill story clearly had a budget to burn: we have various familiar faces in the supporting roles.
This alone makes it a lot more watchable than the average erotic B-movie, not to mention that the general light-heartedness in which the film approaches its subject is much more suitable for creating eroticism than the Erotic Thriller US style which so often combines sex with violence and death.Still, this film has not managed to become a genre classic and it is not hard to see why.
While she's undeniably pretty (with or without clothes), her acting range is rather limited; it was probably impossible to get an established actress play such an exposed role.
The 'innocent young girl' Lisa has to play at the beginning of the film is not completely believable, but much worse she completely fails to exude any sensuality in the later stages.
This being a British film it doesn't come as a surprise that the sex scenes do not come across as very erotic, and that seems more of a cultural problem than a problem with censorship.
Perhaps the most entertaining part of this movie is the appearance of veteran Wilfred Hyde-White, one of those individualistic character actors who,like his friend Robert Morley, never fail to entertain even in the most pedestrian film.
Fanny Hill isn't great cinema, but it is great fun, and Hyde-White is hugely enjoyable to watch.
Shelley Winters is clearly relishing her role, and between them these two reliable veterans prove that a film that might easily become reliant on nudity to make an impact has chosen, like so many British sex comedies, to use actors of experience and talent to make more of a movie than its sexual content can provide.
Lisa Foster is absolutely gorgeous, and there are many scenes with sex and nudity to please all but the most hardened viewer.
Some of the comedy seems a bit forced, and there are a few scenes where the direction seems to be too chaste rather than risqué, which is odd for this kind of film (as in Fanny's initial couplings with her prince charming).
But the film makes up for it in other scenes.I don't know about the rest of the world, but this was hugely popular over here in the days of VHS.
This is yet another adaptation of John Cleland's scandalous 18th century novel about a penniless young virgin who comes to London and becomes a prostitute, but eventually uses her body to ascend into wealth and nobility.There's a moderate amount of sex here (I guess there was quite a bit more in the original British version) and the girls are all attractive, especially Lisa Raines who plays the lead (she looks kind of like a young Dana Plato or Michelle "Blame It On Rio" Johnson, but is a far better actress than either).
There's also a smattering of real actors here who don't (totally) embarrass themselves, like Oliver Reed, Shelley Winters, and Wilfed Hyde-White (I was afraid for the moment the latter was going to have a sex scene with Raines, but the movie fortunately steps back from that particular brink).This doesn't really compare to the original novel, of course, or (I would suspect) to the more prestigious cable TV adaptations of the same story.
But it's better than the more exploitative versions of the story that I've seen like Joe Sarno's "The Young Erotic Fanny Hill", the horribly dubbed Italian rip-off "The Seduction of Angela", and the bizarre "modern-day" Swedish adaptation "Around the World with Fanny Hill".
This production is an extremely good production of an extremely explicit erotic novel.
It is done with brilliant details of the period, tackling erotically explicit subjects in good humour, and without turning it into a pornographic movie, which it could easily have done.
Of course there are naked people, and some scenes can be explicit but not in a hard-core manner, this is, after all, a movie of Fanny Hill, but I don't feel that any nudity was uncalled for.There are some well known actors in the movie, notably Oliver Reed, Wilfred Hyde-White and Shirley Winters, but they were in the movie as mere characters, and I did not feel they were particularly good in the movie, perhaps simply to provide gravitas?
The star is the unknown, and sadly, still unknown Lisa Raines Foster.
An extremely pretty girl, and a surprising good actress.
Having read the book, and seen the BBC version before watching this movie, I thought Lisa Raines Foster made this movie a memorable one.
Lisa Raines Foster is a very good actress.
When I chanced upon FANNY HILL at the local DVD rental shop, I only had a vague notion of either this version existing or of what the "classic" novel was about but since American sexploitation maverick Russ Meyer had made it into an intriguing movie himself back in 1964, I figured it was a bawdy period romp and, since I had been in a costume picture state-of-mind for a while now, I decided to give it a spin.The presence of three veteran film stars (Oliver Reed, Shelley Winters and Wilfrid Hyde-White) was also enticing but, unsurprisingly, they are only there for marquee value: Reed's almost incoherent Popeye-ish accent is simply embarrassing, likewise watching flabby madam Winters being surrounded by all that petite naked flesh (not hers, of course, but that of her charges and their consorts) flailing about, but it's octagenarian Hyde-White (in his last film, no less) who tops both of them by snuggling in bed with the title character
who is all of 19 years of age; I've seen Hyde-White in several of his earlier films and I'm positive he never performed a love scene in any of them!
Indeed, it's gorgeous leading lady Lisa Foster who, thankfully, indulges in much full-frontal nudity by shedding her clothing completely at every possible opportunity which, even in the heavily-censored variant I've watched, makes this consistently raunchy period piece tolerable; it's a pity that she didn't get much ahead in her acting career as one would certainly have liked to see even more of her.
In fact, the film's plot line is very similar to that of Jess Franco's MARQUIS DE SADE'S JUSTINE (1968) and it's small wonder that the producer of that one, Harry Alan Towers, is also behind this production but, while I'd say FANNY HILL is a more agreeable picture, ultimately it's just too blandly made to stick in one's mind for much longer after it's finished..
Poor Lisa Foster (Raines)who is now a 48 year old highly regarded and successful movie writer, technician and producer.
No doubt all of this ambiguity is designed to hide the fact that this beautiful, elegant and successful movie producer (see her bio here on IMDb) made this porn film back in 1982 when she was a teenager.
Cleland's novel calls for a virginal 15 year old girl of nubile proportions and Lisa fits the description perfectly.Where I part company, however, with other reviewers, is the somewhat guilt-ridden insistence of some that this movie is "not pornography", since it is true to the 1790's novel.
She is naked for significant periods of time in the movie precisely because of the erotic purpose.
Fanny Hill, Memoirs Of A Woman Of Pleasure first appeared as a book by John Cleland in 1748.
Having read the book, I was quite interested to see what this film adaptation of it might offer.
Few who value literature or cinema as serious artistic mediums will find a great deal to whet their appetite here.Virginal girl Fanny Hill (Lisa Raines) arrives in 18th century London friendless and virtually penniless.
Here Fanny becomes the favourite "woman of pleasure" of a rich old man called Mr Barville (Wilfrid Hyde-White).
All things considered, Fanny Hill is a failed attempt to adapt a literary classic into a worthwhile film..
I can't remember seeing the entire film, or the reason for the rather amusing sexual sounding title, but I do remember that there were a couple of good moments of female nudity and sex.
I did not see any of Oliver Reed as far as can remember, but I don't think this is his type of film anyway. |
tt0471030 | Red Road | Jackie Morrison (Kate Dickie) works in Glasgow as a CCTV operator, monitoring the Red Road Flats. She lives alone and engages in occasional sex with married man Avery (Paul Higgins).
Jackie recognises a man she sees on the CCTV monitor and begins inquiring about him. It is revealed that he is Clyde Henderson (Tony Curran), a prisoner who has been released early for good behaviour but will be back in prison immediately if he steps out of line. She begins stalking Clyde, tracking him on the CCTV monitors and gathering information about him. She follows Clyde to a cafe, and later learns he is throwing a party at the apartment he shares with fellow ex-con Stevie (Martin Compston). She gains entry to the party and begins exchanging looks with a drunk Clyde. They dance, but she makes an excuse and runs out of the apartment.
After spotting Clyde on CCTV heading to a local bar, she goes there and sees him break up a fight between Stevie and another man. Stevie and his girlfriend return to Clyde's apartment, while Clyde initiates a conversation with Jackie before inviting her back to the apartment too. Clyde reveals he has a daughter, with whom he regrets he has lost contact. Clyde and Jackie have sex, but she runs from the bedroom and stages rape, striking her face with a stone and fleeing from the apartment block in view of the CCTV cameras. The police identify Clyde as the rapist and Jackie watches the arrest on CCTV, and a few moments later sees Clyde's daughter approach the apartment block. Later, Stevie gains entry to Jackie's home and demands to know why she has falsely accused Clyde. Jackie reveals that Clyde killed her husband and daughter.
Jackie relents and tells the police she wishes to withdraw the accusation of rape. After Clyde's release, Jackie confronts him and they argue: Clyde describes the road traffic accident that killed Jackie's husband and daughter, and she reveals that her last words to her daughter were harsh. She tells Clyde that his daughter tried to reach him on the day of his arrest, and they go their separate ways. | revenge, murder | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0073600 | Race with the Devil | Roger Marsh and Frank Stewart own a successful motorcycle dealership in San Antonio, Texas. Together, with their wives Kelly and Alice, along with Roger and Kelly’s small dog, they leave San Antonio in a recreational vehicle (RV) for a much anticipated ski vacation in Aspen, Colorado.
Along the way, they set up camp in a desolate meadow of central Texas, where Roger and Frank race their motorcycles together. Later that night after their wives retire to the RV, the men witness what turns out to be a Satanic ritual human sacrifice a short distance from their campsite across a river.
After being chased by the Satanists and barely escaping with their lives, they report the incident to Sheriff Taylor, who investigates their report but attempts to convince them that they probably only saw hippies killing an animal. Unbeknownst to the sheriff, Roger steals a sample of dirt stained with the murder victim's blood, intent on delivering it to the authorities in Amarillo. At the same time, the wives find a cryptic message-a rune-pinned to the broken back window while cleaning, and steal books about occultism from a local library to further research the incident, unknowingly spied on by an unseen man in a red truck. One such library book reveals that the ritual is what Satanists often perform to gain magical powers. As the foursome leaves town, the sheriff notices a red truck that begins to follow them making it clear that he is either aware or part of the Satanic cult.
When the couples arrive at a trailer park, Kelly is stared at by its residents while in a swimming pool and wants to return home. A couple at the park invites them to dinner. While at the restaurant/nightclub, Kelly is stared at menacingly by one of the musicians. When they return from dinner at the club, they discover that Kelly's dog has been killed and hanged causing them to immediately leave the park. Shortly afterwards, they're forced to fight off two rattlesnakes planted in their RV by the cultists. The frightened Kelly and Alice begins to scream and goes off in a panic, causing Frank to accidentally drive into a tree before the snakes are killed. The next day Kelly's dog is buried. Roger and Frank then purchased a shotgun and head towards Amarillo while being spied on by a steadily increasing number of cultists who seem to be networked throughout numerous small Texas towns. When Roger tries to call long distance for the highway patrol, he finds one dead payphone and another with a "bad connection" and is told long distance service is down throughout their towns by a "big wind from up north".
The couples then leave for Amarillo and staged a showdown with the cult members during a high-speed chase that pits their RV against numerous trucks and cars. Roger and Frank kill and injure most of the attackers and escape, including from a school bus trick "accident" that Frank sees through since it's done on a Sunday.
The foursome stop in a field at nightfall as they cannot continue until morning since the RV’s headlights has been damaged during the chase. They begin to celebrate when they pick up a radio signal coming from Amarillo. In the middle of their celebration, the foursome hears chanting outside the RV and find themselves surrounded by cult members wearing black robes with hoods, including the sheriff and the couple they had dinner with. The film ends as the cultists light a ring of fire around the RV trapping the couples inside while the chanting continues. | cult, gothic | train | wikipedia | We sit back to watch Race With the Devil, an obvious B-grade horror flick we've heard great things about from friends.I haven't seen Jack Starrett's RWD since that night in the summer of '75, but I distinctly remember how good it was, how merrily hell-bent-for-leather the action was, and the way it tied into our goofy fear of Satanic cults and human chains thirty years ago.
This flick was shot in the southwest, but with all the rural versions of urban legends clanking about the Idaho Panhandle, Race With the Devil seemed like a home movie.I believe the movie made a gob of money that year.I recommend Race With the Devil in no small part for the fact that it's obvious the people involved are having a great time, a must for a low-budget movie.
This is classic, exhilarating *and* suspenseful drive-in entertainment, man!Real-life good friends Peter Fonda and Warren Oates play buddies Roger and Frank, who embark on a vacation with wives Kelly (Lara Parker) and Alice (Loretta Swit) that includes, or will include, activities such as camping, motorcycle racing, and, hopefully, skiing.
This will have the audience thinking, "Just how many people are in on, or could be in on, this whole damn thing?" You'll wonder, too, if there's *anybody* trustworthy in the cast of characters.Particularly exciting scenes are those where Roger and Frank have to rush to get their vehicle going again before the villains can catch up, and where they and their wives must deal with an attack by a pair of rattlers.
Oates and Fonda entertain with brisk and airy performances, though Swit and Parker are really only directed to be screaming banshees waiting to be saved by their burly men.Best served with lashings of Bourbon and Coke, and not designed to be scrutinised for moral or ethical worth, just enjoy the ride and try and stay one step ahead of Old Nick.
Not a classic movie perhaps, but a good little thriller with some very tense moments (like the fight with the snakes - I wonder how they did that) and a few spectacular car chases (the stuntwork is excellent).
Peter Fonda and Warren Oates create two believable, down-to-earth characters that you can easily root for; on the other hand, the women are reduced to useless screamers during the moments of danger, in what I seriously consider the biggest annoyance of this film.
It is a very creepy and believeable film, and I've got to commend a movie that makes car chases exciting when I can't remember the last time I ever gave a crap about a single one.
Race With the Devil is a seventies road movie/satanic horror film about a group of holidaymakers who get more than they bargained for when they witness the brutal murder of a young girl by a group of devil worshippers.
Race With the Devil was clearly never meant to be a shocking horror film, as most of the movie is spent dealing up suspense, and this is good also as it ensures that Ride With the Devil is one exciting trip through the wastelands of America.
The acting isn't brilliant, but cult stars Warren Oates and Peter Fonda make for enjoyable leads as they try their best to stay alive.
Peter Fonda, Warren Oates, Loretta Swit (M*A*S*H) and Lara Parker (Dark Shadows) are the couples in question, and R.G. Armstrong is the local sheriff they enlist to help them.
The ritual was suitable creepy (I loved the shot of the fire being started, as well as the flaming tree later on) and the chase scenes were tense, exciting, and action-packed (great stunt work).
It's the old cliché - they don't make them like this anymore.Peter Fonda, Warren Oates and their wives are on vacation in their RV, finding one desolate spot to spend the night on their way to their ski vacation.
Starts off a little slow, but once you see the bonfire start, things pick up.Roger (Peter Fonda) and his buddy, Frank (Warren Oates) take their wives, Alice (Loretta Swit) and Kelly (Laura Parker) on a nice vacation in a large motor-home.
Does tick quite a few boxes of the period: satanic rituals, luxury campers, motorbikes, car chases and stunts (did they forget kung fu?) but this is one of the best - if not thee best - horror of it's type.The best laid plans of mice and men go to hell when our heroes-like-zeros spy on some Devil worshippers just to get a hazy flash of a young woman's upper charms.
And when you start to think: well that was that, now things will go flat - you're just a wrong person living in negative town.This film has so much: the satanic thang, the automobile chases / fight action, the relentless threat, and Polanski-esk paranoia and claustrophobia.
I found it highly entertaining, a little campy yes, but over-all very enjoyable.The satanic ritual scene is great (Loretta Switt's hair-brained act of turning on the light and hollering never ceases to annoy the hell out of me), nerve wracking escape and subsequent encounters with the cult members fuel the energy and suspense.
I'm sure this movie did well on its initial release because all the elements were there, and the trailer would have made anyone pack up the car and head down to the local drive-in.Peter Fonda had "Dirty Mary Crazy Larry", Warren Oates had "Two-Lane Blacktop", and now here they are on the run from murderous Satanists.
RACE WITH THE DEVIL is a solid horror action movie that takes place entirely on the road.
These films, albeit forgotten at the time, are now being rediscovered as minor gems, and frequently distributed through satellite as they have encountered a new popularity.Warren Oates, Loretta Swit, Peter Fonda and Lara Parker form the believable cast of RV vacationers, traveling from Texas to Aspen.
Race with the Devil is a 1975 occult thriller and action film starring Peter Fonda (Easy Rider), Warren Oates (Two-Lane Blacktop), Loretta Swit (M*A*S*H) and Lara Parker (Dark Shadows).
The film was a B-movie hybrid of the horror, action, and car chase genres.
A remake was planned in 2005, written by Drew McWeeny and Scott Swan, with Chris Moore (of Project Greenlight fame) to serve as director SUMMARY: Roger Marsh (Peter Fonda) and Frank Stewart (Warren Oates), with their wives Kelly and Alice (Lara Parker, Loretta Swit), leave San Antonio in a recreational vehicle for vacation in Colorado.
Now "classic film" great, but great as in extremely entertaining and fun.Peter Fonda and Warren Oates (excellent jobs) are best pals who take their wives on a vacation in their massive motorhome.
Fonda's wife has some good creepy scenes especially as she realizes there's definitely something not right with the people they encounter.If all that weren't enough, the film explodes into a series of fantastic car chases and crashes as the devil worshippers try to stop the couples with vehicular muscle.
Unseen Gem. Race with the Devil (1975) *** (out of 4) Peter Fonda and Warren Oates take their wives on a camping trip in a RV but they witness a Satanic cult killing and soon the cult are after them.
En route to Colorado in a top-of-the-range RV, two married couples (Peter Fonda & Kelly Marsh and Warren Oates & Loretta Swit) decide to spend the night parked up by a tranquil stretch of river that offers an unobstructed view of the beautiful surrounding countryside.
Unfortunately, it also offers a pretty good view of the Satanic human sacrifice that takes place on the opposite bank of the river; when the devil worshippers conducting the ritual realise that their activities have been observed, they set off in pursuit of the terrified foursome, who waste no time in fleeing the scene.The rest of the film is a masterful exercise in suspense, paranoia and excitement as the horrified holiday-makers attempt to make it to the safety of civilisation, unable to trust anyone they meet along the way.
Director Jack Starret ignores the fact that the plot is occasionally rather preposterous (we are supposed to believe that almost everyone in the area is in league with the devil and that the antagonists are able to set up elaborate traps at a moments notice) and instead wisely concentrates on delivering the requisite thrills and spills; this he does brilliantly, slowly but surely cranking up the tension until the frantic action-packed final act in which our beleaguered friends are forced to fight back, with spectacular results.The cast are uniformly excellent, with Fonda and Oates ably playing the stoic and resourceful heroes, who cope manfully with everything from rattlers in the RV to all-out road war, whilst Marsh and Swit are totally convincing as their ineffectual wives who handle their predicament by screaming hysterically at every available opportunity.
Seasoned character actor R.G. Armstrong also puts in a fine performance as the local sheriff who is just a little too blasé about the possibility of Satanists in his backyard.From the creepy-as-hell sacrifice scene to the unforgettable 'shock' ending, Race With The Devil is top-notch 70s movie-making and really deserves greater recognition than it currently seems to get.
I've just seen Race With the Devil for the first time and found it very creepy in parts.Two couples head off into the countryside in their new motor home on a vacation, which turns out to be the vacation from hell.
They then set off again and just when they think they are safe, several vehicles try to push them off the road and they then leave the main road just as it is getting dark and then loads of Satanists appear and light a fire around the camper...Race With the Devil has some good chase sequences and, at times, a haunting music score.The cast includes Peter Fonda, Warren Oates, Loretta Swift, Lara Parker and R G Armstrong.
There is a thread of innocence running through them and even though they are low budget they are enjoyable to watch.I think of Dirty Mary, Crazy Larry and The Great Texas Dynamite Chase which I believe were made around the same time although the script and acting here are better.
This movie is about 2 vacationing couples who are going from San Antonio, TX to Aspen, CO to go skiing and they bought a $36,000 motorhome, I bet you that $36,000 would be like $80,000 nowadays, once when they stop for a night, they see a bunch of satanists across the lake and they witnessed a murder and they're caught by the satanists and they're on the run, meanwhile the satanists follow them everywhere they go, then they stop somewhere else the following night and their dog Ginger is killed by a bunch of satanists and the people who were at the campground didn't hear anything about it, then we get to the best part of the whole movie when they get into a hot pursuit with the satanists and we see a bunch of car wrecks like one truck flies off the road and it catches on fire in mid-air or a Oldsmobile Delmont 88 doing a bunch of flips.
But this film is well done and worth watching.Peter Fonda and Warren Oates play men taking their wives skiing in a new camper on vacation.The film is slickly directed with enough action to keep viewers interested.
Peter Fonda and Warren Oats head this slick and often chilling chase movie, that has one of the most sinister endings you'll see.
During the first night of their long-anticipated motor home vacation with end destination Colorado, two couples witness the murder of a young girl during a bizarre satanic cult ritual.
After witnessing a human sacrifice there, they become the prey across the back country.In the spirit of road thrillers like "Duel" and "Vanishing Point," with dashes of down-home horrors ala "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre," "Race with the Devil" is a solid low-budget horror movie that has more or less been forgotten by time—its devotees are either people who saw it as children in the eighties on television, or genre fans to whose notice it came over the internet.
Contemporaneously, it likely relied on the star power of Fonda and Oates, but over forty years later, it stands as an effective and thrilling slice of the era that is still suspenseful; and while it's chock full of moments that will have the audience cheering, there is still a dark underpinning to the entire film that both begins and ends it, rendering it difficult to forget.
Roger (Peter Fonda Easy Rider) and Frank (Warren Oates The Wild Bunch) are on holiday with their wives (Lara Parker Dark Shadows and Loretta Swit of TV's M.A.S.H.) in a lovely $30,000 motor home (a microwave and 4-channel stereo even swanky) hoping to do some skiing in Colorado and maybe a bit of dirt biking along the way.
Released in 1975, "Race with the Devil" stars Peter Fonda, Lara Parker, Warren Oates and Loretta Swit as two couples harassed in their RV by a group of Satanists in central Texas after accidentally witnessing a sacrificial murder.This is a decent horror/thriller with quite a bit of action, mostly of the car-chase variety, but it's held back by its lack of depth and routine style.
Warren Oates and Peter Fonda give solid performances as their characters and wives are being chased by satan worshipers.Overall a satisfying flicks that has alot of filler.
Two married couples (Peter Fonda/Lara Parker and Warren Oates/Loretta Swift) take a recreational vehicle on vacation, heading for Colorado.
Peter Fonda, Lara Parker, Warren Oates, & Loretta Switt star in this supernatural hybrid horror/chase picture about two couples taking a trip in their RV from Texas to Colorado when they accidentally come upon a group of Satanists whose human sacrifice they interrupt.
They could have been better written.The background music, while very effective in the scary parts, has a generic, TV-movie quality in the slower scenes, and some of the supporting characters are kind of silly (like the sheriff, deputy and librarian).There is a good sense of action, with lots of chase scenes and some motorcycle riding (although there maybe should have been a motorcycle chase scene with the satanists).All in all, a somewhat dated, but much better than average occult/action film which still holds up very well today..
A very inspired and briskly effective handy dandy genre-blending combo of your typically creepy devil worship fright flick and a slam-bang exciting Southern-fried downhome car chase action thriller about two vacationing married couples traveling cross country in a deluxe, self-contained luxury RV who accidentally witness a black-robed Satanist cult in the bloodthirsty act of making a human sacrifice.
The cult, whose members are frightfully legion, immediately realize that their allegedly secret ceremony was seen and pretty soon everything goes to hell, with pay phones proving to be inoperative, the couples' dog getting strung up, rattlesnakes springing forth from the cabinets, and the cult giving hot, tire-squalling, dust-kicking, metal-twisting pursuit in pick-up trucks.Directed with customary "no muss, no fuss, no pretense whatsoever" headlong efficient battering ram style by B-movie ace Jack ("Run, Angel, Run!," "Cleopatra Jones") Starrett, who took over the direction a few days into the shoot after original director Lee Frost got canned by the producers for doing too much in-camera editing and refusing to overshoot a single scene (Frost still receives a co-screen writing credit for the tightly constructed script he penned with longtime collaborator Wes Bishop, who also co-wrote Frost's "The Thing With Two Heads" and "Dixie Dynamite"), "Race With the Devil" works like a charm, thanks to Starrett's fiercely economical directorial finesse, Robert Jessup's lively, constantly active cinematography, breakneck pacing, Leonard Rosenman's pile-driving score, dynamically staged car chases (the final chase with several Satanists hopping onto the speeding RV especially smokes), punchy editing, an increasingly tense and moody sense of all-pervasive dread and paranoia, fine acting all around, and a splendidly black, nihilistic surprise twist ending.After teaming up in the excellent, unusually sensitive feminist Western "The Hired Hand" and Tom McGuane's terrifically off-kilter seriocomic delight "92 in the Shade," Peter Fonda and Warren Oates in their third cinematic pairing have developed a warm, easy, comfortable rapport that translates beautifully well on screen, making the friendship between their characters seem completely believable and engaging.
The cinematography at times is quite flashy and jumpy, with plenty of zoom in to capture the character's expressions.There are solid and down-to-earth performances by Warren Oates, Peter Fonda, Lara Parker and Loretta Swit as the two couples.
It works real well.And it's not just the two icons of the road movie, Fonda and Oates, who make the film such a classic.
The Satanists will stop at nothing to keep the couples from escaping.Race with the Devil is an excellent mix of horror and action.
In the film, two couples--Warren Oates (who just about steals the picture for me) & Loretta Swit (how nice to see her away from the Pusan Perimeter for a change!) and Fonda & Lara Parker--pack some dirt bikes aboard their new $36K motor home and drive off into the wilds of rural Texas (which, ever since a certain 1974 film involving chain saws, has seemed like a pretty scary place).
This is the kind of 70's creepy that I would rank very highly up there with 'Burnt Offerings'.While on a winter vacation/road trip with their wives stoic sexual beast, Peter Fonda, and lovable curmudgeon, Warren Oates, accidentally witness a girl being murdered by a satanic cult.
One of the quintessential Satanist films of the 1970s, RACE WITH THE DEVIL is a B-movie which is up there with the best.
Great fun B-movie drive-in type action thriller (not bad car chase scene).
Starring Peter Fonda and Warren Oates as the likeable leads, 'Race with the Devil' is about two vacationing couples who find themselves pursued by a satanic cult after witnessing a ritualistic murder.
Any movie in which Peter Fonda and Warren Oates are the GOOD GUYS has to be! |
tt0091889 | Samson og Sally | The film revolves around a young albino male Sperm whale named Samson who strongly believes the legendary tales of Moby Dick. The legends say that Moby Dick was a hero for all whales, and that he will someday return. He meets Sally, a young black-and-white female sperm whale who is orphaned after her pod is slaughtered by whalers. Samson's pod adopts Sally and she befriends Samson even though she does not believe in Moby Dick. Samson and Sally together survive certain dangers, such as killer whales, a massive oil slick, radiation poisoning, and whaling ships, which they refer to as "iron beasts." Eventually Samson and Sally fall in love with each other. Samson's mother is later killed by the whalers, greatly upsetting Samson. Samson decides to leave Sally and his pod to search for Moby Dick and convince him to try to save whales from whalers and the "iron beasts." After nearly dying several times, due to humans causing water pollution, Samson finds Moby Dick in the underwater ruins of Atlantis, only to find that Moby Dick is senile, and too old to even forage for himself. Disappointed, Samson leaves to try to find his pod. After days of searching, he gives up all hope of finding his pod, just before seeing them on the horizon. The film ends with a scene set decades later, with Samson and Sally as adult whales, caring for a single son, whom Samson saves from a killer whale. | psychedelic, dark | train | wikipedia | delightful,thoughtful,sad.
This animated movie is one of the best ones I've seen.
Forget Disney movies - although the animation may not match that of Disney cartoons, this one has much more to offer otherwise: messages of love and unity, of loneliness and contentedness and much more.
It also points to man's folly of whale hunting and thus it somewhat resembles Melville's Moby Dick.
I recommend this to anyone and everyone..
Amazing!.
This animation based on the book, The Song of the Whale, is probably the greatest animation ever created.
Samson is a young whale with a serious personality disorder who, through his lack of friends (besides an annoying sea gull), becomes obsessed with the stories of Moby Dick told by his mother.
Basically the plot line is Samson searching for Moby Dick to help save the whales from the iron beasts (whalers).
It's a great story and takes us deep into the depths of the ocean where we learn about the fun and danger of being a whale.
From playing dead, to pestering polar bears, to oil spills, to a crazy walrus duo messed up on toxic waste doing a dance number and singing in gibberish.
This movie definitely gets an excellent review from me, and trust me it's not just a kids movie.
I first saw it at the age of 22 and I've loved it every since.
I recommend watching it with a good friend with a pure heart and a little green..
Looking back on my favorite movies from my childhood--this, The Brave Little Toaster, Little Nemo--I loved them all so much yet I found them all extremely disturbing.
As many other people have implied, this movie is a bit scary, and deals with some pretty heavy themes.
That's why it's a good movie.
That's why, seeing it many years later, it isn't just some crappy kid's movie--this movie and the others I have mentioned have stuck with me my whole life.
The fact that they are a bit disturbing is no reason to say that kid's shouldn't see them.
Because you know what?
Because you know what?
I wouldn't be the person that I am if I hadn't seen movies like this as a kid.
Movies like this challenge the kid in ways that things like the Care Bears never will, and in the long run, I think that is a good thing.That aside though, I really believe that this is a great, beautiful movie.
You can tell that the people who made it really wanted to make it--it wasn't just another movie in a long line of movies they were under contract to make, like Disney is today.
Even in Disney's glory day's none of their stories were original, and this story is extremely original.
I credit the makers of this movie much more than the makers of The Lion King.
The animation is quite good and has a very unique look to it, the story is very interesting and has more than one layer at work, the music is beautiful--the tone of the guitar in this movie's soundtrack has stuck with me all these years.
The weakest link, probably, is the voice acting, which is by no means BAD.
But this movie was in fact translated into English from Danish, so replacement voice crew often loses something.All in all, I think this is a wonderful movie.
This is the kind of movie I would want to show my kids, because even if its a little traumatizing, well, so is life.
To give your kids only some idealized world through harmless movies with little conflict is much more dangerous, in my opinion..
Beautiful and touching film..
I remember watching this film various times when I was aged around four years old.
The film impressed me very much, so much that I can still remember some parts of the film at this age, even though I haven't seen it for at least fourteen years.
The film is mostly sad (though it has a happy ending), and looking back on it, I think it's not all that suitable for four or five years old, because the theme that is death occurs a couple of times in the film, and that may be scary at times.
I vividly remember the death of Samson's mother and the few corpses of whales that he encountered after the oil disaster (which he prodded to see if they were still alive).
I think that says enough about the impact that the film would have on four to five year olds.
But for the rest it's an enjoyable and good film, quite intelligent as well (from what I can remember), but I wouldn't show it to children under the age of seven or eight..
A beautiful, touching movie.
I remember seeing this movie on TV when I was about 6-7 years old and how It moved me back then.
The love story is so cute!
The movie's similar to Watership Down in it's seriousness and environmentalist message....feels like they don't make movies like this anymore.
An intelligent movie.
However, there is just a little bit of humor too,albeit ironic and dark.
The walrus song in the middle is absolutely hilarious!
The animation may not be on par with Disney, sure, but hey, it's from Scandinavia.
Some parts containing music and performing crabs in the water felt similar to "under the sea" from The Little Mermaid(and this was before that movie).Parents, don't underestimate a kids intelligence.
I strongly recommend this movie..
The Greatest Animated Movie of All Time.
I was barely six years old when my mother found an old VHS copy of what seemed to be a cute little kid's cartoon in the local library in our neighborhood.
'Samson & Sally' certainly does have a cover that shows it to be a light-hearted cartoon; a pink sky, a shallow sea, cartoony walruses with musical instruments, a smiling pink octopus...
It goes on.
It seems almost like cotton candy material.The truth is very different.
Watching 'Samson & Sally' is more like being plunged into a dark, freezing ocean during a shipwreck at night than being tipped off a pool floatie at the beach.
It is a graphic, dark commentary about the cruelties of the whaling industry, about burning oil-slicks and underwater cities, about shipwrecks and killer whales, about death and life.
It is deep, thoughtful, and surreal.
So surreal, in fact, that it is almost like a Stanley Kubrick film, but animated, and from the perspective of marine life.
'Samson & Sally' is the story of two whales, whose names are obviously those in the title!
Samson is a white whale who has no real friends, boasts about himself, and doesn't eat octopuses.
I can't blame him for any of these, especially the octopus issue, since he is young.
As I've mentioned earlier, the VHS cover features a smiling pink octopus.
In the film, though, octopuses are portrayed as toothy, nasty buggers with some rather unfavorable attributes, such as a tendency to grab onto other unfortunate creatures, which happens twice to poor Samson.
From the beginning of the film, he is also teased by a seagull, one of the film's major protagonists and it's major source source of humor (which succeeds.) Samson's mother tells him stories of Moby Dick, the great white whale who had, long ago, protected whales from death at the hands of mankind.
Apparently, according to legend, Moby Dick will come back once again to protect whales, and Samson takes this aspect of the story to heart.Sally is a girl whale whose mother was killed and whose pod was ravaged by 'Steel Beasts', which is what whales call whaling vessels, and ships in general.
She meets Samson and his mother as she is hiding near the wreck of a 'Steel Beast'.
She is adopted by Samson's pod, and soon, the two are the best of friends.
Unfortunately, the two find out rather painfully that there is no such thing as safety in their world.
They are attacked by a pair of orcas and forced to hide within the shipwreck where they had met.
The attack, however, is repulsed by Samson's mother, who smashes the orcas with a blow of her tail (the crumpled paper noise that is made when the orcas are smashed still makes my stomach swim after all these years.) Later on, they find themselves within the sights of a 'Steel Beast's' harpoon gun.
The Seagull saves their lives when he decides to distract the ship's officer at the harpoon gun in a truly hilarious scene.
Unfortunately, this victory is soon overshadowed by the tragic death of one of Samson's pod-mates, who suffocates and drowns in an oil slick the pod is later forced to traverse when the 'Steel Beast' bears down on them.
This tragedy strengthens Samson's wish that Moby Dick would come back to help them.
Soon after, Samson & Sally are truly in love, and the scenes of romance are truly heartfelt.
But they face yet another tragedy when Samson's mother sacrifices her life to save him from a horrific death at the hands of the whalers.
Her loss wrecks Samson, who finally decides to go on a quest to find Moby Dick...I'm not going to describe anything else.
The final sequence of the film should be a surprise to those who see it.
I would like to tell you that this film does have a BLAM (Big Lipped Alligator Moment, that is, a random musical number that comes out of nowhere,) just about 20 minutes on in the film, that features two walruses who sing in scat-gibberish and dance around amidst the sunken wrecks of several vessels, including the Titanic.
But it's very short, thankfully, and actually very funny.For an animated feature made in the mid-1980s, 'Samson & Sally' is very modern indeed, although the animation might be considered primitive by today's standards.
The soundtrack, though, is perhaps the greatest in film history.
Although the main theme is very 80's, the rest is almost indescribably beautiful, perfectly fitted with the film's dark theme.
One of the greatest pieces, perhaps, is the romantic theme that plays twice in the film.
The rest is just as beautiful, and the film's moments of suspense are perfectly scored with some edgy, rough, and very synthesized music that fits in well with the decade.
The voice acting the the American/English dub released by Just For Kids Entertainment in 1991 and 1995 is alright, but there are some odd moments.
For the first 7 minutes of the film, for instance, Samson's mother has a male voice.
The original Danish version from 1984 is great, but the Swedish dub, released on the same day as the Danish, ranks at the top.
The film was directed by Jannik Hastrup, a very popular director of European animated movies, such as the hugely successful 'Benny's Bakadar' ('Benny's Bathtub') in 1971, 'Subway to Paradise' in 1987, and 'War of the Birds' 1990.
But his most popular film will always be 'Samson & Sally'.
I'm almost 16 now, and the film has lost none of it's wonder and power.
If I were to be stuck on a deserted island out in the middle of nowhere and allowed to choose only one film to watch, my choice would always be 'Samson & Sally'..
This is NOT for the young or faint of heart!.
Like a few of the other comment posters, I too saw this film when I was about 4 or 5 and it horrified me!
Along with "All Dogs go to Heaven", this movie gave me recurring, disturbing thoughts and freaked me out!
I distinctly remember the creepy, bubbly music that plays at the start of the movie and the nasty paper crumpling sound and appearance the orcas (killer whales) made when they where slammed by the adult whales defending the wayward calves.
I also remember the lifeless bodies of several whales, especially the eerily grinning oil-coated baleen whale that saved Samson at one point.
The scene I most vividly remember was when these humans in a lifeboat shoot Samson when he tries to help them in the mistaken belief that he is attacking them causing him to accidentally capsize their boat and drown them!I re-rented this video upon entering ninth grade and now have a much better appreciation of it.
It quite sobberingly portrays many realistic environmental issues and the very negative relation humans have with nature i.e., whaling, toxic waste disposal, oil spills.
This is definitely NOT a film of 7 years and under, I would possibly recommend it for 10 year olds and up (or to those with a macabre sense of entertainment.).
traumatizing..
traumatizing..
i was given this movie as a child and it gave me nightmares.
i would not recommend this movie to anyone with small children, unless you are are looking for something disturbing to watch or hate whales.
the music is horrifying, and the voice-overs are not pleasant.
it's a strained movie, containing themes far too heavy to be wrapped in the guise of a children's movie - murder, depression, paranoia, revenge.
deranged sailors harpoon writhing whales, filling the water with blood; one whale mentally snaps and becomes coated in spilled oil and suffocates; a young whale noses a dead one while it stares at him with empty, lifeless eyes.
perhaps this film would have been better suited to a more artsy genre, a la city of lost children or something else equal parts fantasy and disturbing imagery, instead of trying to gear it toward a young audience with a simply put script and a colorful, cartoony presentation. |
tt0071517 | Foxy Brown | Foxy Brown (Pam Grier) seeks revenge when her government agent boyfriend is shot down by members of a drug syndicate at her doorstep. She links her boyfriend's murderers to a "modeling agency" run by Steve Elias (Peter Brown) and Miss Kathryn (Kathryn Loder) that services local judges, congressmen, and police in the area. Foxy decides to pose as a prostitute to infiltrate the company, and helps save a fellow black woman from a life of drugs and sexual exploitation and reunites her with her husband and child. Not long after she infiltrates the company, her relation to her late-boyfriend and Link Brown, her brother who ratted him out, is exposed and she is caught before she can escape. After an exchange of words and heated death threats, Miss Kathryn decides to keep her alive in hopes of her being worth some monetary value in the sex-slave trade. They give her a shot of heroin and then send her to a farm which is actually a drug manufacturing plant, with two of Miss Kathryn's henchmen. after she wakes from her sleep she tries to escape her captors but is caught by one of the henchmen with a whip and dragged back to the bedroom where he proceeds to tie her to the bed. then Kathryn's second goon comes and gives foxy another shot of heroin, the dealer begins to eye foxy quoting "I'm beginning to get that ole feeling" where he massages and fondles her breasts before he rips off her bra. tied up and defenseless with her breasts exposed the dealer rapes her and leaves her tied but using her quick thinking she uses a razor to get free and escape her captors by setting the farm on fire. Ms Kathryn orders her boyfriend to kill her where he proceeds by scaring info out of her brother but to no avail he then kills him and his girlfriend foxy asks her black panther bros for help where they take Steve and cut off his genitals foxy comes to the house of ms Kathryn and shows her the jar containing Steve's genitals and she kills two of the guards and shoot's Kathryn in the arm. foxy says that death is too easy her and wants her to suffer the way that she made her suffer. | suspenseful, cruelty, neo noir, realism, violence, cult, sadist, tragedy, revenge, blaxploitation | train | wikipedia | Let's just see how Halle does.One thing more: I'm not a Tarantino fan, but this film provided a lot of insight into a) Why he would want to make Jackie Brown, and b) a lot of the form and conventions (including the rape) that he followed in Kill Bill.
Writer and director of "Coffy", Jack Hill, had finished a script for a sequel when the studio decided at the last minute that it didn't want to film a sequel to "Coffy." Re-working his script, Hill gave birth to what could arguably the seminal female blaxploitation film: "Foxy Brown."Foxy Brown (Pam Grier) is a strong woman striving for a better world.
In the context of the film, the conceit is appropriate, but it can lead to some viewers being upset or failing to take into account the politics of the time that would lead to such a depiction and dismissing the film out of hand.Despite these flaws, "Foxy Brown" is definitely a film to watch not just for historical value, but for the remarkable performance of Pam Grier, an actress just as strong and beautiful today as she was in 1974.
Beyond the blaxploitation label, Foxy Brown is a solid adventure film, that remains timely to this day.
Foxy Brown, like Grier's previous character Coffy, is a strong-willed and able woman, who wants justice in her community, and personal life.
While it is not easily stated, Foxy Brown and so many of the blaxploitation movies were originally produced so that Hollywood could capitalize on the vibe of the black community.
The clothes, the characters, and especially the talk (dig this, jive that) is so '70's it seems to be a parody.What's bad about this film is the excessive violence (Foxy's drugging and raping and her gruesome revenge), but maybe it's necessary in order to have a film like this.
Foxy Brown is one of Pam Grier's best blaxploitation movies (topped only by Coffy).
From the James Bondish opening sequence of Pam dancing to the "Foxy Brown" theme song, to Antonio Fargas ("That's my sister...and she's a whole lotta woman!") to the spectacular ending which I will not spoil, this is a must see for any a) Pam Grier fan b)blaxploitation fan c)anybody who wants to see a strong female character beat the crap out of her opponents.
After the huge success of Coffy (1973), American International Pictures wanted more blaxploitation, namely in the form of Pam Grier's sexy, female empowered ass-kicker.
Yet Coffy and Foxy Brown are arguably as popular and as iconic as each other - Foxy maybe even more so - and this is mainly due to Foxy Brown being a pretty decent film, despite familiar plotting and genre tropes.When her boyfriend is gunned down by a bunch of gangsters, Foxy Brown goes undercover to infiltrate a prostitute ring posing as a modelling agency.
Her dead-beat brother Link (the amazing Antonio Fargas) tells Foxy that the group - led by strange and kinky couple Steve (Peter Brown) and Miss Katherine (Kathryn Loder) - are the people responsible.
Violence, drugs and explosions soon follow as Foxy pursues her thirst for vengeance, and helps fellow black woman Claudia (Juanita Brown) to escape a life on the game,It's a revenge premise seen a thousand times before, but Foxy Brown is often a blast.
Okay, because of the thin plot and the low budget "Foxy Brown" was made of the film seems more to be the episode of a TV series than a production for the theatres, but its amazing main actress Pam Grier will blow you away!
They are about women, and the love and tragedies they go through; also about the bad-a** women like our Foxy Brown.Well anyway, this film starts with a street hustler named Link Brown, cringing in a bar full of police officers, he's trying to wait out a bunch of thugs who want to beat him for holding out on a loan from losses incurred from street gambling schemes.
While this "Foxy Brown" of 1974, which is very similar in its premise, is not quite as cool as "Coffy" it is yet another immensely entertaining and bad-ass blaxploitation classic.
It is funny how director Jack Hill often repeated a successful idea - he made two WIP (Women In Prison) flicks, "The Big Doll House" (1971) and "The Big Bird Cage" (1972), both starring Grier, and then went on to make two 'Female Avenger' themed Blaxploitation flicks, also both starring Grier, "Coffy" (1973) and "Foxy Brown" (1974).
Storywise, "Foxy Brown" is quite near to what "Coffy" was, a film about a black beauty with style, Foxy Brown (Pam Grier), who is taking on ruthless mobsters in order to take bloody revenge for a loved one...
Out of all the blaxploitation films I've seen so far, however, "Coffy" is my favorite, and while "Foxy Brown" is certainly inferior, it is nonetheless great fun and a must-see for blaxploitation lovers.
The supporting cast includes the great Sid Haig, who was in plenty of films with Grier around the time, in a small role.
The fabulous, drop-dead gorgeous Pam Grier, played Foxy Brown with a seething conviction.
And she makes sure that the bad-guys shed their share, while she goes about the task of settling the score.Pam Grier made Foxy's rage and obsession with revenge, seem palpable.
Pam Grier's stunning good looks, and her athletic grace, made her a perfect choice to play Foxy Brown.
No other black female actress, was as compelling on-screen as Pam Grier was in the 70s.The cool funkiness of 70s Blaxploitation cinema, is certainly in evidence in Foxy Brown.
If you're looking for a fat, juicy slice of 70s Blaxploitation, then Foxy Brown is just the movie for you..
In 'Foxy Brown' things just come too easy for Grier's character, and she is much closer to Roundtree's John Shaft or even Tamara Dobson's Cleopatra Jones.
However Grier with Hill is still better than her subsequent movies in this genre like say 'Sheba, Baby' or 'Friday Foster', so I can't say it's a complete waste of time.
Grier really dominates 'Foxy Brown' but the much-loved Antonio Fargas ('Shaft', 'Cleopatra Jones', but best known as Huggy Bear on TV's 'Starsky And Hutch') plays her shifty coke-dealing brother, Katheryn Loder (who some might remember from Hill's earlier 'The Big Doll House') is great as a sadistic Madame, and Sid Haig has a nice bit as a horny pilot.
I really wish Jack Hill would make movies again, and I'd love to see him team up once more with Pam Grier and Sid Haig, because I think they have some unfinished business and the results could really be something special..
So I decided to give 1974's black flick "Foxy Brown" a watch since it featured the sexy Pam Grier(and she certainly doesn't let a viewer down with her breast scenes!) and the film though it seems a little quick does entertain with drama, action, and revenge all topped off with plenty of sex!
The story is simple set in L.A. in the world of drugs, and scandal involving the mob and Pam Grier is one sexy lady who has a government agent boyfriend murdered and this now causes her to go to any means to find the truth so guess what the Grier character goes undercover as a high class prostitute at a model agency that's a cover for sex and drug trafficking in favor for bribes to bring the killer or killers to justice.
Overall this is a fun feel good film that entertains it will seek to any means for justice and Pam Grier's work is memorable as she was too an eye candy treat!.
A voluptuous black woman (Pam Grier) takes a job as a high-class prostitute in order to get revenge on the mobsters who murdered her boyfriend.I love Jack Hill.
Coffy, Superfly, and now Foxy Brown, all great movies in a similar way.
After seeing Jackie Brown and loving it, I decided to see what other films Pam Grier had done in the past.
Pam Grier delivers a knockout performance as Foxy Brown, whose federal agent boyfriend is gunned down, and who sets out to fight for revenge and justice where the System has failed her.
Blaxploitation hooked me since early ninities when l'd watched Roundtree's "Shaft" since then l love this kind of movie,it's totally a different look inside of Black's world and almost all them were made in early seventies where this social phenomenon takes place,After a huge success of Coffy who Pam Grier sparkled,they came with a new repackaged as Foxy Brown,simply delightful to watch this new genre,an older Peter Brown gave me good memories when was acting in Laredo series!!!Resume:First watch: 2009 / How many: 2 / Source: Cable TV-DVD / Rating: 7.
You can see what Pam Grier looked like as a younger actress since most people have seen her in Quentin Tarantino's 1990's film Foxy Brown which isn't a remake of this one but is a separate entity.
I watched Pam in a handful of "Women in Prison" movies and, of course, in Quentin Tarantino's homage "Jackie Brown", but THIS is the real stuff that made her an immortal cult siren!
Okay, "Foxy Brown" is thin-plotted and often exaggeratedly gratuitous, but notwithstanding it's an incredibly fun movie to watch and Mrs. Grier simply represents total coolness.
Best of all it features Pam Grier, the undisputed queen of the genre.The movie features Antonio Fargas as Foxy's brother, and he has some fabulous lines.
I need these things in my life, and films like Foxy Brown do the trick.Damn, Pam's SUPER-BAD!
This is all really due to the quite badly written- and simplistic story.It's a movie that seems to have all of the right ingredients; Sex, violence, nudity and Pam Grier is a whole lot of woman, as even her brother says in this.
Sure, it provides the movie with plenty of good and fun moments but overall the movie would had benefited more from a far more consistent and also more original script.Still a thing that makes this movie special and somewhat above average is the presence of Pam Grier in this.
When her undercover cop boyfriend is murdered, bombshell Foxy Brown (Pam Grier) is out for revenge.
Cool theme song, nice nudity, and lots of violence like most of the great blaxploitation movies.
I'm not sure whether this is supposed to be funny or it's a serious attempt at telling a story, but it fails at both.One thing this movie never fails in trying to do is have Pam Grier enter each scene with different clothes for male viewers to ogle her in.
So Hill pumped out this little quickie of an exploitation flick that was meant to be a sequel to Coffy, but then got lopped off due to continuity, among other things, even though a lot of the plot points back to many things in the original Hill/Grier collaboration (i.e. boyfriend getting knocked off, Grier playing the perpetual bad-ass, surrounded by corruption she must rid, etc).
There's some good character actor work by Antonio Fargas as the sort of flunkie Link, brother of Foxy's, and by the very cold Katherine, played by Kathryn Loder (and, true to the 'black-exploitation' fold all of the villains are white).
The blaxploitation genre continued with Jack Hill's "Foxy Brown", starring Pam Grier as a woman out for revenge.
"Mars Attacks!" was the first movie in which I saw Pam Grier, but I didn't learn her name until I saw "Jackie Brown" the following year.
This is among the best that entertainment has to offer.I wonder if Pam Grier will ever play a third character with the last name Brown..
Director Jack Hill's Foxy Brown was originally intended as a sequel to his cult classic Coffy (1973), which also starred voluptuous black babe Pam Grier in serious revenge mode.
Which film you prefer will depend entirely on what you expect most from the blaxploitation genre—gritty violence or shameless fun—with Foxy Brown leaning towards the lighter side of things, while Coffy is a much rougher affair.
Since I like my blaxploitation films to have a more raw, exploitative edge, I rate Coffy higher than Foxy, but that's not to say I didn't have a good time with this funky follow-up.The film opens as Foxy (Grier) is about to start a new life with her supposedly dead undercover cop boyfriend Dalton (Terry Carter), who has just undergone face-change surgery to complete his new identity as Michael Anderson.
She, Foxy Brown (played by Pam Grier), then sets out to avenge his death.Interesting and action-packed but, if you've already seen Coffy, the previous Jack Hill-Pam Grier collaboration (Hill being the writer and director), it seems largely second-hand.
It all just feels like Coffy Lite.However, still entertaining and Pam Grier, as before, puts in a great performance in the lead role..
Exploitation king Jack Hill made FOXY BROWN as a follow-up to COFFY, another blaxploitation epic starring Pam Grier.
Pam Grier kicks into high gear playing a female avenger, out to take vengeance on the various hoods, thieves, murderers, and rapists who stand in her way, and the film becomes a fantastic slice of exploitation entertainment.What follows is an odyssey of ultra-violence featuring some fantastic and gratuitously gory effects sequences.
Good Fun. Foxy Brown (1974) *** (out of 4) Enjoyable, over the top blaxploitation classic about Foxy Brown (Pam Grier), a woman who seeks revenge on the evil white people who killed her fiancé.
One of the better blaxploitation films with Pam Grier kicking butt and looking o so fine as she does it.
Lots of people die.Also features Sid Haig, who is familiar not only in director Jack Hill's other films like Coffy and Spider Baby, again, with Grier in Tarantino's Jackie Brown, and also in Rob Zombie's films House of 1000 Corpses and The Devil's Rejects..
great movie for the time it was movie display of how blacks always thought they had to stay one step ahead of the man unfortunately the man always got his in the end but still manages to slip away.this movies show some great styles of the era and those who were of the same age of the character will always fill a sense of regaining a youth of times past but brought back today,you will really enjoy this movie even though you have already seen it see it again and drift away to that time i know i always like to watch it again ans again.look for the other Pam Grier movies they all seem to have her playing the heroine so if you don't mind a woman taking charge this is the movie for you.
Foxy Brown is a pretty good film and one of the better crime films from the 70's I've seen.
Foxy Brown (Pam Grier) goes after some vicious drug dealers after they kill her boyfriend.
"Foxy Brown" is probably as trashy and entertaining as they get, and the best thing about this movie, hands down, is the pitch-perfect casting of Pam Grier in the title role.
Undoubtedly the most iconic and famous movie of the genre Blaxploitation.Pam Grier gives life to this urban Amazon that is Foxy Brown with all the presence, energy and charisma that she needs to turn him into an already mythical character in the cinema.The film has that charming and nostalgic seventies aesthetic dominated by flared trousers and afro hair, so characteristic of the genre and the era and an appropriate soundtrack by Willie Hutch.It is also remarkable its good photography and is well set, although it is not as marginal and dark as other productions of the genre.
While arguably Pam Grier's best known work from the period when she owned the Blaxploitation genre, Foxy Brown is unfortunately the least satisfying offering from that chapter of her filmography.
If that sounds like a meager recommendation, it is, but if you're a fan of Blaxploitation films or Pam Grier, you already know you're going to see this.
Foxy Brown Low level 70s blaxploitation- starring Pam Grier as the title character- she is lovely- but this flick does not age well- the fight scenes are ludicrous and the plot extreme- her brother fingers her bf to the mob- she becomes a hooker- what?This movie is a hoot with a decent Willie Hutch soundtrack and cameos by Sid Haig and Antonio Fargas.If you looking for some 70s action with a strong female lead than this will be a decent 90 minute ride.On the audio commentary the director said that he wants to try his hand at romantic comedy- you know I think a catfight in a lesbian bar might of helped Wedding Date.
Writer & director Jack Hill's classic Blaxploitation thriller "Foxy Brown" stars Pam Grier as a soul sister who gets what she wants after the villains gun down her boyfriend.
"Foxy Brown" was the last of the four films that director Jack Hill and Grier worked together on; the other films were "The Big Doll House," "The Big Bird Cage," and "Coffy." Not for the squeamish!.
Desperately needing help he calls his sister "Foxy Brown" (Pam Grier) to rescue him from the two goons.
However, like many blaxploitation films during this time the dialogue and fashions cause this movie to seem quite dated.
While it was not as exciting as Pam Grier's prior film, COFFY, it was a little better aesthetically--with less of the cheesy violence (no exploding heads in this one) , but it still packs a mean punch and it's nice to see Grier's acting has improved.Like COFFY, FOXY BROWN is about a one-woman demolition team out to destroy a drug syndicate.
The PC crowd would go nuts if such a movie were released in 2005.Foxy Brown is the story of a woman looking for revenge after her boyfriend is gunned down in front of her house.
She's not going to let anyone, not even her brother, stand in the way of her mission.Foxy Brown works primarily because of two key ingredients - Pam Grier and Jack Hill. |
tt0093176 | Hello Mary Lou: Prom Night II | In 1957, seventeen-year-old Mary Lou Maloney (Lisa Schrage) enters a church, where she confesses her sins to the priest (Jay Smith), claiming to have disobeyed her parents, used the Lord's name in vain and had sinful relations with various boys. The pastor tells her that "these are great sins and she should prepare herself for the consequences." Before leaving, Mary Lou tells the priest that she loved every minute of it and leaves her phone number in the confession booth along with a written message: "For a good time call Mary Lou."
Later, at the 1957 prom at Hamilton High School, Mary Lou is attending with rich Billy Nordham who gives her a ring with her initials on it. Shortly after receiving Billy's ring, Mary Lou sends him off to get punch while she sneaks backstage with Buddy Cooper, where the two are found making out by Billy. Storming off after Mary Lou claims she used him, Billy, while in the washroom, overhears two boys preparing a stink bomb and, when the boys abandon the bomb in the trash due to a teacher approaching, Billy grabs it. When Mary Lou is crowned prom queen, Billy, having snuck up onto the catwalk, drops the bomb on her before she is crowned. To the horror of Billy and everyone in attendance, the fuse of the bomb ignites Mary Lou's dress and she dies after going up in flames, but not before seeing that Billy is the one who killed her.
Thirty years later, high school student Vicki Carpenter (Wendy Lyon) goes looking for a prom dress in the school prop room after being denied a new dress by her overly religious mother. While searching, Vicki finds an old trunk containing Mary Lou's prom queen accessories (her cape, sash, ring and crown) and takes them, releasing Mary Lou's Hell-bound spirit. After Vicki leaves Mary Lou's clothes in the art room after school, Vicki's friend Jess Browning (Beth Gondek) finds them and, after wedging a jewel out of the crown, is attacked by an unseen force and hung from a light by Mary Lou's cape. Jess's death is deemed a suicide caused by her despair over her recent discovery that she was pregnant.
After Jess's death, Vicki finds herself plagued by nightmarish hallucinations caused by Mary Lou and she confides in Buddy Cooper (Richard Monette), who is now a priest and, after hearing Vicki's stories, believes Mary Lou may be back. Going to Mary Lou's grave, where his bible bursts into flames, Buddy afterwards tries to warn Billy (now played by Michael Ironside), who is now the principal of Hamilton High and the father of Vicki's boyfriend Craig (Louis Ferreira); Buddy's warnings fall on deaf ears, with Billy refusing to believe that Mary Lou has returned to reclaim her title as prom queen and to take revenge on those who wronged her.
During a detention caused by her slapping her rival Kelly Hennenlotter (Terri Hawkes), who she envisioned was Mary Lou, Vicki is dragged into the classroom chalkboard, which turns to liquid. Taking control of Vicki's body, Mary Lou visits Buddy at the church and, revealing her identity to him, kills him by stabbing him in the face with a miniature crucifix. Disposing of Buddy's corpse, Mary Lou makes over Vicki's body, her new mannerisms and style of dress arousing the concern of Vicki's friend Monica Waters. After confronting Mary Lou in the girls locker room, Monica is murdered by Mary Lou when, after hiding from Mary Lou in a locker, she is crushed when Mary Lou makes the locker collapse in on her, causing Monica's brain to spurt out through the locker ventilation slits.
After Monica's murder, Mary Lou seduces Craig and lures him away under the pretense of having sex, only to knock him unconscious and afterward confront and taunt Billy, revealing her identity to him. Finding the injured Craig, Billy takes him home and knocks him back out when Craig tries to go after Mary Lou. With Craig unconscious, Billy digs up Mary Lou's grave and finds the dead Buddy in the coffin, which prompts him to acquire a gun and head to the prom. At Vicki's house, Mary Lou seduces Vicki's father Walt and is found kissing him by her mother Virginia, who tries to stop Mary Lou/Vicki from leaving for the prom, only to be telekinetically smashed through the front door.
Arriving at the prom, Mary Lou enjoys the festivities while Kelly, in order to become prom queen, fellates tally counter Josh as a bribe. When Josh changes the outcome of the votes to make Kelly winner instead of Vicki, Mary Lou, sensing this, electrocutes Josh through his computer and changes the outcome back. When she is crowned prom queen, Mary Lou goes up on stage, but is shot moments before getting her crown by Billy. Arriving after the shooting, Craig, reaching what appears to be the dying Vicki, is knocked back when Vicki changes into a charred corpse and then into Mary Lou. In the havoc caused by Mary Lou's appearance, Kelly is killed by a falling light fixture and Craig is chased into the school prop room by Mary Lou, who opens a vortex to the Underworld that begins to suck Craig in. Before Craig is pulled through the gateway, Billy arrives and places the crown on Mary Lou and kisses her, apparently appeasing her spirit, which vanishes, releasing Vicki.
With Mary Lou gone, Vicki and Craig leave with Billy, getting into his car. When Billy turns on the radio, Mary Lou's signature song "Hello Mary Lou" plays and Billy, revealing he is wearing Mary Lou's ring (apparently as revenge for killing her in the first place thirty years ago, Mary Lou had possessed him, making him her new host), drives off with the terrified Vicki and Craig. | revenge, murder, flashback | train | wikipedia | There seems to be a weird religious edge to it as well, as the girl possessed by Mary Lou asks the priest: "Will you pray for me?...Will you f**k me?" There's a hilarious line from the priest during a funeral, when he comments that the death should remind everyone of violence seen every day in life, on TV, and in films.
Good acting especially by Wendy Lyons as Vickie and Lisa Schrage as Mary Lou. If you like good horror movies like I do rent this one.
Lisa Schrage has the time of her life playing an over the top Mary Lou and Wendy Loyd channels Schrage's rage perfectly during her time "possessed".Not classic cinema but a fun way to kill a couple of hours with a wicked ending..
Clever, inventive, and funny totally non-related sequel to Prom Night takes various elements from just about every horror film and blends them together with successful results.
Wendy Lyon plays blonde-haired high-school goody-two-shoes Vicki Carpenter (just one of several characters in this film blessed with the surname of a horror director) who gradually becomes possessed by the vengeful spirit of promiscuous tart Mary Lou Maloney (Lisa Schrage), who was burnt to death during her high school prom in 1957 as a result of two men fighting for her affections.Before getting down to the messy business of exacting revenge on those responsible for her untimely demise, Mary Lou dispatches a couple of Vicki's closest friends (after all, practise make perfect), causing her next targets—local priest Father Cooper (Richard Monette) and high-school principal Bill Nordham (Michael Ironside)—to suspect that they might be next to die.
At the high school prom, Nordham attempts to stop the now fully possessed Vicki from causing further mayhem, but only succeeds in making the spirit within even more angry, ensuring everyone present has a totally unforgettable night.A non-related sequel to Prom Night, the 1980 Jamie Lee Curtis slasher, Hello, Mary Lou is an entertaining tale of revenge from beyond the grave featuring a grab-bag of supernatural elements borrowed from genre classics such as The Exorcist, A Nightmare on Elm Street, and Carrie.The result is a derivative slice of 80s teen horror that is rather light on the gore (why, oh why, didn't they chop fashion disaster Jess's head off like they threatened to do?), but which is still lots of fun thanks to some great performances from a decent cast (including the always superb Michael Ironside) and a couple of surprisingly risqué scenes: Lyon strips off and gives us full-frontal as she hops in the shower with (big) bosom(ed) pal Monica (Beverly Hendry); nasty prom queen hopeful Kelly (Terri Hawkes) gives a blow-job to a lucky computer geek to convince him to rig the evening's voting; and the possessed Vicki not only comes on to her principal and a priest, but also her own father!!!Throw in some Elm Street-style nightmare scenes, the most memorable of which has a rocking horse come to life, and a daft 'shock' ending, and what you have is an eminently watchable time-waster..
While the original Prom Night was a straight slasher film, this time we get a possession/supernatural story.
Lisa Schrage is delicious as the evil Mary Lou Maloney and Michael Ironside is running around in it also as the principal of Hamilton High (always a nice bonus in any movie, this man).
Wendy Lyon (as the possessed Vicky Carpenter) provides some very unexpected full frontal nudity, resulting in a scene featuring the best kill of the movie.
This is why the Prom Night sequels are so embarrassingly bad.The original film entailed a group of children hiding a dark secret that eventually get them all killed, bar one, in a brutal act of revenge.
Some scenes are really bizarre, like possessed Vicky on her rocking horse or the blackboard that turns into a smutty pool, but whenever the script doesn't try to be overly ambitious, "Hello Mary Lou: Prom Night II" is harmless 80'entertainment..
This would be a great film on it's own, I don't know why the producers saw it necessary to leach onto the "Prom Night" title when this is actually a totally different movie.
Michael Ironside puts on a great performance in this as the man responsible for Mary Lou's fiery death who later becomes the high school principal and whose son is dating the girl who has been possessed by the spirit of the vengeful Mary Lou. There are a couple of attempts to blatantly rip off "The Excorcist" and some inconsistencies in the story line but all in all this is a fun little flick and you don't need to watch the original to appreciate it since it's a totally different movie..
There's one scene I had to rewind a few times to see again, and that was when Vicki and the other prom queen nominee were talking the day or two after Jess's death, and the nominee said something mean referring to Jess, and Vicki returned with, "You shut your f-ing (don't know if I can curse or not) mouth, you bitch!" That really got me loving the movie.
Michael Ironside plays the principal of the school, the man responsible for the girl's death decades earlier.Sometimes subtitled "Hello Mary Lou," "Prom Night II" (1987) is disconnected from the original 1980 film with Jamie Lee Curtis, although there are some trivial links.
This one discards the disco dancing while upping the ante with the "Carrie" (1976) elements and mixing in components from the first two "A Nightmare on Elm Street" flicks (1984/1985), like the illusions and possession.The original was more of a coming-of-age drama/whodunit with a masked assailant appearing in the last act whereas this sequel is actually a little better in that it adds creative horror pizazz, which some might say makes it "cheesy." In any case, Wendy Lyon stands out as the winsome protagonist who's shown totally nude on a few occasions in the second half which ties-in with the possession angle.If you favor any of those other horror films noted above, "Prom Night II" is arguably on par, although I suppose "Carrie" is superior on a technical level.The movie runs 1 hour, 37 minutes and was shot in Edmonton, Alberta, with other stuff (post-production) done in Toronto.GRADE: B.
Loose sequel to "Prom Night" only uses the same high school, Hamilton High, where another horror takes place as the vengeful spirit of Mary Lou Maloney, who was accidentally killed at her senior prom thirty years previous, is unleashed from a trunk(?!) by Vicki Carpenter(Wendy Lyon) who is dating the son of principal Bill Nordham,(played by Michael Ironside) who, just by one of those standard movie coincidences, happens to be Mary Lou's old boyfriend that she blames for her fiery death.
So evil Mary Lou possesses poor Vicki to destroy Bill, and be crowned senior prom queen, no matter who has to die...Typically violent and idiotic horror exploitation is just another illogical and crass film where the supernatural protagonist has all kinds of superpowers because the script says they do, with no regard to plausibility or coherence, with the ending being the final insult..
HELLO MARY LOU: PROM NIGHT II is such a cheesy film that if you watch it, your cholesterol level will rise exponentially.
The actress who plays Mary Lou, Lisa Schrage, was 15 years too old and watching her play a teenager is bad enough but having her play a teenage girl possessed by the vengeful spirit of dead teen girl is too much.
Watching her vamping it and trying to have sex with anything with a heartbeat (including her dad) was the funniest and yet unfortunate thing I've ever seen.Nevermind that the story is dumber than a box of rocks, nevermind that the effects are horrendous (in the final "Carrie" scene, you can see makeup fx coming off actors' skin), nevermind that the cast is befuddled and embarrassed by it all (Michael Ironside is almost as bad as Schrage), nevermind the cinematography is just plain ugly, nevermind the fact that this awfully titled "sequel" has nothing to do with the first film, HELLO MARY LOU: PROM NIGHT II is pure, unadulterated cheese on the merit of Lisa Schrage's ne-plus-ultra performance.
Her jealous date, who just wanted to embarrass her in front of the school, accidentally set her ablaze.30 years later, nosy goody-two-shoes Vicki Carpenter, opens a treasure chest that contains a few relics from Mary Lou's prom night of 1957.
Mary Lou wants three things above all, revenge for her murder, numerous sexual encounters and to be crowned as this year's prom queen.
Paul Zaza's score should be released on CD,Lisa Schrage should've won an oscar for her Bedazzling Performance as Mary Lou,Wendy Lyon was fantastic, especially in that blue dress, but last but not least is Brock Simpson, HE IS THE MAN!!!!I busted a gut through the whole movie, He was so Funny!!!(He was in all the prom night films and worked with writer Ron Oliver on Liar's Edge.)I mean him and Randy from Scream could become the next Siskel & Ebert!
Or rather possessing Vicki Carpenter (Wendy Lyon) who is dating the son of Bill Nordham (Michael Ironside) who was hurt by Mary Lou 30 years prior on prom night.
In the film, hot-to-trot hussy, Mary Lou, gets her comeuppance when a jilted boyfriend accidentally sets her ablaze during her crowning as Prom Queen.
Thirty years later, she returns to her old stomping grounds to possess a new Prom Queen hopeful and to hassle her old boyfriend, played by Michael Ironside, who just so happens to have grown up to be the principal of their high school.More "A Nightmare on Elm Street" meets "Carrie" than "Halloween" or "Friday The 13th," "Prom Night II" is a quirky but entertaining sequel.
Overall, "Hello Mary Lou: Prom Night II" is an entertaining if not odd little sequel that will entertain those who love their '80s cheese dished up with a bit of the strange..
Plenty of scare factor, lots of wonder, "Hello Mary Lou: Prom Night II" is one movie that makes the first one, nonexistent.
Eschewing the straight forward minimalist slasher approach of the first Prom Night movie, this sequel in name only goes for a more supernatural, fantastical style more reminiscent of the Nightmare on Elm Street movies with it's dream sequences, reality bending and revenge from beyond the grave plot.
If anything it reminds me to a certain extent of a gender reversed A Nightmare on Elm Street 2 with it's central possession plot, but with less homoerotic undertones, no exploding budgies and no Grady.Hello Mary Lou seems to aim toward being a fun, cheesy horror movie as well as trying to be more serious and creepy.
Lisa Schrage is satisfyingly malevolent as Mary Lou, Wendy Lyon is an adequate and likable lead doing well as the good girl and possessed and Michael Ironside is as fun to watch as ever.If you like cheesy eighties horror you could do a lot worse..
Hello Mary Lou: Prom Night II wasn't very scary, but I have to say that it was a lot of fun.
Now it's thirty years later and she's inhabiting the body of a teenage girl, still wanting to be prom queen...at any cost.There's much more to the festivities than a routine slasher film usually offers, plus a great ending..
We skip thirty years later, where it's Prom Night again and Mary Lou possesses a hopeful prom queen Vicki, who stumbles across her chest of gear in the school's basement."Prom Night" was a mildly interesting slasher from the early eighties, but had too many flat moments, but it's unrelated sequel "Hello Mary Lou" improves on it greatly and adds a new spin to it.
I don't know if this or NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET 3 was released first, but even if PN 2 came out after it still deserves a solid B+ when it comes to innovative deaths and horror (The evil, living rocking horse is one of my faves, to this date.) Another thing that the viewer should keep in mind is that this film came out with the self-referential idea (There are jokes made in relation to THE EXORCIST.) over a DECADE before the SCREAM series!
This was probably a gag that was missed by any those who disliked the film.Anyways, watch this film and its equally creative (with more black comedy) sequel -- PROM NIGHT 3: THE LAST KISS -- when feel like watching a criminally underrated horror movie of any decade.
High school slut Mary Lou Maloney (Lisa Schrage) dies in 1957 on prom night due to an accidental fire caused by her spurned boyfriend.
It's about a glamorous goody-two-shoes girl next door named Vicki who gets possessed by the spirit of a glamorous 1950's bad girl named Mary Lou, who died in a cruel prank on prom night.
After opening a box down in the school's basement, Vicki releases Mary Lou's spirit - which begins possessing Vicki, and plans on taking revenge as this year's prom nears.This is your typical '80s horror movie, it is pretty cheesy at times but was surprisingly alright for it's type.
The only thing this sequel has in common with the original "Prom Night" is the school, Hamilton High, but other than that, this is just a supernatural horror movie, not a slasher like it's predecessor.
I enjoyed some of the sequences in this movie, especially the scene with Vicki's friend who is killed in the art room by Mary Lou's spirit.
"Hello Mary Lou: Prom Night II" took the series in a radically different direction, one of quasi-comedic supernatural horror.
Thirty years later, good girl Vicki Carpenter stumbles upon Mary Lou's tiara in an old store room.
The creepy rocking horse returns for a late moment of incestuous kissing, easily the film's most disquieting bit.The stand-out moment of "Hello Mary Lou" comes after Vicki is completely taken over by the evil ghost.
The final scene, which I will not detail except to say it involves Ironside behind a wheel, much like one scene in Highlander II, effortlessly achieves the fear factor that the rest of the film so desperately tries for.So what else does Hello Mary Lou: Prom Night II have to recommend it?
Her spirit then comes back 30 years later via possessing high-school good girl, Vicki Carpenter, to get revenge and have the prom night that she's alway wanted in this (in name only) sequel to the classic Jamie Lee Curtis starrer.Micheal Ironside, usually quite a good actor, seems to sleepwalk through most of the film as Mary Lou's ex, now principal of the high school and every scene he's in brings the film down.
And the girl who plays Mary Lou in Prom Night 3 looks like Monica Lewinsky..
starring: Michael Ironside, Wendy Lyon, Lisa Schrage, Justin Louis, and Richard Monette.plot: In 1957, Mary Lou Maloney (Lisa Schrage) burned to death right before being crowned prom queen.
If you like The Exorcist, Carrie, A Nightmare on Elm Street, or Prom Night, see this movie!.
Poor tenderhearted innocent, Vicki Carpenter(Wendy Lyon), the lonely teenage daughter of a repressed religiously fanatical Catholic mother(obviously modeled after Piper Laurie in CARRIE) and pu ss y whipped father, is invaded by the vengeful spirit of Mary Lou Maloney(Lisa Schrage, a real sex kitten who isn't in this film nearly long enough), who seeks retribution for the one responsible for her tragic demise.
Clearly an 80's spoof of CARRIE among other films, HELLO MARY LOU, PROM NIGHT II is a black-hearted horror-comedy loaded with off-the-wall special effects, taking cheerful jabs at Catholicism, with a priest getting a certain symbol shoved down his throat when Mary Lou, working through Vicki as her host, complains about not even getting wings after her death.
This film is not a squeal or is in any way related to the Jamie Lee Curtis classic.The promiscuous Mary Lou Maloney (Lisa Schrage) upsets her date Bill (Steve Atkinson) at the prom as it seems she has had sex with everyone in school except him.
It also owes a fair amount to Stephen King's "Carrie".We are introduced in Prom Night II to the memorable "Mary Lou Maloney", who plays a main role again in the third film of the series.
Bud (Richard Monette) is now a priest, that terrible night 30 years ago still haunt both Bill & Bud. One day Vicki is looking around the schools basement when she discovers a large trunk which she opens, this turns out to be a bad move as the vengeful spirit of Mary Lou is set free & is intent on claiming her crown as prom queen & in her spare time sets out to avenge her untimely death.
Originally entitled The Haunting of Hamilton High, this film is rife with horror trivia, such as lockers that look exactly like A Nightmare on Elm Street, allusions to Carrie and a character who references The Exorcist.
Mary Lou takes Vicki home and makes out with her father and then tosses her mother through a door.At the prom, evil girl Kelly gives Josh, the geeky horror movie fan, a blowjob in order to win the prom queen crown.
Basically, badass Mary Lou – the best character in the film, gets her just deserves by burning to death in 1957 at her prom and is inadvertently resurrected 30 years later to cause random FX on her old school.Ahhh, the 80s.
~Spoiler~ Hello Mary Lou: Prom Night II is actually a much more enjoyable film than the original.
Prom Night II has some good sequences but it mainly borrows its ideas from other horror films most heavily from the "Nightmare on Elm Street" series.
The same thing happened to me concerning "Hello Mary Lou: Prom Night 2" I saw this one for the first time about 10 years ago, and last weekend, I re-rented it, because I remembered it being this great nail-biting horror that was written and acted superbly. |
tt1129412 | Circle | The story follows the exploits of Chichikov, a middle-aged gentleman of middling social class and means. Chichikov arrives in a small town and turns on the charm to woo key local officials and landowners. He reveals little about his past, or his purpose, as he sets about carrying out his bizarre and mysterious plan to acquire "dead souls."
The government would tax the landowners based on how many serfs (or "souls") the landowner owned, determined by the census. Censuses in this period were infrequent, so landowners would often be paying taxes on serfs that were no longer living, thus the "dead souls." It is these dead souls, existing on paper only, that Chichikov seeks to purchase from the landlords in the villages he visits; he merely tells the prospective sellers that he has a use for them, and that the sellers would be better off anyway, since selling them would relieve the present owners of a needless tax burden.
Although the townspeople Chichikov comes across are gross caricatures, they are not flat stereotypes by any means. Instead, each is neurotically individual, combining the official failings that Gogol typically satirizes (greed, corruption, paranoia) with a curious set of personal quirks.
Setting off for the surrounding estates, Chichikov at first assumes that the ignorant provincials will be more than eager to give their dead souls up in exchange for a token payment. The task of collecting the rights to dead people proves difficult, however, due to the persistent greed, suspicion, and general distrust of the landowners. He still manages to acquire some 400 souls, swears the sellers to secrecy, and returns to the town to have the transactions recorded legally.
Back in the town, Chichikov continues to be treated like a prince amongst the petty officials, and a celebration is thrown in honour of his purchases. Very suddenly, however, rumours flare up that the serfs he bought are all dead, and that he was planning to elope with the Governor's daughter. In the confusion that ensues, the backwardness of the irrational, gossip-hungry townspeople is most delicately conveyed. Absurd suggestions come to light, such as the possibility that Chichikov is Napoleon in disguise or the notorious vigilante 'Captain Kopeikin'. The now disgraced traveller is immediately ostracized from the company he had been enjoying and has no choice but to flee the town in disgrace.
Chichikov is revealed by the author to be a former mid-level government official fired for corruption and narrowly avoiding jail. His macabre mission to acquire "dead souls" is actually just another one of his "get rich quick" schemes. Once he acquires enough dead souls, he will take out an enormous loan against them, and pocket the money.
In the novel's second section, Chichikov flees to another part of Russia and attempts to continue his venture. He tries to help the idle landowner Tentetnikov gain favor with General Betrishchev so that Tentetnikov may marry the general's daughter, Ulinka. To do this, Chichikov agrees to visit many of Betrishchev's relatives, beginning with Colonel Koshkaryov. From there Chichikov begins again to go from estate to estate, encountering eccentric and absurd characters all along the way. Eventually he purchases an estate from the destitute Khlobuyev but is arrested when he attempts to forge the will of Khlobuyev's rich aunt. He is pardoned thanks to the intervention of the kindly Mourazov but is forced to flee the village. The novel ends mid-sentence with the prince who arranged Chichikov's arrest giving a grand speech that rails against corruption in the Russian government. | murder | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0145505 | Susan's Plan | Susan Holland is a suburbanite woman who plots to kill her wealthy husband Paul in order to collect his life insurance policy. Though Susan's adultrous lover, Sam Meyers, she hires two incompetent criminals, named Bill and Steve, to kill Paul and make it look like a mugging gone wrong. However, when Bill and Steve show up as expected and shoot Paul outside his car in a parking lot, Paul survives and is taken to the hospital. Undaunted, Susan insists on continuing with her plans to kill Paul by having hiring a biker, named Bob, to carry out the deed while Paul is recovering in the hospital. Bob enlists a former prostitute, named Betty Johnson, to seduce Dr. Chris Stillman, the doctor treating Paul, to have the doctor move Paul to a private hospital room for Bob to isolate and kill Paul.
However, Susan's plan starts to unravel when a suspicious police detective, Detective Scott, begins suspecting her of having a hand in the attempt on Paul's life, and Sam's ex-wife, Penny, learns about the plot and wants in on part of Paul's life insurance money. Both Bill and Steve continue to insist to Susan to pay them for their work anyway despite they failed to kill Paul as planned. All through the film are funny and shocking fantasy sequences from various characters of their fears over being caught or shot by their own accomplices as details of the plan to kill Paul begins to fall apart.
Despite circumstances, Bob does manage to sneak into Paul's hospital room and kills him by smothering him with a pillow and makes a quick getaway. However, the next day, as Susan and Sam are planning to go to the police station to give their statement and pay off Bill and Steve for their work, Detective Scott and several policemen arrive and arrest all of them when security cameras at the hospital captured all of the events leading up to Paul's murder. When Bob arrives at Susan's house and the police move into arrest him, he attempts to run and opens fire at the policemen, but gets shot and killed trying to escape. Steve is shot and killed by a stray bullet in the crossfire. Susan is taken away to jail, while Sam's ex-wife Penny is also arrested due to her knowledge of the plot. Only Betty manages to slip away.
In the final scene, with Susan, Sam, Bill, and Penny all in prison serving their time, and the bodies of Bob, Steve, and Paul at the local morgue, Betty is shown to be living in Las Vegas in the free and clear and working as a casino cocktail waitress. When Dr. Stillman happens to visit the casino with his wife while on vacation, he spots and recognizes Betty working there under her new alias and knows that she had a hand in Paul's murder. But Dr. Stillman, fearing a negative reaction from his wife if she learned about his brief sexual tryst with Betty, pretends not to know who Betty is and lets her go while he continues his holiday in Vegas with his wife. | comedy | train | wikipedia | We picked up the DVD and thought, "Hey, with a cast like this and with John Landis directing, it's got to be worth at least a look.
I mean, Landis did 'Blues Brothers', didn't he?" I also need to point out that we are big Dan Ackroyd fans and will watch, at least once, anything the man puts on film.
Man, were we disappointed.Rather than beat a dead horse, we'll just throw a few adjectives and phrases your direction: disjointed, bad editing, failing jokes (the fart jokes were the funniest, if this gives you an idea), no closure, redundant, unnecessary and distracting segues, gratuitous sex scenes (although Lara Flynn Boyles is very appealing, just not enough screen time to make it interesting!).We watched this movie and braved the hour and a half hoping it would get better and that the cacophony of subplots would somehow congeal into a cohesive crescendo.
Just got worse and left us feeling like we wasted the popcorn.Do not rent this movie.
If you need a Dan Ackroyd fix, just rent "Grosse Pointe Blank" or even "Ghostbusters." And if you need a Rob Schneider fix, I understand 'Deuce Bigalow' was 'Citizen Kane' compared to this fine piece of...art..
Although funny at moments "Susan's plan" fails to provide a meaningful plot, it basically revolves around money, the amount of which is not even revealed.
The positive side of this movie is you get to see practically every female actress in it naked.
The stunningly beautiful Lara Flynn Boyle is one of the main reasons why I give this movie 6/10.
For example, we are told that Adrian Paul's character was bad and we're supposed to believe his death would not be a tremendous loss.
And if I had to see one more scene of gratuitous sex, I think I may have become violently ill.This supposedly is a comedy.
Many scenes seem completely pointless, and many others seem to be designed solely because somebody promised somebody that he/she could be in the movie and a minor cameo had to be created.
If anyone can explain why that character was necessary, I'll give him/her a dollar -- and that's nearly one-fourth of the total amount I wasted renting this movie!)It will be a very cold day in a notoriously hot place before I feel compelled to waste a couple of hours on this one again..
I can't really say that this was a good movie, as much as I'd like to say so, but some of the performances in the film are pretty funny.
I think Michael Biehn is terrific and he is easily the best character in the film.
I also think Rob Schneider and Billy Zane give good supporting performances.
Some of the gags are hilarious, but this Landis film can't compare to most of the stuff he's done in the past..
I liked this movie only because Nastassja Kinski starred in it, and it was kind of a different role for her.
I wish the movie had been better scripted and edited.
Why should we think Adrian Paul is worth killing?
Not John Landis's proudest moment.
I'm not sure what his last movie was before directing (and writing!) this forgettable dark comedy, but it seems as if he took a long break from the business.
You would think he'd make a big revival, after his many successes with such hit comedies as "Animal House," "Trading Places" and "Coming to America." Wrong.
The film never quite hits the comic bull's eye, but it starts out on a positive note with many funny and entertaining moments.
Towards the end, the one-joke premise is stretched to the point where we're watching a series of violent dream sequences, which get quite repetitive.
The film loses all focus, and the audience is given the run-around.
Those who saw Landis's landmark comedy "Animal House" know his tendency to insert gratuitous nudity to catch the attention of his male viewers, but in that film it better fit the tone.
I don't know if it was exactly necessary to show Thomas Haden-Church doing Lara Flynn Boyle doggystyle.
Though I was laughing most of the way, I couldn't help but feel this film was way under par--especially for a man of Landis's talent.
The last thirty minutes is all over the map, and Landis seemed to have written those final scenes in his sleep.
I actually didn't expect this film to very funny, as the cover mostly made it look like more of an action movie - but as it turns out it was very very funny.
Most comedies nowadays have enough good jokes in them to last about ten minutes, but John Landis proves that movies like this still can be made..
Good "black comedy".
It's little unusual genre for John Landis.
I got used to his good comedies, like "Coming to America" or "Trading places".
This one is good movie too and it's "black comedy".
But I like this movie.
Characters during the whole movie find oneselves to the most stupid situation.
So I can call this movie "The standard of black comedies"..
What the hell has happened to John Landis?
The reason I watched this was for the cast, which boasts many talented performers, but I felt bad for them by the end, which is a slapdash mess.
The film starts off promisingly enough, but much like the titular `
Plan', this movie falls apart by the third act.
One of the rules of this site discourages blowing the ends of movies, and I'll respect that, but be prepared for a weak, very predictable conclusion.
This film is also chockablock with dream sequences, which were a forgivable indulgence in `An American Werewolf in London', but in this seemed like a copout filmic device for audience misdirection that mainly seemed included to pad out a very thin script to feature length.
It's also got plenty of gratuitous female nudity, which is pleasant to look at, but kind of made me feel bad for the actresses, especially Lara Flynn Boyle.
In this case I think the actresses were exploited, but hey, it's a Landis movie.
Maybe an adequately diverting watch on cable if you're laid low by the flu or something, but if you're feeling fine, watch a good movie or go out and enjoy your life.
Ninety minutes could be better spent doing something other than becoming embroiled in `Susan's Plan'..
I've seen this film this evening with my wife and I'm very perplexed about it.
I think John Landis is near a genius - The Blues Brothers are there to show it - but this is a tired film with some great gags.
The cast of characters is very good and Dan (Aykroyd, obviously) play a splendid cameo but I'm not satisfied at all.
People had been dumping on this film a lot so I made sure to check all the other Landis movies I could before trying this one out.
Susan's Plan is a low budget "a bunch of people talking to each other" movie with a very simple plot - the title character comes up with a plan to whack her ex husband with the help of her friends and split the insurance money, but the plan goes wrong and hilarity ensues.Susan's Plan, even if obviously smaller, is still classic Landis.
The low budget is compensated by a strong narrative and a myriad of colorful characters who're rather at home in the Dream On universe, than in bigger Landis movies.
Almost everybody in this movie is famous for one thing or the other, even the small parts, just check out the cast.
The most unexpected performance comes from Michael Biehn, I'm not sure if he ever played something so funny and against type, because it's a role one would expect Jim Carey to play.
Susan's Plan feels constructed around cheap and accessible locations and well known, but inexpensive actors, and it's very well done at that.
At just 85 minutes it appears to have some padding scenes of various importance, like characters' dream sequences, Susan's day job as a teacher, or Stuart Gordon as a doctor telling a dirty joke, but it's done to make a full creative use of a location.
One thing that I found amazing was how Landis and his actors manage to switch between something really funny, or plain silly to something suspenseful and genuinely scary almost all in a single scene.
Overall it's a small crime comedy for midnight TV that looks bigger than it actually is.
Great cast, hillarious film!.
I rented this movie becuase Michael Biehn was in it, and found it surprisingly good.
However, the film is also filled with humorous portayls by Lara Flynn Bolye, Nastassja Kinski and Billy Zane.
Rob Schneider, Thomas Haden Church and Adrian Paul also give semi-funny performences, and Dan Akroyd plays a barely believable, but funny role as "Bob".
The plot is very cliched and rather normal, but the film is very funny and the charecters interesting to watch.
Highly reccomended to fans of Biehn, Kinski, Boyle or just fans of good comedies..
In case you haven't seen the movie.
Did Paul (adrian paul) die in the movie or what.
Adrian paul's character calls his ex-wife susan(nastassja kinski)and says he been been in an accident but he is fine.so is he dead or what, or was it all a scam.Then at the end it shows betty (lara flynn boyle) in vegas who happens to run into the doctor (thomas hayden church),when he asks her how she's been.
This would only make sense if paul"s character really died.
I really liked the film thought it was very funny,I laughed a lot..
A pretty funny movie scarred with a bizarre ending and a weak plot..
Stars: Natassja Kinski, Billy Zane, Lara Flynn Boyle, Rob Schnieder, Michael Bien, Dan Aykroyd, Thomas Hayden Church and Joey Travolta.This was a genuinely funny movie with great performances.
It's a kill the husband get the money plotted film, but John Landis's script is surprisingly fresh.
His lack of humor in the film is actually the funniest part of it.
Schnieder and Bien are good as the two buddies in the film.
Now my problem with the film was the horrible ending.
The plot felt so unresolved and it ended on such a horrible note that it ruined the rest of the film for me.My rating: ** out of ****.
Funny until the ending.
Right up until the ending, I had been enjoying this film.
It's dark humour and well defined characters brought together by a great cast.
It was very interesting to watch Michael Biehn play someone very different to his usual characters.The only (and unfortunately, quite a major) drawback to this film was its ending, which made it look like the writer ran out of ideas and after deciding they were bored, quickly slammed on a hurried ending.
It just amazes me that John Landis- genius behind Animal House, Blues Brothers, American Werewolf in London, Coming to America and Spies like Us, was responsible for this waste of time.
With some wonderful names attached to this film you would expect to see some great acting...
All the main cast were superb in their roles.So why am I not enthusing over this film.
It had all the trappings of being exceptional but, perhaps it went a little too far overboard and became a little confusing - in the 'why did the Director want to do that?' sense of the word.The highs: Michael Biehn as the inept, would-be-killer, Bill, stuck in the closet with panicking Billy Zane's Insurance salesman and Bill's 'flatulent' best buddy.Dan Ackroyd in a wonderful deadpan role as 'Bob'.The Lows: The script - it was a little too flat and I am amazed the actors did such a great job given some of the lines they had to work with..
With the introductory titles at the beginning of the movie, one can sense that this film is in big trouble.
The first set of scenes seems to set the tenor of the movie and is a grand hint that what follows has the potential of being awful.
Somewhere about the 30 minute mark, it becomes exceedingly difficult to suppress the thought that the producer, director, and writer, John Landis, should not be taken outside and shot.
It is amazing how he can take a more than capable cast and have most of them looking like low IQ dimwits.
The movie's only saving grace is that it is highly uneven, meaning that there is something there to almost balance out its dreadfulness, but not quite.
That factor is Dan Aykroyd whose reputation as a comedian proceeds him and without that awareness, the movie would be a complete failure.
The basic plot of the movie is contained within its title, "Dying to Get Rich!
--- Susan's Plan," and revolves around Susan, played by Nastassja Kinski, scheming to get rid of her ex-husband to collect his insurance money.
Characterizing the film as a "black comedy" cannot mask its gross deficiencies.
It is painful to watch an actress of Nastassja's caliber having to mouth some of the lines that are liberally interspersed with a four letter word, starting with "f" and ending in "k." This must be a Guinness world record for Nastassja uttering the "f" word in any of her movies.
It is my fervent hope that Nastassja will never have to attend a film festival of her works and have to provide commentary on a frame to frame basis for this movie.
Because this movie is like a sitting duck, it is too easy to blast it out of the water.
The awkwardness and stiffness of some of the scenes should constitute a nice lesson on how-not-to-make a movie.
This movie sucked big time.
I like this special comedy with much of neurotic fun very much.
Susan's Plan is to kill her husband, and the film shows us many versions, how people to do it.
The night on the swimming pool, with Susan the whisky and him is very strange.A film about possibilities against realities, about the opposition between dreaming and real-life.
A neurotic comedy like Woody Allens "Borris Gruschenko", where he is planning (together with the Diane Keaton) to kill Napoleon (and they kill double of Napoleon).
Nastassja as Susan in one of her best roles in the last ten years.
Very good is the scene, where she is sitting in the car and reading Stephen King.
Hard to say what went wrong with this movie.
Great cast and a director famous for his funny films - but somehow the pieces of the puzzle don't fit together.
Except for the unexpected dream sequences, the film holds few surprises and just doesn't make me laugh as often as it should.
Worth watching for the fans of Dan Aykroyd, though, because he's never had the opportunity to play such a mean tough guy before (as far as I know).
Nastassja Kinski still got the magic: I love the moment in the prison cell, when she looks at the other prisoner and doesn't know if she wants to cry or laugh...
GREAT FILM, BUT NOT ON TAPE OR DVD BUT ON CINEMAX.
This excellent indie film by John Landis was thankfully shown on late night Cinemax where it could be taped.
An intelligent and funny film with great acting and directing..
Susan's Plan.
Incoherent, unfunny John Landis comedy about a team of buffoons who try to pull off the perfect crime.
This is a funny, nonsense movie that should not ever be taken literally.
Most of the lists (including the one broadcasted on Max) neglect to mention Adrian Paul as the guy all the others are trying to kill.
Anyway, at the showing here in Dallas my daughter-in-law went with me to the film festival.
She really likes John Landis & was thrilled to meet him & get his autograph.
Mr.Landis asked her if I approved of how he used him in the film.
Since this was the first time I had the opportunity to see Mr. Paul on the big screen, it is a night I shan't forget.
In most of the comments I've seen, haven't seen any comments on Adrian Paul's performance.
I happen to be a rather big fan of his and am trying to be patient about when I will be able to see the movie.
I have no idea of when it goes to video and if the networks are going to air it, but I am sure everyone on the film did a bang up job, and I mean everyone, including the grips and other BEHIND the scene peoples..
I really wanted to love this movie.
It had a great cast and
John Landis!
But
This is not a Landis movie, just some sub-par Tarantino-likestory, lazily executed, where annoying nightmares takes up the role ofthe disjointed-time sequences you find in any Tarantino wanabee (Andthere are already too many of 'em
).
This movie is just fun, I liked it, and that's all that matters in the end of the day.
It had great jokes, great acting, and I felt the dreams bit were edge of your sit stuff.
Small, amusing John Landis film.
That's what it was, a small, amusing, John Landis film.The plot is simple.
Woman and her lover hires people to kill her no good ex-husband for the insurance money.
Watch this movie for the actors.
Michael Biehn plays against type as a weirdo, and he's very good.
Billy Zane is funny and gorgeous, and so is Natassia Kinski as the scheming woman who want to do away with her husband, the incredibly handsome, sexy Adrian Paul.This is a nice movie with some very funny moments, unfortunately the story and the dialog could've been written better.
I think that's why this movie never went to the theaters.Personally, I liked the movie for its' quirky characters and good acting.
Rent this movie when there's nothing else to do on the weekend. |
tt0383385 | Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas | === Setting ===
Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas takes place in 1992 within the state of San Andreas, which is based on sections of California and Nevada. It comprises three major fictional cities: Los Santos corresponds to Los Angeles, San Fierro corresponds to San Francisco, and Las Venturas corresponds to Las Vegas. The environments around these cities are also based on settings within the Southwestern region of the United States. Players can drive up the half-mile (800 m) tall Mount Chiliad (based on Mount Diablo), parachute from various peaks and skyscrapers, and visit 12 rural towns and villages located in five counties: Red County, Flint County, Bone County, Tierra Robada, and Whetstone. Other notable destinations include Sherman Dam (based on the Hoover Dam), a large secret military base called Area 69 (based on Area 51), a large satellite dish (based on a dish from the Very Large Array), Vinewood (based on Hollywood) and the Vinewood sign (based on the Hollywood sign) which is located in Mulholland, and many other geographical features. The bridges in San Fierro are based on the Forth road and rail bridges which link Edinburgh, the home of Rockstar North, to Fife although the road bridge is highly similar to the San Francisco–Oakland Bay Bridge. San Andreas is 13.9 square miles (36 square kilometres), almost four times as large as Vice City and five times as large as the Grand Theft Auto III rendition of Liberty City. The three cities are linked by numerous highways, a train system, and air travel. While its predecessors' areas were limited to urban locations, San Andreas includes not only large cities and suburbs, but also the rural areas between them.
=== Gangs ===
The main character is a member of the Grove Street Families street gang, a set of a gang that also includes the initially-hostile Temple Drive and Seville Boulevard Families. The two main rival gangs are the Ballas and Los Santos Vagos, both based out of Los Santos. The Varrios Los Aztecas also operate in Los Santos. The main gangs of San Fierro are the San Fierro Rifa, led by T-Bone Mendez; the Da Nang Boys, a Vietnamese gang; and the San Fierro Triads, whose leader Wu Zi Mu forms an alliance with Carl. In Las Venturas, the only gangs are the Triads (run by Wu Zi Mu) and the Italian Mafia (consisting of the Forellis, Sindaccos, and Leones). The "Loco Syndicate" appears in the San Fierro mission chain, essentially made up of T-Bone Mendez's Rifa gangsters, Mike Toreno and a pimp Jizzy B. In addition, the Russian Mafia makes a few small appearances in the storyline.
=== Characters ===
The characters that appear in San Andreas are relatively diverse and relative to the respective cities and locales which each of them based himself in. This allows the game to include a significantly wider array of story lines and settings than in Grand Theft Auto III and Vice City. The player controls Carl "CJ" Johnson (Young Maylay), a young African-American gang member who serves as the game's protagonist.
The Los Santos stages of the game revolve around the theme of the Grove Street Families gang fighting with the Ballas and the Vagos for territory and respect. East Asian gangs (most notably the local Triads), an additional Vietnamese gang (the Da Nang Boys), and a force of Hispanic thugs working for the local "Loco Syndicate" (the San Fierro Rifa) are evident in the San Fierro leg of the game, while three Mafia families and the Triads who all own their respective casino are more prominently featured in the Las Venturas section of the game.
Like the previous two Grand Theft Auto games, the voice actors of San Andreas include notable celebrities, such as David Cross, Andy Dick, Ron Foster, Samuel L. Jackson, James Woods, Peter Fonda, Charlie Murphy, Frank Vincent, Chris Penn, Danny Dyer, Sara Tanaka, William Fichtner, Wil Wheaton, rappers Ice-T, Chuck D, Frost, MC Eiht and The Game and musicians George Clinton, Axl Rose, Sly and Robbie and Shaun Ryder. Young Maylay made his debut as the protagonist, Carl.
The Guinness World Records 2009 Gamer's Edition lists it as the video game with the largest voice cast, with 861 credited voice actors, including 174 actors and 687 additional performers, many of those performers being fans of the series who wanted to appear on the game.
=== Plot ===
In 1992, Carl "CJ" Johnson returns to Los Santos after spending five years living in Liberty City when his brother Sean "Sweet" Johnson calls to inform him of their mom's death. Shortly after leaving the airport, CJ is intercepted by a group of corrupt Los Santos Police Department (LSPD) CRASH officers led by Frank Tenpenny, and followed by cops Eddie Pulaski and Jimmy Hernandez. Tenpenny implicates CJ in the murder of a cop named Pendlebury, that the Pulaski, Tenpenny, and Hernandez are responsible for, as he was on the verge of exposing him to Internal Affairs, and threatens to frame him for it if he does not work with them.
CJ returns to his former home on Grove Street and reunites with his brother Sweet, his sister Kendl, and members of his old gang, Big Smoke and Ryder. Finding that the Grove Street Families (GSF) have lost much of their territory while he was gone, CJ decides to stay in town. Working with the others to re-establish the GSF, CJ restores the gang to power, by helping to reunite the various Grove Street sets who had previously splintered, allying himself with Kendl's boyfriend, Cesar Vialpando, leader of the Varrios Los Aztecas, and they drive off the rival Ballas and Vagos. In doing so, CJ regains the respect of Sweet, who was disappointed that he had left Grove Street after the death of their brother, Brian. While en route to join Sweet for a showdown against the Ballas, CJ is called by Cesar, who tells him to meet with him outside a garage where they see Big Smoke and Ryder meeting with Tenpenny and a group of Ballas, learning they were responsible for his mom's murder, explaining their suspicious behavior. CJ then rushes to Sweet's aid, who is wounded, and kills The Ballas, but cops come. Sweet is imprisoned while Tenpenny takes CJ into the countryside and dumps him there. With the GSF in shambles, Big Smoke and Ryder, now openly allied with the Ballas, take over Los Santos and flood the streets with drugs.
Exiled in the countryside, CJ is forced to carry out favors for C.R.A.S.H, under threat of Sweet being transferred to the cell block where Ballas affiliates are housed. He also works with Cesar's cousin Catalina to make money by carrying out several heists in the area. He also befriends a hippie named The Truth and a blind Chinese-American Triad leader named Wu Zi Mu. After winning the deed to a garage in San Fierro in a race against Catalina and her new boyfriend, CJ goes there with The Truth, Cesar and Kendl to get it up and running so they can make a living. While in San Fierro, CJ crosses paths with the Loco Syndicate, Big Smoke and Ryder's drug connection. CJ infiltrates the organization and identifies its leader, Mike Toreno. CJ kills Ryder and the other Loco Syndicate leaders, Jizzy B and T-Bone Mendez, and shoots down Toreno's helicopter. CJ then destroys the Syndicate's drug factory.
Soon after, CJ is called by an unknown man using a digitally distorted voice and encourages CJ to meet him at a ranch in the desert. There, CJ finds Mike Toreno alive, thus revealing Toreno as the caller. Toreno reveals that he is actually a government agent spying on criminal operations and enlists CJ's help in several shady operations in exchange for Sweet's freedom. Meanwhile, CJ travels to Las Venturas, where Wu Zi Mu invites him to become a partner in the Four Dragons Casino, where the organisation is facing problems from the mob families that control the city. Seeking to wrest control of Venturas from them, CJ helps Wu Zi Mu plot a robbery of the mob's casino and gains the mob's trust through various jobs for mob boss, Salvatore Leone. Eventually the heist is carried out successfully, earning the Triad a place of power in Las Venturas, although causing the mob to distrust CJ. CJ also encounters rapper Madd Dogg, from whom he stole a rhyme book to help rapper OG Loc become a name in the business. After rescuing Madd Dogg from a suicide attempt, he asks CJ to be his manager once he returns from rehab.
Tenpenny, fearing his arrest is inevitable, tasks his partner Pulaski with killing CJ and disposing of the body of Hernandez, whom Tenpenny found out was informing on them to Internal Affairs. While CJ is digging a grave for Hernandez, Hernandez, alive but wounded after being hit in the back of the head by a shovel by Tenpenny, manages to attack Pulaski, leading to him killed. Pulaski flees, but CJ kills him.
Madd Dogg returns from rehab, prompting CJ to return to Los Santos to get his music career started again. Toreno contacts CJ for 1 last favor, destroying spy ships in the area, and finally has Sweet released from prison. Now rich and successful, CJ attempts to cut Sweet in on his businesses, but Sweet becomes angry that he ran away and let their home be taken over by rival gang members and drug dealers to make his fortune. While CJ helps Sweet once again kill the rival gangs, Tenpenny is arrested and tried for felonies that he has been charged with, but the charges are dropped due to lack of evidence, prompting a citywide riot. CJ helps Cesar regain control over the barrio and also regain territory for his gang, so as to have enough power to obtain knowledge of Big Smoke's whereabouts.
Sweet soon learns that Big Smoke is holed up in a fortified crack den in the city, and seeking to stop the flow of drugs on the street, he and CJ go there to confront him. CJ enters the building alone, fighting his way to the top floor and confronting Smoke. CJ attempts to reason with Big Smoke, but the latter engages CJ in a gunfight battle. CJ wins and Big Smoke confesses that he betrayed The GSF in order to see his opportunity of power and money before dying. Just then, Tenpenny appears, holds CJ at gunpoint and steals Big Smoke's money, intending to use it to leave the city. Tenpenny escapes and CJ and Sweet pursue him. During the pursuit, Tenpenny loses control of the truck, driving off the bridge over the Grove Street cul-de-sac and crashing at the entrance to it. CJ and his friends watch as Tenpenny crawls from the wreckage and dies of his injuries.
In the aftermath, CJ's family and friends arrive at the Johnson house for a meeting. Madd Dogg announces his first Gold record. As his friends and allies celebrate their success, CJ turns to leave. | violence, satire, flashback | train | wikipedia | That goes to show you just HOW MUCH thought and detail was put into its production.While this "GTA" title is a massive improvement over the previous two, it doesn't just surpass them in terms of graphics and gameplay, it surpasses them by building on the many things that made them great in the first place, and then some.I've been a massive fan and player of the "GTA" titles on the PS2 since the revolutionary "Grand Theft Auto III" was released in 2001 and its 1980s prequel/sequel "Grand Theft Auto: Vice City," which dropped in the early fall of 2002."GTA: SA" puts a lot of its focus on Carl "C.J." Johnson, who returns to the city of San Andreas and the minute he steps off the plane, he runs into trouble.
Talent, that's the first thing I want to say, to be able to make so much in 1 year must take a lot of talent and dedication, and to make fun out of so much must take even more talent.Look at other games like Half-Life 2, that game took Valve 6 years to make and it is a lot smaller than San Andreas, Valve might have some laid back lazy developers who take their time.
I think Rockstar and Valve are about the same size of company and even though Valve made a new engine for Half-Life 2, you would expect it to take less than 6 years to be made, same is true for Doom 3.Grand Theft Auto San Andreas is probably the biggest game ever made.After Vice City and Liberty city you'd think they might run out of passion, ideas, or powers.
I mean don't they get tired of making such a huge game every 2 years, Valve and id Software will probably not release a new game for the next 6 years and Rockstar releases such a big game every 2 years.Apart from it being insanely great game and a lot of fun, this game is HUGE, I can't think of any game bigger than this when I write these lines, you have 3 big cities, connected by big country side and deserts with a lot of nice areas to find in the desert and the country side.Other games of 2004 and 2005 like Half-Life 2, Doom 3, Far Cry Battlefield 2, are all big games, but none of them is as big is San Andreas.And none of them allow you the amount of gameplay opportunities as San Andreas allows you to play, you can be everything you want, a cop, a medic, a firefighter, taxi driver, thief, pilot, pimp, train driver, construction worker, gambler, gangster, lover, valet.
Also, the voice talents -- Ray Liotta and Burt Reynolds, to name but two -- were the best of any of the games so far.GTA San Andreas is good because it has a lot of new additions.
Also, it shows he has a nice sense of humor about himself.The rest of the radio stations are classic - the commercials are hilarious, the songs are the best yet (I prefer rock music but those who like rap will love it too - it's got plenty).Overall this is another great GTA game with its own pros and cons.
Young Maylay who plays C.J. is not a known actor to me but from seeing him voice the part of the character he makes a great job of it and there will most likely be possibilities for him in the future.Overall, the game is by far the most addicting one I have EVER played in my life and Rockstar have done a brilliant job of it.
I hope if a next series is made (which I think is likely because of good sales of San Andreas) it will have the same sort of feel and offer even more playing hours for thousands of people across the world.
Like Swimming, Playing Basketball, Riding Bikes, Shooting Pool, There Are Too Many New Features To Type Here Not To Mention That The Game Is 5 Times Bigger Than Vice City And NEVER Loads Outside.
GTA San Andreas is what I think of when I think of the perfect game, it's perfect in every way, has a perfect story, a great feel, a life feeling, it's world is beautiful and loving, every character matters, this game isn't just one small plot to keep you entertained, this is magic, where should I begin, well for starters LS is a perfect feeling that we can all relate to, the world feels and is so big, when you're in LS before going up to Ryder's house you can just feel that Las Venturas is far away, you can see Ryders house and everything you look at gives you that feeling that we all love, no matter how old the graphics are looking at stuff feels real and it's amazing, the story has a lot of build up, for example you don't just start off guns blazing, it doesn't introduce to you everything about the characters straight away, you already know them and you learn more about them through the game, to top it off everything in this game is unique, the gun store, unique, the world, unique, the characters, defiantly unique, I could go on for ages.
The videos in San Andreas aren't the best but because of hilarious vocabulary and great variety of characters it is sure fun to watch them.Game-play is also quite good.
Multi Theft auto San Andreas race mod is because of that and kick-ass map editor one of the best GTA multiplayer mods ever made.Even though it isn't perfect it is still a good game and worth playing..
Rated M for Strong Language,Violence,Blood,Sexual Content and Drug Use.Grand Theft Auto San Andreas is one of the greatest games of all time.This game is almost perfect.Everybody I know likes this game.The graphics aren't too good but they are not too bad either.I have the PC version of the game.The gameplay is excellent.There is plenty of stuff you can do in the game such as get tattoos and haircuts,Go to stores,dance at nightclubs,date girlfriends or basically kill and maim cops and pedestrians.This is not the newest Grand Theft Auto game.The newest one is Liberty City Stories.I have not played that one however I hear it is not as good as this one.The soundtrack to the game while not as good as the one in Vice City does have some very good songs on it.It has songs by Dr.Dre,Eazy-E,Ice Cube,NWA,Ozzy Osbourne,Depeche Mode etc.There are more vehicles such as jets.My only problem with this game is that vice city was more fun to play over and over again.In Vice City there were very few difficult missions.There are not too many difficult missions in this game but the ones that are difficult are really frustrating and hateful.I beat GTA Vice City three times already.I only beat San Andreas once.The game is about a man named Carl Johnson(or CJ) who goes back to his neighborhood to find his mothers killer and reunite his old gang.Doing this takes him all over the state of San Andreas where he meets plenty of different characters.San Andreas is an excellent game and I suggest buying it.Also if parents are worried about the hot-coffee mod you wont find it in the game.If you child is impressionable or young don't get him this game.10/10.
The Vice City came out which was a bit of a let down as the Citys were far too similar and you hadn't felt like you had unlocked a great deal...also after a while the whole driving around novelty had worn off and you were sick of going back to the start of the mission if you failed it.San Andreas....well just about everyone I know gave it about 2 weeks and just left it saying it got far too repetitive and boring.Also why aren't the taxi's in off the first GTA3 when you died etc it would take you back to where you started.....
But he arrives to his brother's house...San Andreas it's better than GTA3, which was, it could seem, ideal computer game, and Vice City, which was a very short, and it was, IMO, total piece of...
It is noticeable that Rockstar has spent some time fixing the jaggedy-edged graphics in Vice City to come to the smooth and amazing graphics of Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas.
i have played many games during my time as a gamer, I've played consoles from the NES onwards, and out of all the games i have ever played, this is the single worst game of them all, i know I'm probably gonna get a lot of hate mail after this, but i don't care the story, as it goes, has no real running continuity, the "huge" map is as it says a large map, made up of large areas yes i will give it that, but the vehicles generally suck, the only vehicle that gives the game some sort of playability is the harrier, which isn't even that great being a big fan of grand theft auto from there humble beginnings way back on the play-station, i brought this game, after the success of 3 and vice city.
i made a mistake, the game play is no where up to the caliber of 3 and vice city, the graphics have improved a little, but are no where near as good as they could be for the time it was released, and the many side missions, soon dry up and become boring and repetitive.overall if you want to buy a good game, steer clear of san andreas, if you want a free roaming game with hours of re playability look else where all from me ~Matt~.
I THINK THEY ARE BLOODY BRAINDEAD!Just some of the cool features this game has: · You can fly planes
· You can KILL people
· You can slit peoples throats' · You can steal cars
· You can run people over
· You can go in a gun shop and buy a shotgun to blow someone's head off
.You can get money and than You can go in casinos and gamble
· You can get a rocket launcher and BLOW UP STUFF, INCLUDING PLANES AND CARS ETC.Basically, this game is the best game ever made
so far.rockstar games are working on GTA 4 which is based on ONE Island ONLY, not three like San Andreas, and you can't fly planes so IT SUCKS.
Arguably one of the best game of the franchise Grand Theft Auto San Andreas, was milestone for it technical and storytelling achievement, for the most people including Me San Andreas was the game that made most of my childhood , spending hours and hours and never getting bored,It had a skill system that was way ahead of it's time and a fully costumisable character based on what he eats ,and how long he works out was a game changer although now in the gaming industry it's not a big deal any more San Andreas made it popular and was improved by many more developers over the year and the aim assist in the game was again a game changer,these functions became one of the crutial elements for an open world game over the coming years, fans of the game always tend to compare any other instalment in the franchise with San Andreas.
Story wise San Andreas doesn't fall back it has the best storyline in the franchise hands down it never quite failed to impress in ever mission you were playing with a good amount of likeable characters it compels you to play further for more information on the story,it is a truly wonderful game and would highly recommend anyone to play it it will be worth your while.
I won't spoil much more cause I think it may be best if you just play the game to know how much content there is in the game to keep you wanting to come back for more.With all these costumes, missions, weapons, vehicles, cheats and secrets to find, San Andreas has incredible lasting appeal whether your playing by yourself or with a friend.
There's definitely lots of fan service in the game but gameplay is also just plain fun and anyone who is into a good solid free roaming game should have a blast with Grand Theft Auto San Andreas..
This game had it all - Action, good story, brilliant free roam game play.There are so many features in the game that i will list them to make it short and easy - start some Gangwars and take over their turf,get new Haircuts, Tattoos, fly Jets?Planes all around the city, Swimming, Holding 2 guns at once, go in the Casino's and gamble playing Russian roulette and poker and other gambling games, Playing Pool, Playing Basketball, Recruiting gang members, Riding Bmx and Mountain bikes, Night vision and Thermal Goggles, Robbing houses after dark, jump off the tallest building wearing a Parachute, Dance in clubs, Illegal Car racing, Car MOD( add nitrous oxide), Get a Girlfriend, But your own houses and mansions, go to the Gym and becomme muscular, Get a Jet Pack and fly around San Sndreas, Get a Quadbike and ride through the countryside.There are a few more that i cant remember off the top of my head, but hell just play the game to find out.
Publisher: Rockstar Games Developer: Rockstar North-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=Gameplay: 9/10 Graphics: 8/10 Sound: 8/10 Challenge: 8/10 Overall: 8.5 (of 10)-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=+ There are always tons of things at your disposal at any given time + Very varied and realistic cities that truly capture the essence of their real-life inspirations + Great sense of humor throughout, especially from the game's in-car radio and dialogue + Some very interesting characters to meet as you progress through the game + Almost none of the gargantuan expansive playing environment feels wasteful + Some of the missions are truly thrilling and rewarding + The superbly-constructed gameplay will devour well over 100 hours of your timeControls are clunky, especially during shootings and when trying to position your player Some voice-overs are derailed; radio stations get repetitive over the game's course Frame-rate issues, lag, and low-polygon renders are sometimes very notable Certain missions seem borderline impassable, mainly due to lax controls-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=ConclusionGrand Theft Auto: San Andreas is a beautifully envisioned spectacle that deserves at least one try for the amount of creativity that went into it; rife with cultural references and its stellar sense of humor, San Andreas glows of the effort that went on behind the scenes at Rockstar North.
Anyway here are the pros and cons Pros: Very large and realistic Gta like world -Great storyline and excellent dialogue -Interesting and funny characters -addicting and fun -lots of things to do besides doing missions and just killing random people -makes u want to play over and over again -lots of mini-games -Great voice acting -Funny talk shows and radio stations Cons: Pedestrians and other characters act like rag dolls when they get shot, always fall in the same position -guns sound like weak toys -reloading could've looked a bit more realistic.
Carl Johnson travels all over San Andreas to set things right for his family and his 'hood.Overall, this probably the best video game ever made, if not one of, because it manages to expand on everything previously achieved and then it can still further innovate.A must-buy and must-play.What they nailed this time: Great size, more vehicles and a great voice cast; including Samuel L.
I have been to L.A several times and San Francisco and the way they managed to make an exact replica of those two cities e.g in Los Santos aka Los Angeles the Santa Monica pier and the airport also in San Fierro the golden gate and the bay bridge don't forget china town all though i haven't been to Las Venturas aka Las Vegas but what I've seen its pretty well done like the strip and the desert.In my opinion its a highly recommended video game and if you buy it you wont be disappointed there's always you-tube for previews but the storyline is brilliant unlike Vice City/Stories its all bout cocaine and revenge but unlike San Andreas its also bout revenge on someone called Officer Frank Tempenny and his Goon Officer Eddie Pulaski they frame him of homicide even though its obvious Carl Johnson didn't.While he does that he and his gang Grove street families try to come back up by battling on the streets of L.S against Los Santos Vagos and The Ballas.
When I got this game for Christmas in 2004 I was so excited once I played it I was hooked, the things I liked about the game was the ability to ride bikes climb over walls and fences and also SWIM yes swimming a big difference to Vice City I noticed and also the varieties of cars, motorbikes,boats and also planes but best of all it had to be the gun power such has AK-47s,sniper rifles and also regular handguns.Casting was also interesting with celebrities like Samuel L Jackson, Chris Penn, Frank Vincent and voice talents from Charlie Murphy and Kid Rock each voice suited the character with their personality and characterAll in all this is a good game especially if your into RPGs and shoot em up games its one of my favorites so would rate a perfect 10/10.
Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas is the best game I've played in my lifetime.
Each one -- the LA-like Los Santos, the neon gambler's delight of Las Venturas, and the Frisco-clone San Fierro -- is huge, not far off the size of the cities in previous GTA games.
GTA San Andreas= Best Game Eva. I truly don't know what to say except, you will NOT want to put this game down once you've started playing.
I have played first-person and third-person games, and these games are good but not like GTA San Andreas.
I liked VC's 80's epic soundtrack more than SA's, but overall, Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas is the most involving of all the GTA games. |
tt2011971 | Monsieur Lazhar | In Montreal, an elementary school teacher hangs herself. Bashir Lazhar, an Algerian immigrant, then offers his services to replace her, claiming to have taught in his home country. Desperate to fill the position, the principal takes him at his word and gives him the job. He gets to know his students despite the culture gap evident from the very first day of class and despite his difficulty adapting to the school system's constraints. As the children try to move on from their former teacher's suicide, nobody at the school is aware of Bashir's painful past, or his precarious status as a refugee. His wife, who was a teacher and writer, died along with the couple's daughter and son in an arson attack. The murderers were angered by her last book, in which she pointed a finger at those responsible for the country's reconciliation, which had led to the liberation of many perpetrators of huge crimes. The film goes on to explore Bashir's relationships with the students and faculty, and how the students come to grips with their former teacher's suicide. One student, Alice, writes an assignment on the death of their teacher, revealing the deep pain and confusion felt by each of the students.
Bashir eventually comes to be loved and respected by the students he is teaching, but the teacher's death still haunts the students. During a school dance, a student named Simon is found to have a photo of his former teacher. It is revealed that he tried to get her into trouble after she tried to help him through his family struggles. Bashir eventually gets the students to open up about the death, especially Simon, who is blamed and blames himself for causing the teacher's suicide. Eventually, some parents discover that Bashir has no teaching qualification; previously, he had run a restaurant. He is then fired from the school. He asks the principal to be able to teach one more day, convincing her by noting that the old teacher never got to say goodbye to her students. On his last day, Bashir has his students correct a fable he wrote which is a metaphor of his tragic past life in Algeria and the loss of his family in a fire. Before he leaves, one of his students, Alice (whom he professed to be his favourite to her mother) gives him a tearful hug goodbye. | tragedy, romantic | train | wikipedia | An Algerian immigrant, Monsieur Lazhar brings such a deep humanity to his job, that the traumatized kids are able to come to terms in some ways with what has happened.
I have grown tired of this plot line and subsequent variations, but Monsieur Lazhar is a shining example of the inspirational teacher film and the poignancy of said films if executed correctly, with honesty and maturity.Philippe Falardeau's (It's Not Me, I Swear and Congorama) film adaption of Evelyne de la Chenelière's play (she also plays Alice's mother), Monsieur Lazhar was nominated for an Oscar in the Best Foreign Language Film category as the official Canadian submission.
The film tells the story of Bachir Lazhar (Mohamed Fellag), an Algerian immigrant hired at Montreal public grade school after the original teacher was found hanging from the ceiling of her classroom.
The film continues to show the effects of death and the ways that the children try to deal with the loss, but also their grief, which at times seem to be stifled by the school.Monsieur Lazhar, at the same time, is dealing with a loss of his own; having come to Canada seeking asylum and waiting for his wife and children to join him, only to have his family killed the night before they were supposed to leave Algeria.
No one knows of his painful past, nor of his refugee status; the school is under the impression that he is a permanent resident of Canada.Bachir notices, because of his current dealing with grief, that the children are trying to communicate or express their feelings about the death of their teacher.
He continues to witness things that lead him to believe that the children want to talk about their teacher, Martine and also of the trouble they are having trying to understand something that may well be beyond their comprehension.Monsieur Lazhar is a heart-warming, but at the same time, heart-wrenching story of how people (whether it be children or adults) trying to come to terms with the loss of a family member (albeit for the children it was a teacher, but school, at that young age, can be something like a second home).
The film features some great performances from Mohamed Fellag as Monsieur Lazhar, Émilien Néron as Simon - a guilt-ridden child that feels responsible for his teacher's suicide - and Sophie Nélisse as Alice, the surprisingly mature young girl that has the courage to speak about the effects of Martine's decisions.Kevin FilmPulse.net.
It comes from the growing relationship between this strange teacher in a strange land, and his student children, so in need of his help.The movie's cast is rich with great acting, by the kids of course, but here, if anything, they're outshone by Algerian actor Mohamed Fellag, whose face tells 1000 stories about where he has been and, perhaps, where he hopes to go.The only things not perfect are the characters, for this writer and director have been too careful to give them - even the "best" of the children - no flaws.
The school has counselors come in and the parents all try to do their best with the children and help them with the grief, guilt, sadness and other emotions that they are feeling, but unbeknownst to all of them, that the one who can truly relate to this incident and be the most help to the children at this time is Bachir, who is just getting to know the children and has never met the previous teacher, or really know anything about her.
The Power of One. Canada's entry for 2012's Best Foreign Language Film Oscar, "Monsieur Lazhar" is a quiet, sweet and deceptively simple film that tells the story of Bachir Lazhar, an Algerian refugee who offers his services as a substitute teacher for an elementary school class that has lost its teacher.
The circumstances of the teacher's death, the students' and staff's reaction to it, and Lazhar's own back-story combine to create a compelling film that has a lot to say about the barriers we place between ourselves and our children today.Mohammd Fellag, an Algerian comedian, writer and humorist, portrays Monsieur Lazhar, and is surrounded by an exceptional cast of juvenile actors, led by Sophie Nelisse and Emilien Neron.
The performances in this film are uniformly superb which, given the subject matter, is quite an accomplishment (particularly for the young actors portraying the classmates.)Lazhar's attempts to deal with his students' grief, their cultural and educational differences, the rigid requirements of an educational system, and his own difficulties and loss all culminate in a final scene of incredible power and emotion - the power of one person to connect with another, the power of one act to convey incredible meaning."Monsieur Lazhar" is worthy of the honors it has received and worth a trip to the theatre.www.worstshowontheweb.com.
And it's uncanny that this was also one of the themes being featured in this Canadian-French movie, a powerful tale revolving around a makeshift teacher and his students, moving from a period of confusion, blame and tragedy, toward reconciliation and healing for both parties.I'm pretty sure all of us have a favourite teacher, or teachers, throughout our education in schools and institutions, and I bet it is likely that they all happen to be very personable and approachable, not to mention dedicated and committed to seeing that their students do well.
They may not adhere to the school's culture, and at times may even do things to the contrary of established rules, but save for the few bad hats with ulterior motives, there's no short of innovation in their lessons, or in this instance, somewhat trying to instill some old school techniques into a class that is comfortable with new methods of learning.Beginning in very grim terms, this Canadian nomination for Best Foreign Language Film at the 84th Academy Awards has an elementary school student in Montreal chance upon his teacher's body, being hung from a pipe in their classroom in an apparent suicide.
Why she had to do this, which is quite deliberate and knowing jolly well who would find her, is left to be debated, as the screenplay moves to deal with the aftermath of this tragedy, where a psychologist got hired for regular counselling sessions with that teacher's class, and any other school person who needed someone to talk to.
Which mirrors how power has shifted these days from teachers, once feared in the classroom, to the students and protective parents who will have no qualms at taking on the teacher, principal and anyone else in the educational hierarchy.Mohamed Fellaq puts in a superb performance as the titular character, and we share in his earnest efforts at doing his best despite not being what he truly is., and grieve with him during his most personal of times during the movie.
writer-director Philippe Falardeau (who also did It's Not Me, I Swear!) adopts a somewhat documentary feel when dealing with scenes involving the classroom, sort of reminiscent of the Cannes Film Festival 2008 Palme d'Or winner The Class, with a myriad of student characters performed by very charismatic young actors and actresses boasting naturalness in their delivery, that it makes it seem like a real class rather than a rehearsed one.
While that may sound excessively depressing to some readers, I found a semblance of hope in this film as the characters, both young and old, try to move on with their lives and cope as best they can, and while the trauma may be a permanent part of their psyches, their seeming resilience conveys a kind of worldly maturity and acceptance.The film opens with two school children discovering a favorite, but troubled, teacher who has hung herself in her classroom while her students are at recess.
Psychologists are brought in to help the students cope with the emotional intensity of such a tragedy, and then later a Mr. Bachir Lazhar, an Algerian immigrant, presents himself to the principal as a suitable replacement for the suicide victim's class telling her how he's followed the school's trauma in the newspapers and he's available to help.
The school authorities prefer to move on from the tragic event while Mr. Lazhar can sense after a number of months that some of his students are dwelling on their former teacher's act and her reasons for doing so; he encourages them to talk in class about their feelings and for this he is rebuked.
Unlike another french film 'un class', Monsieur Lazhar deals with the issue of moving on from a tragic event, to continue carrying out the role of teaching schoolchildren.I am only half correct to say that this movie deals with the healing process, because while it seems to be that way, observers will realize that it is not quite possible to heal the wounds of all parties, due to bureaucracy, conflicts and cultural differences.
Superficially it is simply the story of a migrant new to Canada who is hired as a long-term relief teacher for an upper level primary school but as we all know, the devil is in the de3tails and these details are what constitute a fascinating look at the character's universal humanity.As the students become used to Monsieur Lazhar we learn of his background as well as a few insights into this class of young humanity with all of its own personal maturation.
This tightly written gem manages to pack a powerful emotional punch, while avoiding clichés and "cheap shots" - no easy task in a film that examines the emotions of 11/12-year-old schoolchildren and their teachers.The acting is for the most part charmingly low-key, and the action minimal, leaving the viewer wanting more, right up to the calmly controlled yet emotional ending (no spoilers here!).
'Monsieur Lazhar' tells a beautiful and gentle story of a sixth-grade class whose students are trying to cope with the suicide of their previous teacher, Martine.
The class and Lazhar, both prove to be mutually beneficial to each other in coping with their losses.It's discussions on loss (death), violence and student-teacher relationships are intriguing.Mohamed Fellag gives an amazing performance as the new teacher, Monsieur Lazhar and holds the movie together.
Canadian director Philippe Falardeau's film "Monsieur Lazhar" has not only proved to be a huge box office success but also managed to elicit favorable reviews from film critics.All this positive response has helped to create an advantageous environment for his film.In the wake of such a fabulous success,it is somewhat difficult for an independent observer to express a dissenting opinion.However,popularity of a work of art is not the only real indicator of its true worth.It is in this sense that film critic Lalit Rao viewed this film during 5th Bangalore International Film Festival 2012.
As a popular film with a compassionate message,Monsieur Lazhar suffers from various glaring inaccuracies which recur throughout the film.Most of them are related to the appointment and firing from the job of the film's protagonist.Hence,it can be said that the entire film can fall flat on its face if this error is noticed by many viewers.The portrayal of a school teacher and his work environment is also highly predictable and leaves a lot to be desired.
Soon, we may agree with the statement of Phillip French in The Observer that "Lazhar is a man of tact, probity and a rich sense of humor." Taking responsibility for the class, the children who lost their previous teacher in the most 'nightmarish' circumstances, his arrival at the school rightly makes the whole film more and more thought provoking and convincing.
A Canadian film, set in Quebec, deals with the sudden death by suicide of a popular teacher at a middle school, and the effect on the twelve year old students there.
For me it one of the best independent films of the year, right up there with 'A Separation' and way better than the over- hyped 'Beasts of the Southern Wild'.Monsieur Lazhar starts with death but ends with a life-affirming embrace.
It is the story of how an Algerian immigrant helps a group of school children come to terms with the suicide of a teacher.
"Monsieur Lazhar" is a sweet little film about an Algerian refugee who, after the suicide of a well-loved teacher, finds his way into the school to take over the class and eventually finds his way into the lives and hearts of the students shaken by an expected and complicated loss.Written and directed by Philippe Falardeau, the film does not try to be something more than an observation, which is nice and refreshing.
Nominated for the Academy Award for Best Foreign Language Film, Monsieur Lazhar is an elegantly crafted, patiently narrated & wonderfully performed cinema that brings on screen a bittersweet story of love, loss & grief shared between a teacher & his students.
And while it may look like a cinema about teacher-pupil bonding, Monsieur Lazhar is much more than that.Set in Montreal, Monsieur Lazhar follows Bachir Lazhar; an Algerian immigrant who is hired to replace an elementary school teacher after she commits suicide in her classroom.
The film does capture Lazhar's relationship with his students & faculty but what makes it such an endearing experience is the evident difference in two cultures, his struggle in adapting to school's educational reforms, the discussions he has with his pupils about tender issues & his own tragic loss.Cinematography makes brilliant use of the cold colour palette, the ambiance of a classroom is authentically captured, camera movements are very relaxed, Editing makes sure almost every scene contributes to the story in one way or another plus the whole picture is steadily paced, use of background score is minimal but effective whenever it makes its presence felt and the performance by every cast member is impressive.On an overall scale, Monsieur Lazhar is an heartwarming & heartbreaking cinema that offers a rare glimpse at the roles teachers are asked to play not only by the school system but the students' parents as well, and has a thing or two to say about the lies we tell our children.
It also realistically shows how to deal with loss and tragedy, how adults deal with it, how children deal with it and how they can help each other.The performances are brilliant all around, all the kids were really amazing and Mohamed Fellag who portrayed Mr. Lazhar really captured his character.
Similar to another film which I watched recently, THE CLASS, MONSIEUR LAZHAR deals with the goings-on in a classroom and the students' relationship with their teacher.
This film is about a substitute teacher who fills in after a class teacher hanged herself inside the classroom."Monsieur Lazhar" tells how people in the school cope after a tragedy.
As the movie opens, we learn that Bachir Lazhar (played by the talented Mohamed Fellag), an Algerian immigrant, has been hired to replace a teacher who has committed suicide.What I expected was a film about how, with gentleness and kindness, Mr. Lazhar overcame prejudice to give the students a better understanding of themselves and of this tragedy.
Monsieur Lazhar is a special human being, who has suffered great personal tragedy and while seeking refuge in Canada, he takes up teaching a class of 11 year old children, recovering from the suicide of their former teacher.
Most of the story takes place in a sixth grade class in a Montreal school where the eponymous Algerian political refugee is taken on as a teacher in traumatic circumstances for both him and the class who each have to deal with loss and grief.Mohamed Fellag is excellent as the inspiring Bachir Lazhar, but the schoolchildren - notably Émilien Néron as the angry Simon and Sophie Néliss as the mature Alice - are amazing.
You don't really hear what is being said until you're in the first row." The children at a primary school in Montreal are definitely in the first row in Philippe Falardeau's Monsieur Lazhar, the story of a sixth grade class in Canada attempting to deal with the emotional trauma resulting from the sudden and shocking loss of their teacher.
A shell-shocked Quebec elementary school class suffering the wake of their teacher's abrupt suicide is treated to the foreign (Algerian) auspices of Monsieur Bachir Lazhar, revealed to the audience but not the other characters to be a political refugee dealing with a devastating loss of his own.
Monsieur Lazhar Written and directed by Philippe Falardeau (2011) 94 minutes Canada's official submission to the Best Foreign Language Film category of the 84th Academy Awards 2012.
Monsieur Lazhar's nomination followed Incendies' the previous year, but I didn't think Monsieur Lazhar was as powerful as Incendies, and despite being Canadian, agree with the Academy's decision to hand the 2011 Foreign Language Oscar to Iran's A Separation instead.The premise of the movie sounds vaguely familiar- a new teacher steps into a school with students from another world, and inspires them.
In this case, Lazhar is an Algerian refugee who teaches at a Quebecois school after a teacher hangs herself there, and must help the students cope.
Canada's 2011 entry for the Best Foreign Language Film Oscar "Monsieur Lazhar" is a sensitive and beautifully acted character study of the effects of suicide on a class of French-Canadian school children and their teacher.
The movie looks at both the title character's history (and why he moved to Canada), and also the students' attempts to deal with their teacher's suicide (which the school tries to avoid discussing).I had never known that "Monsieur Lazhar" was originally based on a play (of course, I rarely attend plays).
Basically, the movie is about the teacher's and students' relationship with each other, and how influence from the school's upper echelons play into this (also coming into play is the cultural gap and Mr. Lazhar's status as an immigrant).
"Monsieur Lazhar" is a substitute teacher who approaches a school principal to get work.
He is an Algerian immigrant named Bachir Lazhar(Mohamed Fellag, who is credited as Fellag in the film), and he is willing to work as a substitute teacher. |
tt0092585 | Assassination | In 1911, during Japan's rule over Korea, a resistance fighter named Yem Sek-jin tries but fails to murder the governor-general and a pro-Japanese businessman named Kang In-guk. That evening, Kang discovers that his own wife was helping Yem. Kang kills his wife but a wet nurse runs off with one of his twin daughters. By 1933, there are over 30 Korean independence factions operating in Korea, China, and Manchuria. Yem has become a captain in one of these factions, but his colleagues are unaware that he is secretly reporting to the Japanese, since back in 1911 he was tortured by the Japanese into submission.
Yem meets with some Korean politicians in Hangzhou, including Kim Koo and Kim Won-bong, and is asked to gather three delinquent resistance members— Big Gun, Duk-sam, and Ahn Okyun— so they can enter Seoul and assassinate Kang, along with a general named Kawaguchi Mamoru. After bringing them to Shanghai, however, Yeom sells this information to the Japanese. The Japanese attempt to find Ahn, but a skilled contract-killer named Hawaii Pistol decides, on the spur of the moment, to pretend that Ahn is his wife, allowing her to elude the soldiers.
Kim Koo questions Yem's loyalty giving Yem's subordinates, Myung-woo and Se-gwang, orders to kill him if he is a spy. However, Yem manages to come out the victor instead. Additionally, Yem hires Hawaii Pistol to intercept and kill the three resistance members, telling Hawaii Pistol that they are Japanese spies, anticipating a great reward from the Japanese. As Hawaii Pistol and his assistant Buddy travel to Seoul, they befriend Kawaguchi's son, who is a lieutenant in the Kwantung Army. In Seoul, Hawaii Pistol locates Big Gun and shoots him as he is running. With Big Gun missing, Duk-sam and Ahn proceed with the operation, hoping to ambush their targets at a gas station. To their misfortune, the car is a decoy and both Duk-sam and Korean sympathizer Kimura are killed in the attempt. Ahn is then ambushed by Hawaii Pistol, but he recognizes and spares her, and even sympathizes with her mission, since he is himself a Korean.
Ahn discovers that she is Kang's missing twin daughter. The other daughter, who happens to be engaged to Kawaguchi's son, recognizes Ahn and visits her apartment, but is killed by her father Kang, Yem and a group of soldiers. The latter are none the wiser and believe they have successfully killed Ahn. At this point, Ahn assumes her twin's identity, and a few days later, enters the wedding as the bride. Assisted by Hawaii Pistol, Buddy, and Big Gun— who survived his injuries— they carry out an attack on the wedding. Ahn kills Kawaguchi, and Hawaii Pistol kills Kang when Ahn hesitates to do so, revealing that he killed his father, a Japanese sympathizer, and did not want Ahn to live with that and become a mercenary like him. Big Gun is killed while covering their escape, taking Kawaguchi's son hostage, they are hemmed in by army reinforcements. Hawaii Pistol, realizing that she can still pose as her twin, shares a kiss with Ahn, promising to meet her again in the cafe they met in Shanghai. Ahn walks out and is rescued by the Japanese soldiers— she later absconds back to Shanghai. Hawaii Pistol and the Buddy attempt to escape but Yem kills them.
For his services to Japan, Yem is made head of the secret police. However, the Japanese are defeated in World War II and Korea is liberated. In 1949, a commission for war crimes investigates Yem— now a senior officer with the Korean police— who protests his innocence and points to his resistance service. The only witness to Yem's guilt is found murdered, so the charges are dropped. Even so, Yem is cornered on the streets by Ahn and Myung-woo who, it is revealed, had survived his massive injuries but was rendered mute and slightly disfigured. They proceed to shoot Yem and he dies. Ahn sadly recalls the memories of her friends in the Resistance, Hawaii Pistol and Buddy before the screen fades out. | violence, cult, humor, comedy, suspenseful | train | wikipedia | Bronson plays Jay Killian, a secret service agent who has been transferred from guarding the newly elected President of the U.S. to now guarding the new first lady.
Eventually, Bronson learns that the first lady is being targeted for assassination (hence the title), the film for the most part deals with Bronson keeping the first lady out of harms way.
Jill Ireland plays the first lady, who has quite a mean streak to her in the film, her snobby attitude makes quite a pairing for her and Bronson's character.
I would recommend this movie to any Bronson fan, it's not Paul Kersey, but Jay Killian isn't too bad either..
This was the next to last film appearance by Jill Ireland, who died of cancer in 1990 after four decades as a well-known actress and producer.
Ireland made quite a few waves in the press when she dropped her then-husband David McCallum in 1967, beginning her long relationship with Charles Bronson.
It is a great irony that Bronson, probably the all-time leader in number of deaths rendered on-screen, had one of the most enduring marriages in film history.'Assassination' seems to be a movie that was tucked into Cannon's production schedule for the sake of Bronson and Ireland.
Ireland was already suffering from cancer-related illnesses in 1987 and you can almost picture the two actors wanting to do 'just one more, for old times' sake.' 'Assassination' is carelessly done as a whole, showing the lack of polish and dwindling funds that would tank Cannon by 1990.
But there's a kind of nostalgia value in seeing the couple together one last time and the film makes you wonder what exactly helps a relationship to survive in the chaos that is Hollywood.Bronson plays Jay Killian, a high-ranking Secret Service agent who is assigned to protect the First Lady, Lara Craig (Ireland).
The President's wife has a reputation for being difficult, bossing Service agents around and wanting to do things her own way.
On the way, Killian and Mrs. Craig develop an unspoken affection for one another in scenes between Bronson and Ireland that are actually very funny.What really gets me is how this film was promoted upon its release and how it's still made to look as a DVD.
But a lot of this movie - which was rated PG-13, by the way - is in a comic vein, putting it along the lines of a romantic thriller like Bronson and Ireland's western 'From Noon Till Three.' Even the DVD case shows Bronson with a rocket launcher, ready to blow things up.
Which he does, but to a lesser degree than his other '80s potboilers.On the whole, 'Assassination' is late Cannon slop work and doesn't really know what kind of film it wants to be.
Robert Ragland, who had shown good composing skills in earlier films, teamed up with Valentine McCallum on a score that is mostly synthesized and better fit for television.Richard Sale's script has real lulus of dialogue, with the conversations between Bronson and Ireland the only bright spot.
Stephen Elliott (a former Tony Award nominee who died in May 2005), Randy Brooks, Erik Stern (as assassin Bracken), and Michael Ansara (Senator Bunsen) are acceptable in their supporting roles.Incidentally, this was the last film directing gig for Peter Hunt, who broke onto the scene with 'On Her Majesty's Secret Service' in 1969 and collaborated with Bronson and Lee Marvin on 'Death Hunt' in 1981.
He did two films for one-time Bond director Peter Hunt too - the first being the decent 1981 actioner Death Hunt, the second being this indifferent political chase thriller.
Assassination is pretty dull if truth be known, and come the end you'll find yourself longing for something with a bit more passion and pace, like The Wilby Conspiracy for instance (which, plotwise, this film resembles).
Bronson sleepwalks through his role as bodyguard Jay Killian, whose assignment is to protect the American President's wife, Lara Royce Craig (Jill Ireland, real-life wife of Bronson).
Killian believes that Mrs Craig has been targetted by assassins; she thinks he's an over-protective, paranoid pessimist.
His job is to protect the new First Lady, Lara Royce Craig, who apparently comes from a wealthy family and believes she can do what she wants without listening to anyone.While Mrs. Craig rides to her husband's inauguration in an open car (something no one in the First Family has done since Kennedy was shot), one of the police officers riding alongside has a wreck (and this being a Charles Bronson movie, naturally the bike has to explode).
Mrs. Craig's behavior is a problem not just because she needs protection under normal circumstances, but because it seems someone actually wants to kill her.Jill Ireland was deliciously witchy (actually that should start with a b) as the First Lady.
Charles Bronson's character showed intelligence, and he wouldn't back down but remained strong in the face of the First Lady's protests.It was a pleasure to see the man who played the uptight and dignified Cloud Dancing in "Dr. Quinn" as an almost stereotypical Native American, a car salesman willing to laugh at people's expectations of his people and go along for the money.Jan Gan Boyd, as Killian's partner (in more ways than one?) was pretty and perky but showed confidence in her facial expressions.
Too bad she often seemed to be reading her lines.The violence wasn't constant, but this movie had plenty of gunfire toward the end, and quite a few unnecessary explosions.
Come on I don't want Charles Bronson to deliver comical lines.
I just saw this movie and the beginning started out pretty good and kind of funny between Ireland and Bronson.
Just to let you know that this is the last film that Charles and Jill are together and still do good being together in this film and I hope you you all enjoy the film.I give this a 7/10.
Terrific movie with Jill Ireland and Charles Bronson.
I loved this Movie out of all Charles Bronson did.
Ol' Charlie is assigned to protect the first lady (Jill Ireland, in lieu of the president) Charlie gets constant harassment & grief from the First Lady, and she doesn't want him to be her bodyguard anymore.
What follows is a web of lies and corruption that Charlie must uncover to keep the first lady safeThis is widely regarded as one of Bronson's worst films.
This movie is far from good, but as far as a cheesy action film from Cannon productions goes, it was actually fairly fun, in a dumb sort of way.
Charles Bronson is fun as per usual, but his character is a bit of a womanizer.
For his age at the time, Bronson is still very adept at the action, and doesn't look out of place at all.
Jill Ireland (Bronson's real life wife at this juncture) is quite imbecilic and annoying as the first lady for much of the first half, before lightening up in the second half.
It's worth a watch for Bronson fans or Action junkies like myself5.3/10.
However it's a typical story (even though quite ludicrous at times), but it felt rather low-scale (think of Bronson's 'Messenger of Death' the following year) with its thriller elements and explosively sparse action.
Surprisingly when the action did kick into gear, the stunt work and positioning was impressive, but where the film's drive came from was the budding rapport between Charles Bronson (whose appealingly laid-back) and Jill Ireland (diving right into the role with convincing aplomb).
Outside of those two I found the rest of the performances sub-standard.The plot is a tautly twisty (but far-fetched) cross-country political thriller that has veteran Secret Agent Jay Killian assigned to protect the demandingly stuck-up first lady, where he uncovers a devious plot involving assassins out to her kill her.
Director Peter Hunt (who also directed Bronson with Lee Marvin in the 1981 rugged survival thriller 'Death Hunt') does a conventionally efficient job, even with some sequences coming across as if made for a TV show.
Who's care, Bronson films are made to be enjoyed, he doesn't care what critics think.
Fantastic stuff.Well the story line is simple, Bronson is a service secret agent protecting the first lady (Jill).
if you are a charles bronson fan,as i am, you will enjoy this film.
What's not to like.You also get jill ireland with the movie and other great scenery to boot...
Let me start by saying that Charles Bronson is one of my favorite actors and I think my mom found this one on VHS at a flea market back in 2015.This movie is honestly pretty good, it's entertaining if not a little corny in places but I love it anyway.Charles is a bad ass action hero in these action movies I'm a fan of his Death Wish films I haven't seen him in a lot but I'm planing on trying to find more with him.I like in this story that he plays a secret service agent hired to protect the First lady who he doesn't really like, that I feel is a nice change of pace, then your typical standard story, it made for some nice levels of comedy.Overall, I give it a 6/10.
It's just a fun action film that you can sit back enjoy, and seeCharles Bronson kick some terrorist ass.Highly recommended..
Bronson and Ireland, in their last film together, make a likable pair.
Charles Bronson plays Jay Killian, a veteran Secret Service agent who finds himself assigned to protect the new First Lady(played by his wife Jill Ireland) who is a naive and arrogant feminist that resents being guarded.
Killian must go on the run with her on a cross-country trek to uncover the conspirators in this plot.Drearily routine and tired film with bored looking actors going through the motions.
And when the action scenes fail, does the story save the film?
I think it's a shame that Jill Ireland's final film before her death was this stinker.
Among the worst Charles Bronson films he did with Golan Globus.
This conspiracy thriller lacks intensity, action or much of anything.The story involves Bronson (looking haggard at 64) as a former Special Forces turned Secret Service Agent, who has to protect the obnoxious new first lady played by Jill Ireland.
Soon the couple, have to go on the run, as assassins are hot on their tail.The story is bland as ever and the movie feels more like a pensioner holiday in the countryside than a thriller.
Assassination (1987) ** (out of 4) Charles Bronson fans are the only ones who should even attempt to make it through this outrageously stupid film from Cannon.
Bronson plays a Secret Service agent who ends up having to guard an ultra-snotty First Lady (Jill Ireland) and soon enough a group of hit men are after her.
I'll never accuse any Cannon/Bronson movie of being high art but of all the films they made together this one here has to be the dumbest.
As a Bronson fan I must admit that I can just about sit through anything that he's in but my patience are really tested here but thankfully the film reaches a "so bad it's entertaining" level.
Secret Service agent Jay Killion (Charles Bronson) has been assigned to protect the President-elect's wife, the new First Lady (Jill Ireland).
She is the victim of numerous assassination attempts, all directed by the President's Chief of Staff, who wants the First Lady dead.
Here's a fictional but potentially possible piece of dialogue between Charles Bronson and his agent like it could have taken place prior to filming "Assassination" in 1987.
"Assassination" (even the title is unremarkable) isn't an exception despite being directed by a former James Bond guy (Peter "On Her Majesty's Secret Service" Hunt) and featuring a handful of impressively staged stunt sequences.
Bronson's character Jay "Killy" Killian gets assigned to protect the flamboyant new First Lady, who has the reputation of being a difficult and insufferable shrew.
"Assassination" delivers in terms of straightforward an action-packed entertainment, with plenty of virulent chases and numerous explosions, but the plot is predictable, and Charlie too obviously acts on automatic pilot.
For Jill Ireland, Bronson's wife and frequent co-star, "Assassination" was the last film.
The real life husband and wife acting team of Charles Bronson and Jill Ireland don't go out on a real good note in Assassination.
According to this Charles Howerton succeeded Ronald Reagan as president and Jill Ireland rather than Barbara Bush became First Lady.
As Bronson was wont to remark he was missing Nancy Reagan.For the first time in our history someone is trying to kill the First Lady.
I can say this, Howerton is by no means Bill Clinton if Ireland is supposed to be Hillary.Assassination bears some resemblance to the later film My Fellow Americans when attempts are made to kill two former presidents and they are forced to fend for themselves.
You pretty much know, what you're in for with a Charles Bronson flick, made with his friends, Golan and Globus, and "No" J Lee Thompson, didn't direct this one.
Bronson, a secret service agent, is assigned to protect Ireland, something, both parties are begrudgingly against, who are brought together after a number of well staged assassination are made on her.
Assassination does deliver on action, more than many other Bronson/Golan Globus flicks.
I know it would have been good to see a affair develop between the real life couple, but this pairing is strictly professional, and in this movie, it's a better choice to avoid this, I think, instead of falling into that cliché'd lovey dovey soppiness.
The film is well written and takes a realistic and interesting look behind what's involved in protecting model figures and in the presidency itself, this time a corrupt one, involving the most important figure.
The Last of Charles Bronson & Jill Ireland.
Veteran Secret Service agent Charles Bronson (as Jay "Killy" Killian) is assigned to protect snooty Jill Ireland (as Lara Royce Craig) from an "Assassination" by terrorists.
A real life married couple, Bronson and Ms. Ireland's characters do form a bond, but he is more romantically paired with much younger Jan Gan Boyd (as Charlotte Chong) in this film.An interesting supporting cast includes "Midnight Express" author and blond henchman William "Billy" Hayes (as Pritchard Young).
The action in this regrettably unconvincing story occurs sporadically, leading to an explosive end.**** Assassination (1/9/87) Peter Hunt ~ Charles Bronson, Jill Ireland, Jan Gan Boyd, Stephen Elliott.
Normally I like Golan and Globus productions, but I should have steered clear of this one.Despite the presence of Charles Bronson and Jill Ireland, it was just too tame for the producer team.
There was never an real spark between the two, despite the fact that they were married in real life.The action sequences were OK, but they just weren't up to Bronson's level.The premise of the film was also pretty lame.I like watching Bronson and Ireland, but I will stick to Mr. Majestik in the future, as he pairs better with Linda Crystal and there was a whole lot more action..
Ireland was dying of cancer and despite this she's not bad but the horrible Asian woman playing Bronson's sidekick was typical of Cannon's talent at the time --non-existent.
The story is not that bad and it's something that bigger and better-budgeted studios did later (Eastwood's "In the Line of Fire" and Costner's "Bodyguard" film) but the way it's staged here is really sad.
If Secret Service men really behaved like the keystone cops in this movie we'd have presidents rotating out of office (and out of life) every few months....
Assassination stars action legend Charles Bronson as the first lady's bodyguard.
The first lady isn't a character that people will care enough about to care whether she lives or dies, so Assassination does nothing to get you cheering for either the good or bad guys.
When I think of this movie (which isn't often), I always think about the "Kokomo Mountains" that are shown in the background when Charles Bronson and Jill Ireland are supposedly in Kokomo, Indiana on their nationwide jaunt.
My guess is that Jill Ireland, who was waging a courageous, but losing battle against cancer at the time, wanted to make one more picture with her husband Bronson and took whatever came her way.
More latter day Chuck Bronson action fodder from Cannon Group has Ole Stoneface starring as a Secret Service Agent Jack "Killi" Killion, attempting to keep the US President's wife, The First Lady(Mrs. Charles Buchinski, Jill Ireland)from being assassinated at the hands of a terrorist paid by the White House Chief of Staff(there's no way I could make this plot up if I tried!).
Most of the film has Ireland's Mrs. Craig and Killion moving cross country on a road trip as hit-man, Eddie Bracken(Erik Stern)and his gunmen follow in pursuit.
A secret revealed by The First Lady about her President husband, regarding his impotence and her reason for marrying him is rather amusing, as is the underlying purpose behind her assassination.
****SPOILERS*****Secret Service Agent Jay Killon, Charles Bronson, has his hands full protecting first lady Lara Royce Craig, Jill Ireland, in her wanting to be herself, or just one of the girls, and not being protected by him even when her life is in danger.
A fact that would, by losing the womens vote, keep Craig from getting re-elected to a second term!****SPOILERS****The last of the 13 films that Charles Bronson and his wife Jill Ireland were in together with Jill passing away from breast cancer three years later in 1990 at age 54.
As you would expect from a Charles Bronson movie you got tons of explosion and action scenes with an exciting motor boat chase that ended with hit-man Eddie Bracken getting his face rearranged.
Jay Killion had been the presidential bodyguard, but for the inauguration of the recently elected president, he is assigned to the first lady, Lara Royce.
Well I enjoyed the verbal warfare between Bronson and Ireland, this isn't one of their better movies. |
tt0195462 | G vs E | Chandler Smythe (Clayton Rohner), is murdered on his 35th birthday. He is then recruited as an agent of the Corps and becomes a partner to Henry McNeil (Richard Brooks). Henry was killed in the 1970s and still dresses like Shaft. The Corps, best described as God's police force on Earth, has the mission of locating citizens who have made a Faustian-style bargain with the agents of evil. When the Corps find a lost soul, they must decide whether to rehabilitate them or eliminate them from existence if they are beyond redemption.
Overseeing their patrols are Decker (Googy Gress) and Ford (Marshall Bell), who give the weekly assignments. Deacon Jones acts as series narrator and appears on screen as "the Deacon". The Deacon is the representation of the wrathful, Old Testament version of God. He is very strict, bad tempered and unforgiving.
Chandler's teenage son Ben, played by Tony Denman, occasionally appears. Chandler guides him in subtle ways.
The Corps itself functions much like any police force does, with various departments and a city-based structure. Paramedics, supply officers, spies, intelligence agents, forensic specialists, therapists, and munitions experts are all on hand to help with cases. They operate throughout the world in various cities. Chandler and Henry work out of the Hollywood station. They are based at Ravenswood, a high-rise art-deco establishment, which also doubles as purgatory.
All the agents of the Corps have gone through a violent, mortal death, but merely being alive again does not render them immortal. They can "die" again, and they face immediate judgement upon dying, which may be a problem for those who have not completed their redemption. Injury can happen to them, as can all the usual mental anguish that mortals suffer. Corps agents have no magical powers to give them an advantage over the opposition. Another limitation is that agents of the Corps cannot have any intimate contact with mortals. They also cannot overtly contact their friends and family from before they died.
The Corps battle with two types of foes: Faustians and Morlocks. The Faustians are ordinary people who have made a deal with the forces of evil and bask in the fortunes that such a deal allows them on Earth. The Morlocks are Faustians who have died their mortal death and are now the ground troops for the dark side, evil's equivalent to the Corps. They are identifiable as people who have suddenly become sarcastic and courageous to extreme degrees. In addition, mirrors reveal the true nature of Morlocks; their reflections are twisted and demonic. Unlike Corps agents, Morlocks have superhuman resilience, and they cannot be easily killed. Any member of the Corps who dies at the hands of a Morlock immediately becomes a Morlock as well.
Both Morlocks and the Corps have double agents planted in each other's ranks. | good versus evil | train | wikipedia | Hip, funny, dramatic, and brilliant..
The Pate brothers have created a brilliantly entertaining show in GvsE.Chandler Smythe is a reporter who gets killed after witnessing a murder.
He is apparently too bad for Heaven, but too good for Hell so he's given a chance to work for the Almighty as an agent in the Corps.
As an agent, Chandler helps the Corps to save people who have made deals with the devil via the devil's agents, which are called Morlocks.
He is placed back on Earth as a mortal with no special powers.
If he does good work, he'll have a shot at Heaven the next time he dies.The writing is clever, not patronizing.
Their amusing use of celebrity guest-stars along with Deacon Jones' "Morlock Killin' Tips" shows an irreverent sense of humour.
The camera and direction are very unusual and add greatly to the atmosphere of the show.Highlighted by stellar acting and a hip/funky/pseudo-retro soundtrack, this show is one of the best I've seen on television..
A Devil of a show (wince).
I've only seen G vs E on SciFi Channel (UK), and they only have about ten episodes to cycle through, but I haven't laughed so hard since I stumbled over MST3K in '97 (also ten eps cycling, sadly).
Horror/SciFi spoof of cheap 70's cop shows, ripping off any number of film and TV forms to perfection (the Rear Window ep is beautiful), it's a tragedy that genuinely original programming goes unwatched, and falls by the wayside.
If any series deserves to become immortalised on DVD, this is the one..
This Show Kicked Serious ASS!!!.
It was about ppl who had sold their souls to demons and the guys who were recruited to save them.
Only thing was though, these guys were dead and brought back by a special agency.
PPL who knew them weren't able to recognise them so they were free to roam the streets.It was ORIGINAL, funny and well made.
I hate it when shows like this get cancelled yet garbage like MTV's "Real World" will still be on when I'm dead!The storyline was great and each episode had us begging for more.
I really hated when this show would end and I had to wait a week for another one.RELEASE THIS BABY ON DVD!!!!!.
Fighting Evil with the Mod Squad.
Retro 70's hipness, ten years too early.Hard to describe the charms of this excellent series.
Shame it didn't catch on.
Considering the rather bent sense of humor, perhaps not so surprising.
But I loved it.
Clayton Rohner and Richard Brooks had great chemistry and the whole wacky dead-pan tone was like The Mod Squad mixed with I-Spy and The X-files.
Marshall Bell and Googie Gress were hilarious.
The numerous celebrity cameos were very well-handled.
(Never thought I'd see Emmanuel Lewis unmasked as a demon) I recall the show premiered on USA and then switched to SCi Fi channel.
After the change there was a noticeable drop in quality.
It was as if someone had given the decree to make is less edgy and more mainstream.
But for the first ten episodes, there was nothing quite like it..
Fascinating Stuff.
I am not usually a fan of this type of genre, but I have to say that "G vs E" is one of the most interesting shows I have seen in a long time.
I'd go so far as to say it's better than "The X Files," which has really gone stale in recent years.
I was actually interested in seeing the show after I learned Richard Brooks (Paul Robinette on "Law & Order") was one of the stars.
Brooks (Henry McNeil) and Clayton Rohner (Chandler Smythe) seem to have chemistry that is seen only in the great "detective teams" - such as Joe Friday and his partner from "Dragnet", Lennie Briscoe and Mike Logan from "Law & Order, and so on and so forth.At first I thought there would be a lot of gratuitous and needless violence.
But, after watching the first 2-3 episodes, I thought that wasn't the case.
"G vs E" comes off as a cross between "The X Files" and "Touched By An Angel".
It has it's moments where the lead characters almost make serious mistakes, but there seem to be some lighter sides (read: dark humor) to the show.The premise of the series gives a new twist to the battle between the "Good Guys" and the "Bad Guys." I like the fact that they set the show in Los Angeles, where the ironies of how evil the entertainment industry can be fly out at you.The only other "G vs E" character that really stands out is Deacon Jones (Narrator/Himself), who brings that toughness that made him famous in American professional football during the 1970's.Overall, I have a feeling that this will be another of the USA Cable Network's crown jewels in its programming.
So far, after seeing the first four episodes, I have no reason to think otherwise..
Different, funny, & fun!.
GvsE is doing a great job at becoming a pop culture icon.
The series takes a new and refreshing twist at television.
I hope USA keeps it going.
The actors fit the characters style very well.
If you are a hard-core sci-fi fan take the time to see a couple of episodes.
Remember, the show is a satire..
It ain't art, but it's great pop culture!.
I checked this show out it's first week, just on a whim.
I haven't missed an episode since.
Very odd, but very entertaining.
Kind of a cross between any cop show from the seventies and I don't know what.
A twisted version of "Touched By an Angel" (which, I might add is in the same time slot, I know what I'll be watching every week).
These days I crave something even a little bit different.
E" is really different.
I hope it lasts.
Hip-hop rockin' show that proves that the USA Network is totally cool..
GvsE is the most original, well written, action packed, hilarious show now on television.
This is the type of program that will keep me glued to my TV set waiting to see what's next.
Both the Pate Brothers and the USA Network are to be congratulated in this wonderful collaboration of having the brains and the guts to present this wonderfully entertaining original show on television.
If you haven't tuned in yet, do so as this is the type of television that will keep you coming back for more.
I hope the ratings on this clever, clever show grow and grow because we, the audience want MORE.
Keep up the great work.
GvsE rocks!!!!!
- Miss Monroe.
Good sci-fi like show.
GvsE was a great show.
It first started out on the USA Network but ratings dropped off and the show vanished.
After Sliders ended, GvsE (now renamed good vs evil) took it's place in Sci-Fi Channel's Sci-Fi Prime line up, in between the awesome Farscape and the idiotic Lexx.
But ratings were still low and the show has again been cancelled.
The show had a very original concept and was very creative.
Hopefully, Sci-Fi will reconsider it's decision on cancelling..
"Pulp Fiction" meets "The Exorcist".
"G Vs E" is one of the best prime-time shows I've seen so far.
It's got witty humor and cool action blended together.
What more can you ask for a crime-drama show?
Clayton Rohner and Richard Brooks make an awesome team, kicking morlock butt and making it an art form.
Visuals and atmospheric material is the major player here, where dark colors are the only fashionable preferences.
"G Vs E" is to the 90's how "Sledge Hammer" was like in the 80's: ahead of its time!!
I've only got 2 pet peeves about this show: our main heroes' hairstyles!
What's with Brooks' afro??
Ain't it a bit out of style now that its the 90's?
I thought the disco era was dead!
And I think that Rohner's hair is REALLY weird 'cause it's always sloppy and unkept!
Because it keeps going in different directions, Rohner's hair make his head look like a paintbrush!!.
A good x-filesesque show....
I came into this show thinking it would be really out of wack...but when I started watching the first episode "orange volvo" I was hooked!!!
This is a very good sci-fi crime drama...It follows a man (Marshall Bell) who was killed when he witnessed a murder and then brought into the company of deceased people, who are brought back to Earth to get rid of Morlocks, that invade the lives of others...they can't see their families, or "gulp" have sexual relations...but to get rid of the seamy realm of the darkside...(Richard Brooks plays the soul-digging partner to Bell) who drives an ORANGE VOLVO because "no one in their right mind would steal an Orange Volvo in L.A." to his consideration Bells son steals the dang volvo!!!
Overall, this is a great television series that will blow your mind...oh yeah and the direction of it is really neat too...
check this show out!!!.
A homage to Morlock fighters everywhere and the good work they do every day.
The thing I love about Good vs Evil is that you feel like you're watching a mixture of genuine 1970s pulp garbage mixed with some great whimsical comedy, based on the inadequacy of the characters and the head of operations, the "core".
What's more, it's carried off perfectly via a pact made by all cast members to be bizarre, unsentimental and wooden.The lack luster performance of the main actors is something to lust after, in a show that gives it to you slow!, and sometimes doesn't give it to you at all!
ACTUALLY In all seriousness the actors do a great job and are intentionally bizarre, which is hugely comical.
I love this show because it's a parody and it never takes self seriously at all, so it really succeeds in its mission to parody.
I mean if you stopped watching they probably wouldn't care!
Now tell me, how long has it been since a show's been that refreshing?
In these modern times of TV treachery, every show has to stake its claim, its divine right to stay on air.
Good vs Evil made no such fuss and it went down with dignity, it fell on its sward.
I mean I can't even buy this s**t on DVD, I had to look online, but it hides effectively in the shadows like a Morlock.
Anyway I realise that I got to explain the premise of the show but it's almost 3pm and I haven't brushed my teeth – something's take priority even over the age old rivalry of Good vs Evil!.
An Awesome Show.
An Awesome Show.
I was extremely disappointed when "Brimstone" was cancelled, but this show is actually kind of like it.
It has some black humor, plot twists, and deals with supernatural stuff.
I think it might be as good as "Brimstone".
Maybe..
They don't make 'em like this anymore.
***SPOILERS*** ***SPOILERS*** And regrettably probably never will.
This show was pure brilliance, and, like a number of innovative shows, gets subjected to inaccurate comparisons and also gets cancelled.You can't compare this show to The X-Files, Brimstone, or, well, anything on TV except re-runs from 70s cop shows.
And even then it's a poor comparison because I haven't seen a single one that has so many *quality* gags.
It not only pokes fun at the afore-mentioned 70s cop shows (McNeill's afro, their constant screw ups, their assumptions that everything should go their way for no apparent reason, not to mention the appalling back projections whenever they're driving) but at Hollywood, vanity, religion and humanity in general.This show not only works as an action/adventure show with it's great fight sequences and fairly good plots but also as a comedy show.
Take for example **SPOILERS** "Roses are red, violets are blue.
Have sex in the corps and I'll break your neck!" - Deacon Jones, or when Decker accidently detonates a morlock wrapped in explosives during a prisoner exchange, or Deacon Jones beating up four or five guys in a row whilst demonstrating morlock killing techniques.
**END OF SPOILERS**This show rocks.
It is criminal they didn't make more.
Watch any repeats you can find..
Horrid execution of interesting preimice.
The premise that people too good for Hell but too bad for Heaven are returned to the world of the living to help save other souls was interesting...until you got to HOW they went about it.==SPOILERS== It is basically the same Machiavellian approach used by the Inquisitions--no price is too high, no deed or method too vile as long as a soul is saved.
As a result you have this undercurrent that the brutal methods of torture used by the Inquisitions against heretics and more importantly witches were JUSTIFIED running through every episode.
The problem is this moral issue NEVER really comes up.In terms of poor taste the execution is right down there with the concept of the infamous "Heil Honey I'm Home!" (The real world "Springtime for Hitler") In fact in one episode it was revealed that the relative of a Corp member saw an operation and tried to report what she saw--she was committed to an insane asylum and drugged up to the eyeballs for her troubles.
The Corp is perfectly fine with leaving her to rot until surprise surprise an operation involves her and you can see the supposed "happy" resolution at the end a mile away...and it is as disgustingly Machiavellian with a coating of sugar as you'd expect.I suspect (or at least hope) the low ratings were the result of the audience realizing just what message was being preached to them by this show and turning it off in disgust. |
tt0240736 | Moonstalker | A family's mountain vacation is interrupted by the arrival of a disheveled man hauling a trailer behind an ancient Cadillac. Pop, as he calls himself, tells the family a tall tale about the son he lost to illness. The family feels sorry for him and befriends him . . . not knowing the danger that is soon to come to them. In reality, his son Bernie is crazy, deranged and dangerous and kept straight-jacketed and chained up in Pop's trailer. Pop lets Bernie out only to stalk and harm campers while Pop helps himself to their belongings.
Not far away, a group of young people are preparing for two weeks of wilderness training. The camp is run by Regis, and his crazy girlfriend, Marcie, who tells them that P.J., a new camper has disappeared. We find out that the P.J., is dead.
Meanwhile, the police are trying to piece together what happened to the tourist family when an old cop, Taylor, shows up. He recognizes Pop, remembering how Bernie went on a murderous rampage years ago. Unable to convince the others, he heads for the wilderness camp on his own. By the time he arrives, it is too late. Bernie has already done his dirty work. As Taylor hunts for Bernie, it is a heart-stopping and frightening game of kill or be killed. As the end comes near, a bizarre twist happens that will keep you on the edge of your seat! | murder | train | wikipedia | A fun low-budget horror film.
It's a shame that this film is not currently available on any video format because it is actually an enjoyable piece of '80's horror.
The night winter forest locations look great and the cast appears to be having a fun time making the film.
The gore effects are primitive but serviceable, and there are moments of genuine emotional connection between the characters that was rare for the genre at that post-"Halloween" time.
Watching this film brings one back to a more innocent time when real effort was put into the exploitation genre..
This 1988 thriller (filmed entirely in Nevada) might be one of the most touching horror films of all times.
The emotional story comes with Pop, a man driven from his home and his wife when unspeakable tragedy occurs.
His son Bernie will never be the same.
Bernie, who's character frankly re-defines the horror movie slasher, stops just about every couple in the film from engaging in nudity and fornication.
Yes, this movie has all the highs and emotional lows of an edited for TV USA up-all-night.
Thank you for slashers of high moral fabric like Bernie, who helps rid our state parks of fornicators and forest fire..
Frustrating but bearable backwoods slasher time-waster.
In terms of set up Moonstalker has everything there, dumb but somewhat likable cast, threatening killer with sad, chilling back story, snowy woodland setting, lots of death, it should be a winner and almost is.
But the almost that the film falls into is a giant gap, wide enough to be well, a bit crap.
The problem is that up to around the hour mark, the deaths are mostly off screen or bloodless and don't have enough in the way of set-up to make an impact despite being tame.
The effect is of a tease and after a while it just gets really irritating, I don't necessarily care about bloodless or off screen kills so long as the presentation is germane to the film, but here gore was clearly necessary and for the most part just not really present.
Sad thing is, when the film gets to the final block it warms up miraculously, slings a bit of bloodshed, mean spirit and even tension, fairly solid stuff that comes off multiple clicks higher than the rest of it.
Still, there are little perks to the film as a whole.
For one it pulls a fairly ballsy turn out of the first block and the heroine only gets introduced halfway through or so, plus it has no issues with randomly offing characters, making for some element of surprise, especially when more likable characters get nixed.
For another there's a great bit of counter-intuitive costume design as the killer switches from creepy potato sack mask and neck chain get up into some gear nicked from a cop, immediately going from mildly unsettling to a down-market Psycho Cop riff.
I think the characters are maybe the best thing here though, in a lot of these films the characters are nothing more than sacks of meat for the offing, but here a lot of them are actually pretty fun to spend time around.
Which isn't to say that ultimately they aren't sacks of meat for the offing, but you know what I mean.
Then there's Regis (John Marzilli), running his wilderness survival training camp with drill sergeant demeanour and raising smiles along the way.
And towards the end, (sadly too late) we get a police officer who knows the score, played with fevered intensity by a Neil Kinsella.
Its a fun bunch of people and I reckon the film would have been a lot better had it dropped the height of the body count and just hung around with them, gotten into their personalities and interactions.
Sadly 'twas not to be, and so things are about two thirds 4/10 level frustration and one third low 6/10 chintzy fun.
Feck it, I'll give a generous 5/10, its better than a poke in the eye with a wet stick so those who just have to watch it (you know who you are) won't have serious problems..
Put the bag back over your head, Bernie!.
"Moonstalker" aptly illustrates how and why the teen slasher ingloriously died at the end of the 1980s.
It starts with the opening credits music being yet another blatant rip-off of John Carpenter's iconic score for "Halloween".
By the time "Moonstalker" got released, "Halloween" was more than a decade old, and literally the entire world had seen it, so find something new already!
A middle-aged father (and heavy beer can consumer) insists on spending a primitive "back-to-nature" vacation with his reluctant family in a rusty old camper, so they install themselves at the edge of a wide backwoods area.
The bickering family runs into an ogre named Pop, and he's hiding his psychopathic and bloodthirsty son Bernie in a caravan, tied up with chains and wearing a bag over his head.
Pop occasionally lets Bernie out, for example to feast on dim-witted camper families, but then Pop unexpectedly dies from a heart-attack and Bernie suddenly finds himself unchained with the world at his feet!
From then onward "Moonstalker" plays on familiar slasher turf, as Bernie heads straight towards a nearby camping site where a bunch of young summer camp counselors are having their annual initiation weekend.
Freed from his dominant father, Bernie makes the terrible (albeit understandable) mistake of switching his strait-jacket and potato bag mask for a lumberjack shirt, a cowboy hat and a shiny pair of sunglasses.
I reckon it's a far more comfortable outfit for him, but he does instantly lose all the charisma and scary effect of a savage backwoods killer, especially because the mask made him somewhat a look-alike of Jason Voorhees in "Friday the 13th part 2".
The first few murders are dull and bloodless, but "Moonstalker" eventually meets the 80s gore quota thanks to several amputations, axe-murders and even a knife in someone's forehead.
The sadistic campfire moment near the finale (you'll know it when you see it) is a delightful little horror detail, but it sadly doesn't rescue the film from sheer mediocrity..
Weekend at Bernie's..
In a straight-jacket, hood, chains and brandishing an axe, Moonstalker's crazed killer Bernie makes for a memorably imposing maniac, which is why it's a shame when he swaps this distinctive garb for a cowboy hat, dark glasses and and a plaid shirt.
But even though he loses a lot of his mystique with this change of outfit, the drooling psycho remains as mean as ever, killing off most of the film's cast before the closing credits.
Along the way there's quite a bit of hokey gore (rubbery body parts and splashes of blood), just a little female nudity (one of the girls strips off to take a shower with a young man), and, with the film taking place at a wilderness counselor's camp on a snowy mountain, lots of sitting around camp fires (in the film's most macabre moment, even the dead enjoy a sing-song around a roaring fire).It's certainly no classic, but as low-budget late '80s slashers go, you could definitely do a lot worse than Moonstalker: the film is never boring, the sub-zero setting is a nice change from the traditional summer camp, the characters are likeable (the girls are all very pretty, which helps), and no-one is safe, which makes it one of the less predictable examples of the genre.
Only the score really disappoints: it's a third-rate rip-off of John Carpenter's iconic music for Halloween..
The film started out with a family and then we are introduced to "Pop".
The family ends up hanging out with Pop the night they met him and Pop tells us the story of what happened with his son - but not the full story.
Pop acts weird, the family leaves him, Pop goes inside his camper and we meet his son Bernie.
Bernie is tied down with a chain, in a straight-jacket and special mask.
Pop lets Bernie go to kill the people so they can steal their stuff.
Bernie kills the family, Pop falls over and dies of ?
(fright they said in the film but I thought maybe a heart-attack?) -- anyway Pop is dead and the killer Bernie is on the loose.Next we are introduced to the main characters of the film.
The main characters are part of some wilderness camp thing going on.
Bernie makes his way to them and kills most all of them.
Cops are also in the campgrounds investigating the murder of the family and Pop. And that's about it - minus the ending where the killer Bernie stole the cop's jacket and vehicle then drives way leaving it open for a part 2 or to simply show viewers he's still alive.It's an okay time waster film, not grand but a watchable slasher.
It has a few story flaws that most viewers will notice quickly but is a "B" slasher - and we all know what to expect of most of them.Another reviewer mentioned the music of the film is similar to that of the classic Halloween 1978 - and that is true!!
This film is not nearly as good as Halloween '78 but an alright watch.5/10.
IT IS So Sad. Even though this was shot with film i think it stinks a little bit more than flicks like Blood Lake, There's Nothing Out There & .
They both don't try very hard to sound sarcastic when they're saying stuff like "My friends are going to be so jealous!" Hey, whats with the killer only wearing his mask in the beginning?
My favorite part about this movie is the sound effect they use when the killer is using the axe.
Slasher the shoulda, coulda, woulda been better.
Not to be confused with MOONSTRUCK (1988), I was yelling "Snap out of it" and slapping myself in the face by the time this regional horror flick was done.
An old man keeps his mentally unstable son Bernie (Blake Gibbons) locked up in a trailer, only unleashing him when pop wants some tourists killed for new appliances.
Unfortunately, hauling the newly acquired microwave causes ol' dad to die of a heart attack and Bernie is on his own.
Naturally, he heads home and begins offing winter camp counselors in training that are near his abode.
You won't get much from this Nevada lensed slasher from writer-director Michael O'Rourke until the last half hour, where it turns surprisingly bloody as Bernie chops everyone with an ax.
There is a pretty cool looking image of Bernie chained up in a straight jacket with a hood on, but that gets abandoned early on when he removes it and dresses in a cowboy hat (making him look like Powers Boothe for some odd reason).
As far as I can tell you, in spite of earlier comments posted by other commentors, this film IS currently available on DVD.
I thought so.This film was indeed well worth 98 cents.
For slasher film mavens only..
A bad to alright 80's slasher.
This movie is a bad to alright rip off of Friday the 13th.
The movie is about a killer named Bernie who kills people around a camp councilor training camp.
He kills people because the camp councilor training camp is on land that was owned by his father, and when the police came to forcefully take his fathers land they accidentally killed his mother (Another F13th take off).
The intro is seeing Bernie killing his first victims.
Then we are introduced to a family going camping in the same woods, soon after they arrive they are joined by a strange old man who likes talking about his son.
Later we learn that his son is Bernie and that he has him locked up in the back of his caravan after having broken him out of a mental institute.
He sets Bernie after the family so they can take their stuff and then the chase is on.This Movie is only recommended to those who enjoy B grade 80's Slashers..
Actually, an obscure slasher that deserves a chance..
This is a clear example of how the slasher genre died in 1989.
You will think about "Friday the 13th" and "The Burning" while watching this because of obvious references to both movies (family reasons to kill, the "story" of a deranged killer in the woods named Bernie, etc.).
Bernie is one weird guy; not because of the killings, but his twisted behavior against sex!
He's a serial killer with a high moral.
I watched it first on "USA Up All Night" back in the late 90's.
Something interesting I found about "Moonstalker" is that you can't predict who will survive until the last 20 minutes.
I don't know if it's something good but being a slasher, it's something that you rarely see.
The shower death scene is my favorite.I can't recommend this even to slasher fans but I know that A LOT of people like me enjoy watching horrible bad slasher flicks.
Actually, "Moonstalker" is a recommended slasher obscurity.
The forest at night is creepy because of the winter season.
Check this one out slasher gorehounds..
I had been searching for this slasher film for a while.
The film is not as bad as some say, I did enjoy it.There is a blond woman that really reminded me of Linnea Quigley, even my wife thought so!
The first thirty minutes I found a little boring as we are treated to a whiny family listening to an old man talking about his son 'Bernie'.
Bernie turns out to be around and soon finds a group of counselors in the middle of nowhere and the mayhem begins.
The first several murders are pretty bloodless, but later on we are treated to some limbs chopped off, a knife through someone's head, and a fairly well done hanging.
For those who watch these for the T&A, two of the girls take showers, but I think the DVD I got had the scenes blown-up so that we couldn't see boobs (you can tell the images were blown-up).7 stars out of 10.
"Moonstalker" is one of those well forgotten camp slasher movies from the 1980's and considering it came out in 1989, it was already stated that this formula had gone well stale by this point and this movie does nothing to rise above the dreck, although it does have a certain charm to it.
The opening shot with the POV angle and the happy campers by the fire really did set the tone and mood for this flick, but it ended rather disappointingly, as the deaths were off screen and showed no imagination or thrills.What really bugs me about this is the lack of focus, because after the opening deaths we get a family who I thought were gonna be the main characters of this movie, but then they are quickly dispatched, when an old man pulls up near them and tells them about what happened to his son and then we see him in his camper wrapped in a strait jacket and his face covered.
Now I thought that this was an interesting angle to the storyline, but again that falls flat, as he quickly heads to another campsite where a group are on some sort of wilderness training or something.
But that was way too late into the movie to suddenly introduce the main cast and even they were just as terrible as the previous cast members.There just doesn't seem to be any effort put into this whatsoever, I know that Slashers aren't known for developing characters, but this is ridiculous, for a start there were just way too many to keep track off and the supposedly main ones were forgettable, even the final girl was awful, then there's the death scenes, or should I say lack off, despite 23 deaths, none stood out, mostly off screen which I hate.
However I did like the setting and the dark atmosphere was rather creepy and the killer was pretty menacing at first, but once he took of the mask, it just kind of fell apart.So all in all, see this only if you're a fan of 80's campsite slashers or if you're a fan of bad movies, but otherwise not a highly recommended effort and stay well clear..
Fun slasher flick.
A family of tourists vacationing in the woods and a group of young camp counselors training in the same forest both find themselves being terrorized by a vicious unhinged psycho (a creepy portrayal by Blake Gibbons).
O'Rourke keeps the familiar, but still enjoyable and effective story moving along at a steady pace, makes nice use of the wintry sylvan locations, builds a good deal of tension, elicits acceptable acting from the decent no-name cast (Alex Wexler in particular contributes an amusing turn as obnoxious horndog Bobby), takes time to develop the colorful and generally engaging characters, brings an admirable pull-no-punches approach to the subject matter (there's a really high body count and certain characters one expects to survive don't), delivers a satisfying smattering of gore, and adds a few neat quirky touches (the kinky S&M couple are an absolute hoot!).
Michael Goi's polished cinematography makes cool use of a prowling hand-held camera for the killer's POV shots.
As you watch this you'll notice that the father Pops keeps his son in a trailer connected to the back of his car.
Soon Bernie(Blake Gibbons)is set free.
Pop lets him out to cause trauma of the campers and takes their belongings.
Soon Bernie is out killing camp training students and camp instructors.
A twisted ending soon prevails.So when you watch this remember Michael Myers from the series Halloween and Jason Voorhees from the Friday The 13th series.
Young adults and adults only should watch this.The ending is a shocker.
Bernie wasn't caught.
I guess a good movie should have a good enough sequel.
Like Halloween and Friday The 13th. |
tt0040806 | The Snake Pit | Virginia Cunningham (Olivia de Havilland) is an apparently schizophrenic inmate at a mental institution called the Juniper Hill State Hospital (which treats only female patients). She hears voices and seems so out of touch with reality that she doesn’t recognize her husband Robert (Mark Stevens).
Dr. Kik (Leo Genn; as Mark Van Kensdelaerik, MD/"Dr. Kik") works with her, and flashbacks show how Virginia and Robert met a few years earlier in Chicago. He worked for a publisher who rejected her writing, and they bumped into each other again in the cafeteria. Occasionally she continued to drop by the cafeteria so they get to know each other.
Despite their blossoming romance, Virginia abruptly leaves town without explanation. Robert moves to New York and bumps into her again at the Philharmonic. After she provides a loose excuse for her absence and departure, they pick up where they left off, though she remains evasive and avoids his desire for marriage. Eventually, Virginia brings up the possibility of marriage. They marry on May 7, but Virginia acts erratically again. She can’t sleep and loses touch with reality, as she feels it is November and snaps when Robert corrects her. The rest of the film follows her therapy. Dr. Kik puts her through electro-shock treatment and other forms of treatment including hypnotherapy. Dr. Kik wants to get to the "causes of her unconscious rejection." The film includes many flashbacks, including her earlier failed engagement to Gordon (Leif Erickson) as well as childhood issues. The film shows her progress and what happens to her along the way.
The mental hospital is organized on a spectrum of "levels." The better a patient gets, the lower level she is able to achieve. Virginia moves to the lowest level (One), where she encounters Nurse Davis (Helen Craig), the only truly abusive nurse in the hospital. Davis is jealous of Dr. Kik's interest in Virginia, which she sees as excessive. Nurse Davis goads Virginia into an outburst which results in Virginia being straitjacketed and expelled from Level One into the "snake pit," where patients considered beyond help are simply placed together in a large padded cell and abandoned. Dr. Kik, learning of this, has Virginia returned to Level One, but away from Nurse Davis's care.
Despite this setback, Dr. Kik's care continues to improve Virginia's mental state. Over time, Virginia gains insight and self-understanding, and is able to leave the hospital.
The film also depicts the bureaucratic regimentation of the institution, the staff — some unkind and aloof, some kind and empathetic; and relationships between patients, from which Virginia learns as much as she does in therapy. | insanity, flashback | train | wikipedia | "The Snake Pit" is based on a true story written by Mary Jane Ward in the hopes it would bring to the attention of the people, the horrors that a person faced in a mental institution at the time, pre-1948.
Olivia deHavilland acted the character of Virginia brilliantly as did everyone else in the film and Betsy Blair in her portrayal of Hester looked like she was completely and totally beyond help.
It must have taken a lot of courage to get this project started since it dealt with a serious problem of mental illness, something not mentioned in good company, let alone in a film that took the viewer into the despair the protagonist is experiencing.Anatole Litvak, the director, got a tremendous performance from its star Olivia de Havilland.
In smaller roles we see Lee Patrick, Natalie Schafer, Leif Erickson and Celeste Holm, and Betsy Blair."The Snake Pit" is a document about mental illness treated with frankness by Anatole Litvak and his team..
Seeing her in the Snake Pit and the accolades she got must have been of great satisfaction to Olivia DeHavilland because of the fights she had to get roles other than a crinoline heroine.In 1948 seeing stuff like electroshock was a real dose of reality to the movie going public.
THE SNAKE PIT (1948) tells the story of a young woman suffering from a nervous breakdown, her confinement in a mental institution of the day, and her struggle for recovery through the efforts of a caring doctor (Leo Genn) and loving husband (Mark Stevens).
Groundbreaking 1948 production on mental illness and its treatment in state institutions, "The Snake Pit" maintains interest today.Thanks to the lively direction of Anatole Litvak, good scripting, and the enormous talent of Olivia deHavilland as Virginia, this film makes an impressive statement.Mark Stevens is always a dependable leading man, and Leo Genn a welcome addition to any dramatic scenario.
Anatole Litvak 's interest in madness didn't begin with "the snake pit" In one of his thirties French movies,"Coeur de Lilas" ,one sequence depicted a person gone crazy and it was already impressive.Some will say times have changed and the hospital which Litvak depicts is a thing of the past.Sure it is.But what could he have done?Just have a look at the scenes in an insane asylum in Mankiewicz ' s "Suddenly last Summer"(1959) or those in Georges Franju's "La Tete Contre les Murs"(1960)?A decade later ,mentally ill people were still regarded as monsters.That scene in "Suddenly..." where Elizabeth Taylor accidentally ends up with the raving mad women and which is not in the original Tennessee Williams' play was certainly influenced by "the snake pit" .Some will say the Freudian methods are childish and simplistic .They are for sure.But have a look at Gregory Peck's treatment in "Spellbound" (1945) or De Havilland's in "Dark Mirror" (1946).And I love all those movies I mention.60 years on.Think of it.People will not argue when they watch a school or a prison of long ago.That's why I do not understand the "It has not worn well" which too many critics (mostly European) use when they talk about Litvak's 1948 film.One thing which has worn well is De Havilland's performance.After being Erroll Flynn's fiancée in (excellent) movies by Walsh or Curtiz ,she tackled much more ambitious parts after the war.She was never afraid to make herself uglyor old ("the heiress" "hold back the dawn"),she and her peer Bette Davis were actresses ahead of their time ,not just pretty faces as too many contemporary actresses are today.It's no wonder if Davis named Meryl Streep "her successor" .In "snake pit" De Havilland's acting should be studied by future actresses .She can express everything ,and the moments when she becomes a human wreck down in a "snake pit" (the snakes might be all those arms and hands)are the most impressive..
Music is by Alfred Newman and cinematography by Leo Tover.Olivia de Havilland plays Virginia Stuart Cunningham, and film chronicles Virgina's time and treatment in the Juniper Hill Mental Institution."It was strange, here I was among all those people, and at the same time I felt as if I were looking at them from some place far away, the whole place seemed to me like a deep hole and the people down in it like strange animals, like...
As Virginia weaves her way through this maze of psychological discord, with flashbacks constantly adding layers to the character's make up, Litvak presents a fascinating portrait of asylum life and the people who resided there, both as patients and staff.Some scenes are brilliantly crafted, either as visual expansions of the story or as shards of light in a dark world.
With de Havilland doing her tour de force, it could be easy to forget the great work of Genn and Stevens, the former is a bastion of assured calmness as Dr. Mark Kik, the latter as Virgina's husband Robert underplays it to perfection and he gives us a character to root for wholesale.It has to be viewed in the context of the era it was made, but its influence on future movies and awareness of mental health treatments in the real world should not be understated.
Yes I,m comparing the Snake Pit to One Flew Over The Cuckokos Nest again, but look at the similarities 26 years apart.The average person spends very little time thinking about patients in mental hospitals, so a film like this, makes for fascinating viewing.
Despite it's rather misleading title "the Snake Pit" offers a rare look into the world of mental illness and it's treatment modalities.Of course the state hospital system is nearly obsolite in America today.But in 1948 it was a stark reality!This film offers a view from all angles:the confused and frightened patient,her concerned and loving husband,the dedicated and determined doctor,and the hospital system itself.With it's overcrowding population,the bars and locks,the straight-jackets and shock treatments,and even the moments of humor and humanity!This movie takes you on a journey in only 2 hours which seems like a mini-series.
The central character is the young and terrified Virginia Cunningham Stuart.For reasons that are never fully revealed she has a "nervous breakdown" and becomes a patient at the local state hospital.She suffers from memory lapses,mood swings,suspicious delusions,and is very frightened!The wards in which she lives are often filled with old and chronically mentally ill women.Her concerned psychiatrist Dr."Kik" believes that Virginia can be reached and helped to face her troubles.This is accomplished via shock treatments and deep psychotherapy ( remember this was before psychotropic meds!) But the world of the state hospital and her husband's attempt to rescue her prove to be larger obstacles!But Virginia does manage to overcome those obstacles and eventually become "well" enough to return "home" ( remember this was long before half-way houses and day-treatment centers!) From the harrowing and unforgettable portrayals to the expert cinematography "the Snake Pit" remains a true gem for moviegoers of any era!!.
The Snake Pit will always be remembered for Olivia de Havilland's outstanding performance as the confused Virginia Cunningham of Mary Jane Ward's best-selling novel.
What happens in the middle(all contained in the hospital) is a memorable performance given by Olvia DeHavilland, the treatment she gets, the other patients, the nurses,the darkness of the hospital all add up to, I think one of the best movies made..
Her acting in the 1940s made de Havilland one of the decade's finest dramatic actresses.******** The Snake Pit (11/4/48) Anatole Litvak ~ Olivia de Havilland, Mark Stevens, Leo Genn, Helen Craig.
While many films have taken place in mental hospital, I think very few really address how normal most mentally ill people are most of the time, or the fine balance between sane and insane.I do not know much about Olivia de Havilland, but she really pulled all the stops here.
Olivia DeHavilland gives another standout performance in "The Snake Pit," also starring Leo Genn, Mark Stevens, and Celeste Holm.
Zanuck, always at the forefront of social issues, produced this film, directed by Anatole Litvak.DeHavilland plays a troubled, often disoriented woman with unexplained mood swings who winds up in a state mental hospital with no memory of her new husband (Mark Stevens).
The song "Going Home" sung by one of the patients at a dance is one of the best moments, as are the harrowing scenes of the electroshock therapy and the bath with the covering over it that DeHavilland is put into - the feeling of being trapped and having no control is pervasive throughout the film.
I always worried about her, because although the institution portrayed in Snake Pit was a state hospital, seeing that movie was my first impression of mental health treatment.
It's not an easy film to sit through.Mark Stevens plays de Havilland's patient (meaning long-suffering) husband and Leo Genn is pleasant as the caring doctor.
But I have enough experience with medical institutions and institutions in general to believe that "The Snake Pit," Anatole Litvak's harrowing film about one woman's journey through the hell of mental illness, gives a fairly accurate account.
What's most frightening about "The Snake Pit" is how little we've advanced in the perception and treatment of mental illness in the years since the movie was made.Celeste Holm, fresh off an Oscar for "Gentleman's Agreement," has a teeny-tiny role as a fellow inmate, while Betsy Blair, also in a small role, nevertheless makes a tremendous impact in a few scenes late into the movie."The Snake Pit" garnered six Academy Award nominations in 1948, including Best Motion Picture (20th Century-Fox), Best Director (Anatole Litvak), Best Actress (Olivia de Havilland), Best Screenplay (Frank Partos and Millen Brand) and Best Dramatic/Comedy Score (Alfred Newman), but won only a single award, that for Best Sound Recording, no doubt recognizing the film's cacophony of interior and exterior ravings.
And dealing with it in a marvelous way.'The Snake Pit' tells the story of Virginia Stuart Cunningham, a common American woman that suddenly finds herself in a state insane asylum, but she can't remember how she got there.
This picture also features one of the best performances by Olivia de Havilland in her excellent career, a great screenplay and a powerful directing, but the fact that it didn't won any of the major Oscars in 1949 made this movie not so well-known today.
Dr Kik (Leo Genn) takes on her case and tries to help her recover with the help of her husband Robert (Mark Stevens).This film is made watchable by the performance of de Havilland and Genn but my favourite character is Helen Craig as 'Nurse Davis'.
Virginia is nuts.Olivia de Havilland does well and Leo Genn should have been cast above Mark Stevens, but overall, while the film has an interesting subject matter, it could have been better..
Well-intentioned film, merit in the way it shows us what psychiatric institutions were like at the time and the fantastic performance of Olivia De Havilland, in the role of Virginia.
De Havilland gives a standout performance as the main character, Virginia Cunningham, who has suffered a psychotic breakdown and placed in an insane asylum for treatment after her husband, Robert (Mark Stevens).
At the time I first saw the movie in the 1960's, I had a friend who was in a mental ward briefly and the scenes were frightening realistic with the characters portrayal and the prevalence of shock therapy While it is true the ending was over the top with the "Going Home' sequence, the message of hope was uplifting and was counter to the stark hard to watch struggles of daily life in the hospital.
It keeps the story going at all times, the one way or the other.Perhaps Olivia de Havilland is better than ever in her role in this movie.
Touted as the first film explicitly recounting a patient's baptism of fire in a mental institution, THE SNAKE PIT, directed by Anatole Litvak and starring a doughty Olivia de Havilland (102-year-old-young as of today) as our protagonist Virginia Cunningham, still pluckily holds court after seven decades have elapsed.
The script conscientiously shirks any shocking-value manipulation, and patiently unfolds Virginia's tale-of-woe with a limpid sense of scientific correctness (electro-shock therapy, hypnotherapy, hydrotherapy and straitjacket, the whole package is here) and a winning consideration toward our heroine, whose taxing waxing-and-waning battle (the lowest point is to being thrown into the titular snake pit, a place for those who are beyond help, with an added figurative signification of the extreme means subjected to them, to treat insanity with insane action) against schizophrenia earns the auspicious ending over the long haul fair and square.The story's positive overlook on Virginia's recuperation doesn't necessarily overshadow Litvak's unsparing depiction of an overpopulated institution, regulated by its own echelons and bureaucracy, yet, in presenting the often vilified hospital staff, he maintains a perspicacious mind, there are good apples and bad apples, but mostly they are just trying to do their overloaded job and occasionally are afflicted by career fatigue, even the most callous one, nurse Davis (quite a scene-stealer Helen Craig), turns out to be driven more by her self-seeking consciousness than sadistic vileness.
Time and again, the film proves that each head case is an entrancing thespian per se (great cameos from Celeste Holm, Beulah Bondi, Lee Patrick, Betsy Blair and then some), but a striking vibe of sororal unity points up Litvak and co.'s humane disposition that overpowers any attempt of caricature or exploitation.A de-glamorized de Havilland pours herself all on her character, brilliantly alternates between Virginia's manifold frames-of-mind, running the gamut from intense distress to heart-felt compassion, and makes the movie a compulsive viewing even just for the sake of her performance alone, whereas in those quieter moments, she can also make her marks in imparting Virginia's transient displacement with nuances and bonafides, a sterling showcase for her acting chops, and a compelling case study that doesn't relinquish its rapier-like perception for the sake of dramatization, more importantly and edifyingly, THE SNAKE PIT alerts us that it is not that rare for a person to go off the trolley, damage might have be done from the very start..
She got fantastic support from Mark Stevens, her husband in the film as well as Leo Genn, phenomenal as the doctor who understood her.Ruth Donnelly, Beulah Bondi and particularly Betsy Blair were terrific as mentally ill women.
Amazing that Celeste Holm, who had won the supporting Oscar the year before for "Gentleman's Agreement," had such a small role in this film.The picture brings out how terrible mental illness can be and the desperation of those trying to get better.As we saw with "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest," there are plenty of nurses who should not have been in psychiatric wards.It takes compassion and understanding to unlock the mystery to mental illnesses.
Olivia de Haviland put on a really quite brilliant performance as Virginia, a woman institutionalized after suffering a nervous breakdown, who tries to get at the root of her problem through psychotherapy with Dr. Kik, played by Leo Genn, who also put on a completely believable performance in the role.
Along with "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest," this is the best film about mental illness, excellently directed by Litvak.
Olivia de Havilland gives the performance of a lifetime as the innocuous Virginia Cunningham, a patient at a women's mental institute.
But through the marvels of shock therapy, which in the movie is very dramatic due to the striking orchestra music, she starts to recover.Dr. Kick, played by Leo Genn, spends a lot of time at the hospital, in one scene all the women are in a ward sleeping and he comes by to see how Virginia is doing.
What makes "The Snake Pit" work as well as it does is the truly extraordinary work of Olivia de Havilland as Virginia, and Leo Genn as the benevolent, determined Dr. Kik.
She acts as a sort of mirror as to how de Havilland will eventually be in her treatment of the Betsy Blair character.Litvak makes great use of the soundtrack in this film (the voice-over from de Havilland works especially well), and the shadows and camera pull-backs from the terrifying "snake pit" are very memorable, and acutely show Virginia's terror.
Really, that's just the jumping off point for this film.As many other users have already mentioned, Olivia de Havilland is brilliant in the role of Virginia Stuart Cunningham, a woman grappling to come to terms with her situation in the proverbial "snake pit" of the state hospital system in 1940s America.
The Snake Pit. This was a film I found listed in the book 1001 Movies You Must See Before You Die, the title suggested nothing particular in a story or plot to me, but the leading actress was a good draw for me to watch as well, from Oscar nominated director Anatole Litvak (Anastasia).
Basically Virginia Stuart Cunningham (Oscar nominated Olivia de Havilland) was an outwardly ordinary young woman, but all of the sudden she has found herself in Juniper Hill State Hospital, a mental institution, and she has no memory of how she got there.
de Havilland is brilliant at being emotionally and mentally unstable, but also sympathetic and traumatised, this was really harrowing and extremely controversial film for its time, and it still remains so, seeing both the story of a woman having a nervous breakdown and the ways and methods of the hospital to cure her and other inmates, with highly emotional and traumatic scenes, and touching moments too, especially the inmates singing "Going Home", this film will definitely make an impact, a fantastic psychological drama.
***SPOILERS*** The film "The Snake Pit" is based on the true life story, and book, of Mary Jane Ward who herself was a patient in an upstate New York State mental hospital for some 8 1/2 months which is why it's so accurate in depicting the events that happened there to her.Virginia Stuart, Olivia deHavilland, is a young writer who's looking to author her first novel when she meets young and handsome Robert Cunningham, Mark Stevens, who works for a publishing house in New York City. |
tt0062886 | The Devil's Brigade | American Lieutenant Colonel Robert T. Frederick is summoned to Britain where he is authorized by Admiral Louis Mountbatten to raise a commando force comprising both American and Canadian personnel for operations in Norway.
Back in the U.S. Frederick receives his American troops — all are Army convicts. When the Canadian contingent arrives they immediately cause friction with the Americans and chaos ensues. By the time Frederick manages to overcome the national differences and to mould the 1st Special Service Force into a highly trained commando force, the Allied High Command have had a change of heart and offered the Norway missions to British troops. Left without a role, Frederick manages to persuade Lieutenant General Mark Clark in Italy to give his men a chance to prove themselves.
Clark asks Frederick for the 1st Special Service Force to reconnoitre a German garrison in an Italian town, but Colonel Frederick decides to go one better and capture the entire town. In the process, they earn the nickname "Die Teufelsbrigade" — The Devil's Brigade.
Convinced now of the ability of Frederick's men, General Clark gives them a task no other Allied troops have managed to accomplish — to capture Monte la Difensa. Facing severe obstacles, the Devil's Brigade attacks the undefended eastern side of the mountain by scaling a cliff the Germans believed could not be climbed. Reaching the top as a unit, they take the stronghold despite losses to the Force, allowing the Allies to continue their advance north into Italy. | cult, violence | train | wikipedia | REVIEW OF THE MGM REGION 1 DVDWith the huge success of "The Dirty Dozen", a popular theme began to appear in war movies: instead of focusing on good, clean-cut heroes, the main characters became misfits thrown into situations which made them heroes, whether they wanted to be or not.
The story of the Devil's Brigade is a true one about misfits turned into wartime heroes.William Holden plays Lt. Col.
Holden is forced to deal with two contingents of troops: a proud, professional Canadian unit under the command of career soldier Major Crown (Cliff Robertson) and an American unit comprised of misfits and criminals, led by crass Major Bricker (Vince Edwards).
From there, the men are no longer fighting each other
they are deployed to Italy, rather than Norway, where they must capture a strategic hilltop from which Nazi artillery pounds the Allied advance.Veteran director McLaglen, who seems to always be able to throw together a satisfying film but never really made a classic, falls short once again this time, he's trying to make a docudrama, but constantly falls back on established stereotypes and familiar situations rather than fresh, new material, almost as if he's afraid to try something new.
This scene is funny and well-executed, but never comes across as a very convincing it's simply meant to be a humorous excursion, and proves that the men of the Devil's Brigade can operate better than any other American Army unit.
When compared to films of today, the final battle isn't very graphic, but does feature plenty of blood spurts and there is some use of a hand-held camera, making this a bit more realistic than some other war films of the time period."The Devil's Brigade" is a touching human drama, but easily fades into the sea of familiar unit pictures.
But it's also inspiring, especially in the last battle sequence, taking that hill by going up the hard way.When Bill Holden was cast as real life Lieutenant Colonel Robert Frederick, Mrs. Frederick was interviewed and said while she admired Mr. Holden's talent, she thought her husband was more the Gregory Peck type.
Nevertheless Holden does a fine job as a man who shoots down Lord Louis Mountbatten's idea of a combined American/Canadian special force and then gets command of it.
He's also a staff officer who had not seen combat and he was trying to prove something to himself.As good as Holden is, the best performance in this film has to be that of Cliff Robertson as Canadian Major Alan Crown.
Robertson himself was off his Oscar winning performance in Charly and The Devil's Brigade was a good follow up for him.The Canadians selected for this unit are the pick of the lot, while the Americans emptied their stockades of all the refuse.
Holden encourages competition among them and a really terrific sequence involving a bar brawl with some obnoxious lumberjacks welds a camaraderie among former feudees.Standing out in the cast are Claude Akins as a particularly rambunctious American recruit and Jack Watson as the Canadian sergeant.
Seen now though, The Devil's Brigade is a fine tribute to the Canadians and Americans who made up the First Special Service Force..
The Devil's Brigade was indeed made up of Canadian elite and American cast-offs at the formation of the first US Special Forces unit, and this movie gives us the beginning of their amazing story.
It's particularly nice to see the Canadian army portrayed with the respect it richly deserves.There's many amusing scenes in the movie, including my favorite, the mess-hall scene with the Canadian hand-to-hand combat instructor from the PPCLI and the oafish American soldier (who had been denigrating the Canadians up to that point).A great WWII movie, worth watching whenever it's on.
The Canadian History channel follows showings with an interview with one of the founding members of this unit, who vouches for the general portrayal of events (though he said he doesn't recall them marching into the Montana training camp on their arrival, as portrayed in the movie).
Dana Andrews, Vince Edwards, Claude Akins, Jeremy Slate, Richard Jaeckel, Andrew Prine, Jack Watson and dozens of other well-cast GIs. Add Gretchen Wyler, a spectacular fight with lumberjacks in a bar, judo training with a comedic intro, a twenty-mile hike and the mission itself where many exciting and tragic incidents happen to men the viewer has come to know- -war movies hardly get better than this.
The film has a realistic feel about it at all times; Akins as Rocky, Slate as a bespectacled unarmed combat type, Rennie, Jack Watson and Holden are standouts.
Not only was a mission to land on the island of Kiska in the Aleutians done to rid the island of Japanese (the Japanese were already gone), but they went on special missions to destroy hydroelectric stations in Norway and northern Italy, to destroy oil fields in Romania, and as well as different missions in Italy, such as the making and breakout of the Anzio beachhead to the south of Rome.So anyways, my point is first of all that this brigade did exist and were a strong military force, and second of all that it is nice to see Canadians in an American war movie, especially in 1968.
A good cast supplied with an interesting and action filled story make this one of the better efforts of the World War II films.
William Holden does a fine portrayal of a brigade Colonel and his efforts to get his cast off misfits into the big war.
Fortunately, "The Devil's Brigade" is still a good film when you realize it is meant to be a piece of entertainment and not a true depiction of war a la "Saving Pvt. Ryan."Yes, there are weaknesses, including the Wehrmacht's employment of Patton tanks and blind and deaf sentries.
We are introduced to a lot of individual soldiers in "The Devil's Brigade," Canadians and Americans, and the film gives ample space to their interesting and divergent story arcs.Good performances abound.
On the American side, Akins does a nice job keeping a degree of audience sympathy even as he belittles "the Canucks," as he calls them, setting himself up for Slate's humility lesson, while Andrew Prine pulls you in as a troubled and sensitive soldier who wants the chance to prove himself but finds the business of killing hard.The first hour of the film is the best part, as the brigade is trained to Frederick's exacting standards while its American and Canadian components learn to deal with each other.
Are we supposed to believe an elite battalion of Germans can be captured by a dozen Devils without anyone firing a shot?There are lots of shots fired at the film's concluding battle, at once rousing and heart-wrenching, especially as McLaglen and scripter William Roberts make use of all the characters we had invested ourselves in by putting them in harm's way and not letting them all out.
It stars William Holden, Cliff Robertson, Vince Edwards, Harry Carey, Claude Akins, Andrew Prine, Richard Jaeckel, Jack Watson and Jeremy Slate.
Clothier.Based on real people and incidents, film follows the formation of the 1st Special Service Force (AKA: The Devil's Brigade), their training and subsequent mission to seize control of Monte la Difensa, a Nazi stronghold during the Italian Campaign in World War II.Somewhere along the path of war movie history there was a wind of change that saw the all heroic soldier of sincerity replaced by the anti-hero thug!
A year later came The Devil's Brigade, a film strikingly similar to The Dirty Dozen, yet unlike Aldrich's movie is based on facts, it should also be noted that the novel The Devil's Brigade was written in 1966.McLaglen's movie follows the tried and tested formula, men from all walks of life thrust together and expected to gel as one fighting force.
North's music is delightfully boisterous, the blend of national themes most catchy, Clothier's photography around the Utah and Lazio locales lurches nicely from the screen, while McLaglen, so often derided for some of his directing assignments, does a bang up good job for the two action sequences that finalise the movie.It doesn't break new ground, but for this line of formula war movies it comfortably keeps the fires burning.
This is a rugged WWII actioner concerning an unexperienced Lt Colonel (William Holden) , he's assigned by Lord Mountbatten (Patrick Knowles) to train a group of American misfits and Canadian soldiers .
While the Canadians who appear in a spectacular parade under Scottish bagpipes music , are disciplined and commanded by a Major (Clift Robertson) and a corporal (Jack Watson), but a new sergeant (Jeremy Slate) has joined the ranks of the brigade for training in combat .
While THE DEVIL'S BRIGADE seems to borrow heavily from plot elements of THE DIRTY DOZEN, in actuality it's based on a true World War II incident involving a brigade of Canadians and some American misfits on a mission in the Italian alps.
Only Vince Edwards as a cigar-smoking colonel has almost as much screen time as Holden.Lack of development among the character actors and a screenplay that takes too long to deliver a punch, makes this a lusterless action film, the kind that has been done before with much better results.One has to think back to the tense and taut melodramatics of Errol Flynn and Ronald Reagan on a mission against the Nazis in DESPERATE JOURNEY to get a hint of what this film should have been as far as pacing and tense situations go.Alex North's score is almost non-existent at major dramatic moments, another shortcoming of THE DEVIL'S BRIGADE..
The Devil's Brigade seems like an inferior copy of The Dirty Dozen, but in actual fact it's hard to justify such a view of the film because it takes many of its plot elements from a factual situation.
The brigade of the title, made up of proper Canadian soldiers and American misfits doing time in the military jail, really existed.However, despite the film's strong basis in fact, it's still a generally unsuccessful effort.
The mission which forms the main crux of the plot - a suicidal attempt to scale a heavily defended enemy hill - is filmed decently, but it takes a long time to get to that sequence (indeed, many would say too long).The Devil's Brigade is slightly too mechanical and uninspiring to be a worthwhile film.
I was surprised to learn that "The Devil's Brigade" is actually based on a true story and it's not some "Dirty Dozen" knockoff.
During WWII, there really was a special forces unit made up of American and Canadian soldiers and this film is a slightly fictionalized version of their formation and successes.The film begins with the Colonel (William Holden) being given command of a new special forces unit.
Both films have similar plots and were based on real-life WWII units -- "The Dirty Dozen" was loosely based on the Filthy Thirteen and "The Devil's Brigade" more tightly based on the 1st Special Service Force, AKA The Black Devils.Their plots are similar in that they each involve a group of military delinquents being trained for a big mission and then the execution of that mission.
They differ in that the 1st Special Service Force was comprised of both American and Canadian soldiers, rather than just Americans.Although "The Devil's Brigade" is based more on fact it's still a very Hollywood-ized depiction of events.
For instance, actual members of the unit objected to the way the film limits the groups warm relations with the locals of Helena, Montana, (the city nearest their training base) to a major brouhaha in a saloon.The first half of the film takes place mostly at the dilapidated base near Helena, but was shot at a base in Lehi, Utah, which is a decent substitute since it's only 350 miles due south of Helena.Generally speaking, "The Devil's Brigade" is not as good as "The Dirty Dozen", but that's only because the latter film is so great, plus it came first.
For instance, the final mission in "The Dirty Dozen" involves the unit's raid on an opulent German château, which -- while good -- is hardly a typical WWII combat scenario; the final mission shown in "The Devil's Brigade", by contrast, involves the brigade's taking of a German stronghold atop a rocky mountain in Northern Italy, an excellent battle sequence.Although it's next to impossible to beat Lee Marvin as the commander of the unit in "The Dirty Dozen", William Holden is very strong in the counterpart role in "The Devil's Brigade".
As if he wasn't prepared for the likely death of a fellow soldier in battle.FINAL SAY: If you're in the mood for a late 60s war flick in the mode of "The Dirty Dozen", "The Devil's Brigade" is a quality option.The film runs 130 minutes and was shot in Utah & Italy.GRADE: B.
This is the true story of how a group of American misfits were mixed with a first rate Canadian outfit, and how the leadership of Col. Frederick molded them into one of World War II's most effective fighting forces.
It`s an impressive battle sequence watching it today and I guess it must have been breath taking in 1968 so at the end of the day this could have been a very good war film if the producers had concentrated on bringing a few more facts to the story , but I guess they decided against it since " Too many died to keep it true ".
WWII story has William Holden looking distressed at playing an American Lieutenant Coloniel, assigned to the heady task of whipping a large group of delinquent G.I.s into shape within four months for possible battle in Norway; complicating matters on the training base is the inclusion of a Canadian military unit who must share the field--and the barracks--with the obnoxious Yanks.
A not-bad supporting cast (including Cliff Robertson, Vince Edwards, Carroll O'Connor, and an aged Michael Rennie and Dana Andrews) mostly takes a backseat to the soldiers-in-training, with Claude Akins' class-clown hogging a great deal of the spotlight.
However, it is very much a "poor man's" version of that film and has most definitely not stood the test of time very well.It's typical '60s war movie fair that - like most of its contemporaries - largely glamorizes combat.
Col. Frederick (William Holden) is a critic of Mountbatten's plan to train a joint Canadian and American commando unit to send to occupied Norway.
Released in 1968 - This expensive production set during WW2 may have featured a big-name cast headlined by William Holden, Cliff Robertson and Vince Edwards, but it lacked any real depth to its story and its characters were only regarded in the most superficial manner.It appeared to me that a good part of the time the actors seemed noticeably bored and distracted in their parts.
Once trained and ready for action these soldiers are assigned to attack and capture a strategic Nazi stronghold situated on a perilous mountain range.At an over-long running time of 130 minutes, The Devil's Brigade loses steam far too quickly and it contains one elaborately-staged brawl too many between the Canadians and the Americans..
This film is clearly divided into two parts: the first, depicting the training of the unit and the interaction among its men, is far more interesting (even with one brawl too many) than the second one, in which we follow the unit in its first two battle missions.
A platoon of these American and Canadian specialists can capture an entire Italian town full of German soldiers without losing a man, and they can make fools of the enemy while doing it.The training camp scenes make up two thirds of the footage and the template is that of "The Dirty Dozen." There are some amusing scenes, like the one in which the martial-arts expert, Jeremy Slate, takes down the ruffian Akins.
The Historical facts:The following is from the book Canadians at War 1939-1945.The First Special Service Force - or the force , as it was called - an elite unit of both Canadians and Americans was formed in 1942.
Robert Frederick, "the greatest fighting general of all time." The Force itself won the nickname "The Devil's Brigade," a term apparently inspired by the blackened faces members wore on patrols and in battle.
This film takes the true story of the First Special Service Force and links it up with a fair number of Hollywood clichés.
All US special operations combat forces are said to be descended from this unit.Cliff Robertson is masterful in the role of the Canadian commander.
Great historical war film about the development of specialized infantry units in the US and Canadian armies..
McLaglen's "The Devil's Brigade" is a factual World War II epic about the First Special Service Force.
Clocking in at 131 minutes, "The Devil's Brigade" covers a lot of ground from the formation of the unit to the rivalry between the American and Canadian soldiers,and finally their baptism by fire in Italy.
Lenser William Clothier captures the combat in several rugged settings and provides this war story will a virile look, while Alex North contributes an inspirational score.An American Colonel Colonel Fredericks (William Holden of "Picnic") with no battlefield experience receives orders to train a unit of American misfits and snappy Canadian troops for a mission that he had derided earlier as insane.
THE DEVIL'S BRIGADE is another men-on-a-mission war film to follow in the wake of THE DIRTY DOZEN.
Later, when the action hits it does so impressively, mixing quietly taut peril and suspense sequences with all out battle warfare.William Holden headlines the cast as the ultra-tough lieutenant colonel while Cliff Robertson and Vince Edwards play the two opposing majors under him.
Colonel Frederick knows that, despite heavy casualties, the fighting men of "The Devil's Brigade" will prevail...This wartime actioner from United Artists is placed in the capable hands of Andrew V.
The Devil's Brigade is a cracking combat movie that is grounded in fact. |
tt0051806 | Kala Pani | Karan comes to know that his father, Shankarlal, is in jail. And that his mother has been pretending from his childhood that his father has died. On meeting his father, Karan comes to know that he has been jailed for a murder that he did not commit. Karan sets out to gather proof of his father's innocence so that he can reopen the case filed against him, and set him free.
Karan comes to meet one of the witnesses who had spoken for his father in the court, who tells him about the investigating officer, Inspector Mehta.
Karan stays as a paying guest, of which Asha is the owner. Asha is herself a journalist.
From Inspector Mehta, Karan comes to know about other witnesses - Kishori and Jumman. The Inspector confesses that although he smelt a rat, he was silenced by the defence lawyer, Diwan Sardarilal. Inspector Mehta also tells Karan, that he overheard Kishori and Jumman speaking of a letter, and that this might prove to be a mighty proof of Shankarlal's innocence.
Karan goes about to woo Kishori, so that he can get the letters possessed by her. In the meantime, romantic feeling develop between Karan and Asha.
Karan also approaches Diwan Sardarilal as to how he can reopen the case to prove his father's innocence. He also asks if it will be enough if he can get the letter from Kishori. The Diwan tells him to first get the letter, so that he can see what to make out of it.
The Diwan turns out to be a villain. He warns Rai Bahadur Jaswant Rai, the person who actually committed the murder, that Karan is after the letter that Kishori possesses. Rai Bahadur Jaswant Rai in turn, asks Jumman to warn Kishori about this. Kishori confronts Karan saying he cheated her, that he was not fair to show false love to her. But Karan answers back, that one who is the case for jailing his innocent father cannot complain to him of lying to her. Kishori, upon knowing the truth, repents and gives the letter to Karan.
An overjoyed Karan shows the letter to the Diwan, only to see the Diwan burn the letter. Karan realizes that the Diwan was also involved in the plot. He starts a protesting against the Diwan outside his own house, but gets arrested by the police.
Asha tries to help him by printing about the Diwan in the newspaper she works for. However, she is stopped by her editor, who says that she does not have proof against the Diwan to print anything against him.
Kishori comes to know of this. She comes to Karan, now carrying the original letter. Karan submits this to reopen the case against his father. The Diwan admits his crime. And the story ends with Shankarlal coming out of the prison. | murder, flashback | train | wikipedia | You have to love Madhubala!. And Dev and Nalini Jaywant. This was a classic tale of a young man who discovers his father has been sentenced to life imprisonment (Kala Pani) for a murder he did not commit, and vows to get justice for his family. There is a mysterious murderer, a secret that has been hidden for 15 years, a conniving lawyer, a self-less (most Chandramukhi like, in fact better than Vyjayanthi) prostitute, a newspaper reporter (a beautiful and talented woman in the 1950s? GASP!) who falls for our hero, and their quest for the truth. I loved this story. Madhubala as the reporter and Nalini Jaywant as the fallen woman were excellent. Dev was Dev - irrepressible and charming as hell. There was a trio of comedians - but Mukri as the Shayar and Agha as the hotel waiter were never slapstick, rather they were necessary to move the story along. Music was soulful - Sachin Burman created some great tunes. Notable were Achcha ji main Haari Chalo Maan Jaao Naa, Hum Bekhudi Mein Tumko Pukare Chale Gaye, Nazar Laagi Raja tore bangle par. This one is worth watching and keeping. Navketan pictures (Dev Anand production) knew how to make good films.. Another good film from Dev Anand's Navketan, taking on the system of justice, where an innocent man can also be sentenced to life imprisonment because of fabricated evidence.. Raj Khosla, Guru Dutt's assistant, who had already made a mark with "Milap" and "C.I.D", showed his command over the medium with this film. His acknowledged forte in the picturisation of songs, along with such masters like Raj Kapoor, Bimal Roy and Vijay Anand, was witnessed in the scene with two songs, wherein Nalini Jaywant first sings "Najar laagi raja tore bangle par", almost immediately followed by Rafi's evergreen number "Ham bekhudi mein tumko pukaare chale gaye". The three characters forming the love triangle, played by Dev Anand, Madhubala and Nalini Jaywant, gave excellent performances. Dev and Nalini won the Best Actor and Best Supporting Actress awards from Filmfare in this movie. The film had a lovable musical score, with numbers "Dil laga ke kadar gayi pyare", "Jab naame mohabbat leke kisi nadaan ne daman phailaya", sung by Asha Bhosle being other very good numbers apart from the two mentioned above. The romantic interludes between Dev Anand and Madhubala, including the duet "Achha ji main haari, chalo maan jaao na", are the highlights of the film. The dance song "Dil wale, ab teri gali tak aa pahunche" is a lovely number, excelled only later by Burman da's "Jewel Thief" number "Hothon pe aisi baat main daba ke chali aayi".. Charming actors, corny screenplay. This wasn't as great film as it is made out to be. At least it doesn't seem to be as entertaining today. Which means Kala Pani is not timeless in the vein of some of Dev Anand classics like Jewel Thief and Guide.From scene one, the film gets bang on point when Karan (Dev Anand) gets to know that his father, who he believed was dead all through life, was alive and sentenced to life imprisonment in Hyderabad jail. Karan immediately goes there to meet his father who pleads of being innocent and falsely implicated through fabricated evidence. Thereby starts Karan's attempts to study the 15 year old mystery, gather fresh evidence and reopen the case. One feels that the story is tight and focused on cracking the crime case.But what starts as a crisp screenplay soon starts wandering into a slack love story (Madhubala's natural appeal is the only saving grace) and a more uninspiring courtesan track (played by Nalini Jaywant, Kajol's cousin maternal grandmother) with verbose shayaris and ghazals. The courtesan, Kishori had some secret letters that can serve evidence in favour of Karan's father so Karan is manipulating love with her to get hold of that proof. The fact that Kishori was a courtesan 15 years back and continues to be a charmer even now doesn't seem digestible.After much time has been spent on these love tracks, the film gets back on solving the murder mystery but is handled very carelessly and conveniently. The flashback of the murder scene is never detailed properly. The actual murderer surfaces from nowhere and has no background account. The reason for him committing the crime is never revealed. And what the viewer actually looks forward as the most interesting episode in the film in the form of a courtroom drama in the climax (since the film is about Kala Pani – life imprisonment) is unfortunately merely rushed in just one scene. The lawyer abruptly confessing of his crime in the climax seems confusing – was he guilty or he intended to save the real murderer? Can't comment on the authenticity of the adaptation since I haven't read the original source material – a novel 'Beyond This Place' written by A J Cronin which was subsequently directed as an English film 'Web of Evidence' by Jack Cardiff (which released after Kalapani).Dev Anand's charm, Madhubala's beauty and S D Burman's songs like 'Acha Ji Main Haari Chalo Maan Jao Na' make you sit through the film.Gaurav Malani. Devanand's filmfare winning performance. Based on A J Cronin's novel "Beyond This place", this film is about a young man who goes to great lengths in the tireless pursuit for justice.This young man is played superbly by Devanand(which won him the Filmfare award). He was aided by Madhubala who plays her role gracefully . The story starts crisply and is interspersed occasionally by songs and comic moments. It is towards the last that the story starts feeling disjointed. The songs are a delight to listen to. "Hum Bekhudi Mein Tujko" and "Accha jee main hari" are a few notable ones to watch out for.Irrespective of its few flaws, this film is a must watch. |
tt0844894 | Species: The Awakening | Miranda Hollander (Helena Mattsson) is a beautiful and smart young woman. She is a college professor and lives with her "uncle", Tom Hollander (Ben Cross) who works in a museum; he adopted her after a car crash killed her parents. Miranda can read books just by touching them, without even needing to open them. Miranda believes that she has lived with her "uncle" ever since her parents were killed in an accident while she was a baby. After her birthday, Miranda passes out and is sent to a local hospital. Tom is notified by the police. When Miranda arrives at the hospital, she silently transforms into alien form, strips naked and seduces and kills a few people. When Tom finally arrives at the hospital the following morning, he finds bodies everywhere. Tom locates Miranda, injects her with human hormones and begins driving her to Mexico.
On the way to Mexico, Miranda wakes up, asking for the cause of her 'illness'. Tom tells Miranda that she is the result of an experiment that combined human and alien DNA, an experiment conducted with his friend Forbes McGuire (Dominic Keating) while they were both still in college. Tom has been injecting her with human hormones since her childhood to suppress her alien DNA (thus she never entered a cocoon stage and aged like a normal human). Her parents never existed; they were just a fiction created by Tom to help build up Miranda's "normal life". Tom explains he and Forbes parted ways because of differences of opinion over their vision of their creation.
When they arrive in Mexico, Miranda rests in a motel room while Tom spends the day searching for Forbes. After a few incidents, Tom and Miranda locate Forbes' current home. Forbes now lives with his recent experiment named Azura (Marlene Favela), another human and alien DNA hybrid who also serves as his assistant and lover—she is sterile to prevent offspring. Forbes supports his experiment by creating half-alien facsimiles of dead pets and relatives. Forbes checks Miranda's condition and finds that Miranda has reached the end of her lifespan and will die in days; her changes to alien form are her body's way of fighting back as her human form has a weaker immune system. The only way to deny death is injecting fresh human DNA into Miranda. Miranda won't allow that to happen when she realizes it will result in the sacrifice of another human being. Again, Miranda becomes unconscious. Tom goes searching for a "donor" and is mugged by a woman in the process. Azura then incapacitates the mugger and the two bring her back to Forbes' lab, where they succeed in extending Miranda's life.
However, Miranda starts acting odd, joking about having sex with Azura. Tom checks her blood as she invites him to get drunk and have sex in their hotel room; he tells her to rest, believing she is delirious from the procedure. She leaves in a huff. Tom finds Forbes did a sloppy job; Miranda's hormones are unstable, causing her alien side to become increasingly dominant. Driven by her alien sex drive, Miranda manages to seduce the innkeeper, another hybrid; however she kills him mid-process upon finding he is sterile. She goes to a bar for potential mates, seeing that a female singer in a provocative red dress is garnering a lot of attention. She sneaks backstage, intimidating the singer into giving up her dress.
Tom wishes to sedate Miranda, so they can fix the imbalance in her DNA; Forbes gives him a near-lethal dose to use, but warns that she's "100% pure creature". Making things worse is that Miranda is no longer sterile, thanks to the new stem cells. Investigating a church, Tom is attacked by Azura; she is angry that his arrival changed things. He manages to knock her out by dropping a large cross on her, leaving Azura to heal and regain consciousness. Forbes tracks Miranda to an abandoned warehouse, where she strips naked; Miranda reveals Forbes has wanted to have sex with her since they met. She squeezes his hand to make him drop the sedative; Forbes gives in to his lust, allowing Miranda to strip him. They copulate, much to his pleasure. Once finished, Miranda changes into alien form and sends her tongue down Forbes' throat, suffocating him. Tom finds them later, barely pitying Forbes.
Tom takes Miranda back to Forbes' house, where he discovers via X-ray that a new creature is rapidly growing in her womb. Miranda weakly says her humanity is dying, and that she doesn't want to be pure alien. Unfortunately, Azura returns in alien form; Tom is forced to fight her. Just when Azura has Tom cornered, Miranda attacks her and kills Azura. However, she suffers a fatal wound. In human form, Miranda thanks Tom for giving her life before dying.
In the final scene a saddened Tom turns on all the gas burners and tanks in the house and leaves. The house explodes and Tom walks away, as the film ends. | murder | train | wikipedia | One would expect a low-budget sequel to revel in sleaze and gore, but since 2004, when the concept was resurrected, 6 years after the cinema release of the disastrous Species 2 (1998), for the direct-to-DVD market, there has been a surprising resistance to the gratuitous ingredients of sex and violence.
Alas there is little such depth to this cheap cash-in.Kingsley's role is reinterpreted by fellow British thespian Ben Cross, while Swede Helena Mattsson (who looks a bit like Nicole Kidman) takes over where Henstridge and Sunny Mabrey left off.
A studio like MGM isn't short of cash, so the explanation for the cheapness of this film is clear; they knew they can get away with it and turn an easy profit.
Studios like The Asylum have their desperately limited resources to explain their crass and dissatisfactory efforts, but there's simply no excuse for a Species film to be as unspectacular as this.Feeling more like a cross between a vampire movie and a retelling of Mary Shelley's Frankenstein than a sexy sci-fi movie, Nick Lyon's film merely coasts on tenuous links to its predecessors.
From Dominic Keating's terrible Aussie accent to the fact that the alien hybrids use their tongues as weapons, at one point they shoot icicle-like spears from their mouths in bullet-time, the experience is one of contradiction.The original Species really went for it.
The Awakening, as evidenced by its 15 rating, delivers the bare minimum that one could expect from a film with the Species title.
This is a film in which a back alley scientist creates sex-crazed human/alien hybrids that run around Mexico!
I was expecting it to be a bit cheesy and low-budget-looking, but I wasn't expecting to be insulted.This "film" has similar production values and acting caliber as you will find in an average daytime soap.It's as if the crew of "Days of Our Lives" borrowed the studio's gear for a weekend and went and shot a "Sci-Fi/Thriller" because those are popular these days, so we should be able to make some cash with it.It wasn't scary, wasn't thrilling, wasn't even sci-fi-y, just boring and predictable.
No plot, bad lighting, laughable critters, wooden acting, no reason at all to force yourself to sit through a turd like this one.The rave reviews here have to be from people associated with the production, or else who haven't actually seen the "film".Avoid at all cost..
however, i have had to give it 1 out of 10, but i mean 0......plot was very poor, movie was too confusing and the poor plot didn't make me feel a connection, like or dislike anyone in the movie.seemed like random things happening with no explanation or leading up to any event in particular.acting was a bit wooden, and the accent from Dominic Keating was probably the most entertaining of any of the script.please avoid this movie, as you can never get the 90 minutes of your life back that you waste on this..
I don't know much of Ben Cross's work, but he seems very good and I want to see him in more Sci-fi movies.
But this is nothing at all like the previous ones, except for the Alien DNA etc etc.This has awful acting, one hell of a bad bad accent and an OK blond playing the Alien femme fatal, but not worth the 90 or so minutes that it ended up as.
If the species films are ever going to work and be believable they need to be serious, with serious (good, well-known) actors.
I would recommend it to all fans of the Species movies and of course to all the sci-fi fans out there like me..
There's a misguided but decent scientist hero – Ben Cross, looking embarrassed to be here, a pretty young and nubile actress, Helena Mattsson, whose acting skills are extremely limited, some monster suits and some very bad CGI effects.The storyline kind of meanders from place to place without ever progressing.
Then throw in a storyline that a primary school child could do better than, and weave some budget SFX through the mix for good measure.The stereotypical cowboy sounds like he comes from blazing saddles, and the "Australian" guy who can't work out if he's from Sydney or London all lend lack of credibility to this complete mess.Please, please don't waste the hour & a half..
The IMDb rating of 4.1 of the time I am writing this review must have been given by those who were sexually frustrated because the way the movie was marketed (The Cover) it was for those who were perverted minded hoping they will get a full on alien soft-core flick which is not at all.
For me the sexy scenes just spiced up the movie like any other which had a really good story, good plot, great actors and a good ending.
The team behind the making of this sequel actually put much effort into making this a good movie which is worth its time watching, just hope they made a buck at the end.
This movie should have went to theatres because it was good as the Alien series with Sigourney Weaver.
Helena Mattson clearly is the most talented actress among the female aliens of the series (Henstridge may have more charisma, but not as much versatility), because in these scenes Mattson is very believably moving from shock to guilt - and onwards to the inhuman superiority of a higher developed species.If this had been shot in the 1950s, it probably would have been entitled "I Walked With A Teenage Alien".
In the second half of the movie, the makers give in to the expectations of the audience with more fights (including a spectacular alien vs alien death-match), but until then, it was really clever, playing more than its predecessors with the idea of "shall we do that just because it can be done?".
They just totally ruined that amazing SIL design by H.R.Giger...I really expected that "Species" series could be at least as good as Alien series but the ruined it.
SIL design and special effects were good for 1995 situations...But now for 2007 movie (I think its all about the budget I don't know) I didn't expect that...It was utterly, awful..I wish I could give "0"...
The acting was so bad, I could have thought I deserve an Academy now.But, I being a sci-fi buff of sorts, had to keep wondering, after the lab burns, how many more of those things are out there.Having some mercy on their audience, they didn't pan to a million other morphing monsters, just ready to breed.We can rest assured they are dead, until the next grade D sci-fi- clone of Species is produced..
The average is about 4.3, not even reach 5.As a scary film, I saw many monsters , I achieved my objectives, got the feeling I wanted.Well, yeah, the plot is not that good.
i can't say this is an awful movie.it's just that it is so slow.until the last 15 minutes,nothing much happens.there is very little excitement,and i didn't find the storyline compelling.nor were there any great characters.there is some nudity,which doesn't really bother me.i am a guy,after all.and though there isn't a lot of profanity,what profanity there was,i felt was unnecessary and did not have any context in the movie.i don't mind profanity,but there should be a purpose or reason for it.but there is some good news.the special makeup and creature effects were pretty good overall.the acting was OK.and this movie is certainly better than the unfortunate Species 2.i don't think it's as good as the original Species,and it's certainly nowhere near as good as Species 3,which to me,is the best of the series.to me,this movie is somewhere in the middle.i give Species:The Awakening 5/10.
The reason why I don't like this movie is because it's way oversexed, the plot was rather pointless, it was weak, decadent, and played out period.
There is definitely not enough gore, almost all the sex scenes were unnecessary, and some stuff just didn't add up or made any sense whatsoever (the reason for Fisk's lies, the taxi-driver and the reason for Azura's actions when they arrive in Mexico - just to name a few).The reason for this getting a 3 and not a 1, is the first half hour of the movie, and the not-so-terrible acting.
Realizing that his bio-engineered daughter is turning into her fully-alien counterpart, a doctor takes her to Mexico for help in controlling the change, only instead unleashing a far more vicious side to her than he imagined.A lot more enjoyable than imagined, due mainly to the fact that the warring nature of her transformation is almost always present, resulting in the changes that force out more action and science fiction elements as well as the occasional jolt of horror with some bloody killings spread throughout that give off some good points every so often.
It's also really not essential to watch any of the previous Species movies before watching this one, fore this movie and its story have basically very little to do with any of the previous entries, that were about aliens trying to breed and being hunt down by the military.
This movie has some good characters and even better actors portraying them.
Ben Cross is a good actor and a nice leading man for this movie.
However because it's such a fine put together, with a good visual look over it and some nice actors involved, this movie works out as a perfectly watchable one.
They travel to Mexico in search of his former research partner Forbes McGuire (Dominic Keating) who helped create Miranda from combining human and alien DNA.This is the fourth movie of the franchise and a TV B-movie at heart.
Beautiful blonde college professor Helena Mattsson (as Miranda) finishes a lecture and goes to see her uncle and father-figure Ben Cross (as Tom Hollander), a scientist and museum worker.
The story is easy to follow, but not really engaging.*** Species: The Awakening (10/2/07) Nick Lyon ~ Ben Cross, Helena Mattsson, Dominic Keating, Marlene Favela.
Species: The Awakening (2007) * 1/2 (out of 4) The fourth and so far final film in the SPECIES series has college professor Miranda Hollander (Helena Mattsson) going on a killing spree, which is something she doesn't understand.
Her "uncle" (Ben Cross) takes her to Mexico where he informs her that he, along with another man, created her in a lab using DNA from an alien and this is why she's starting to act out.
SPECIES: THE AWAKENING is pretty much what you'd expect out of a direct-to-DVD release and that's a film with a few good moments but not enough to make it worth your while.
As you'd expect, all you really need to make a SPECIES sequel is a good looking blonde willing to take her clothes off and the producers were able to find another one in Mattsson.
The unrated version of this film features quite a bit of violent footage with a lot of deaths by the creatures tongue including one rather good shot of it going through a woman's skull and coming out of her eye.
Another painfully bad entry into the Species series that offers nothing new or good.
I am happy to report that "The Awakening" is easily the best sequel of the three.The movie takes a completely different direction than it's predecessors while still focusing on the alien DNA message received from space.
We first learn that college professor Miranda Hollander, while appearing to be a very beautiful woman, is in fact a hybrid that was created by her "uncle" Tom and his former student Forbes.
Forbes, along with his alien play-toy Azura, inform Tom that Miranda is at the end of her life cycle and will die without a stem cell transfusion.
Azura returns with the intent to kill Tom, only to end up fighting Miranda in alien form.
Helena Mattsson does a mighty fine job in the role and brings a dimension to one of the alien creatures that was only glimpsed when Michelle Willaims played the young Sil in the first film.
Forbes, played by Dominic Keating, is your atypical movie asshole scientist that doesn't care about the mess he makes, as long as he comes out on top.
But as a hot alien chick, she works.Some people have complained that a Species movie without Natasha Henstridge is just not right.
The Cat people , Jaws and Alien established and reinforced what I consider to be the golden rule when it comes to monstrous creatures in film.The monster should never be on screen too long.That is: If the audience is needed to feel threatened by the creature , we should rarely see it.Failing that the creature should be so terrifying that when we do see it we should be transfixed to the screen or covering our eyes in fear (the original Japanese 'Ring' is a great example)The success of any monster simply lies on it appearing a credible threat .
Helena Mattsson did not quite seem right for the part of Miranda,it was as though she was an understudy for Nicole Kidman with the soft voice and all associated gentle movements until it was time to be ugly, however I enjoyed it anyway for what it was,a good B grade Saturday afternoon entertainment movie..
Basically college professor Miranda Hollander (Helena Mattsson) lives her life like any other normal woman, before suffering a mysterious blackout, and without her knowledge, transforming into a hideous alien creature.
Her "uncle" Tom Hollander (Chariots of Fire's Ben Cross) tells her the truth he has kept from her since birth, she is a half human, half alien creature, created from alien DNA to create a hybrid.
Honestly they should have left the story where it was at the end of species three.This movie had almost nothing to do with the first three.
The idea's not bad, but after the first chase scene in the streets of Mexico the movie shifts to a series of dimly-lit night sequences which make it hard to even understand what's going on.
If they wanted to just convey the sexual point in the story they shouldn't have filmed full body sex.Basically if you were happy with how they ended number 3, don't waste your emotions getting involved with these unrelated characters.
Species 4: The Awakening Movie Review by: Meh We all know that SciFi films are not exactly the top of the bar when it comes to movies, or horror movies for that matter.
The premise of the movie is a young woman discovers she's actually the genetic crossbreed between human and alien.
Species 4 has a cast of B actors who do a great job at carrying the story and the level of CHEESE in the plot and characters was kept to a bare minimum making for overall a well put together made for TV sci-fi horror film.
I think that folks who like SciFi Network films will love this movie and people who hate them will actually say 'Hey this ain't half bad'..
While it is explained that Sara (the Alien) has no feelings and that is acted perfectly, she becomes a side character and rather boring in her own movie, until the third act.
Species The Awakening-The main theme is survival, again, but this time not the survival of the alien DNA, but the human side of the alien.
While characters are more fleshed out, and acting is not bad at all, the story is just so plain and boring, the alien costume looks much cheaper than the ones from the 3 previous movies, especially noticeable on the face, and the movie ignores a big part of how the aliens were introduced in the previous movies, more on that later.SPOILERS AHEAD: 10 minutes in you learn who the characters are, how they fit the Species universe, and what their goal is.
2 minutes later she is transformed fighting Azura with no pain, and the baby is never mentioned again.Now the inconsistency problem.The enemy alien, Azura, is boring and is introduced as inferior to the main alien Miranda, even called outright stupid in the movie, and given a super bad accent which sounds Russian, not Mexican.
She is inferior, but in alien form she has abilities that Miranda does not possess.Azura is sometimes good, sometimes bad.
Boring, nothing like the rest of the Species movies.
She starts to turn alien and then the Professor must take her to Mexico to find an old colleague who can maybe save here life.From then on it's just boobs, sex, killer tongues, and more boobs with some pretty dull action scenes thrown in between.
It's also rather entertaining, although "Species III" set the bar so low that it's easy to praise anything coming afterward.I enjoy this movie, with reservations, and I'll try to explain why without any major spoilers.
Not on the level of the first movie, and maybe not even on the level of "Alien 3," but definitely not your by-the-numbers aliens-killing-humans scenes.
If this proves to be the final chapter in the "Species" series, it will be a worthy end.The bottom line is this isn't a bad sci-fi/horror/action movie.
In this film Tom (Ben Cross) loves Miranda (Helena Mattsson) as his daughter.
This movie wasn't that bad but I liked to know what happened to the people walking away to the woods at the end of the third part..
She lives with her uncle "Tom Hollander" (Ben Cross) due to the fact that both of her parents were killed when she was quite young.
The truth of the matter is that she was created by Tom and this other scientist named "Forbes McGuire" (Dominic Keating) as an experiment using human DNA and mixing it with the same type of alien DNA used in the previous movies.
In any case, this movie wasn't quite as good as the first two films and I have rated it accordingly. |
tt0083739 | Class of 1984 | Andrew Norris (Perry King) is the new music teacher at a troubled inner city school. As he arrives on his first day, he meets fellow teacher Terry Corrigan (Roddy McDowall) who is carrying a gun. When Norris asks about the firearm, Corrigan assures the new teacher that he will soon know why such protection is necessary. When they enter the school, Norris is shocked to see everyone scanned by metal detectors and frisked. He spots a student with a knife, but the security guards let the kid go because they are so overworked.
The halls of the school are covered with graffiti. Norris learns that he is expected to patrol the halls as a security guard during his off periods. In his first class, a group of disruptive kids who are not registered in band are roughhousing and causing trouble. The leader of the gang is Peter Stegman (Timothy Van Patten). They quiet down enough to let Norris try to run the class where some kids genuinely want to learn, like Arthur (Michael J. Fox) who plays trumpet and Deneen who plays clarinet.
As Norris gets to know the school and the area, he decides that he wants to put together an orchestra with his more advanced students. The film follows Stegman's gang as they sell drugs, run a strip club, and cause all kinds of mayhem. They follow Norris home and taunt him one night.
At school, Norris is confronted with more and more evidence of Stegman's crimes. The two grow increasingly at odds. Eventually, they wind up in a bathroom alone together. Stegman throws himself into a mirror and beats himself up before claiming that Norris attacked him. Trying to clear things up, Norris visits Stegman's mother at home. Frustrated when Stegman still plays the victim and his mother will not hear Norris out, he hotwires Stegman's car and drives it into a wall.
The film climaxes as Norris' orchestra is about to give its first concert. As his wife gets ready at home, Stegman's gang breaks into the house and gang rapes her. One of them takes a Polaroid of her being raped and has it delivered to Norris on the podium, just as he is about to start the concert. Horrified by the photo, Norris runs off the podium in pursuit of Stegman's gang. The remainder of the film depicts Norris and the gang chasing each other through the school. Norris kills them off one by one, and he finally confronts Stegman on the roof. Their last scuffle ends with Stegman falling through a skylight and getting tangled in the ropes above the stage. He falls into full view of the audience as his neck is broken by one of the ropes.
The film ends with a title that claims Norris was never charged because the police could not find a witness to the crime. | violence, cult, revenge, murder, sadist | train | wikipedia | This movie has got it all - a cheesy theme sung by Alice Cooper, a high school terrorized by drug dealing punks, a classic sequence where a square student, high on something or other, decides to salute the flag...
when new teacher andy norris (perry king) arrives at lincoln high, he unwittingly pits himself against a gang of punks led by the legendary timothy van patton (who shocks the audience with a beautiful self-written piano solo).
Rape, gory violence, great villains, a killer signature song from Alice Cooper ("I Am The Future"), and solid performances from genre vets such as Perry King ("Mandingo", "Search and Destroy") and Roddy McDowell equal one of the greatest exploitation films of all time.
King starts work at a crime-ridden school and is targeted by a nasty gang led by the disturbed, spoiled, vicious, gifted youth Stegman (Timothy Van Patten).
I kinda hated this film when it first came out, thinking that it was unrealistic and ultra-violent, what with the metal detectors at the entrances to the high schools and depictions of punks, etc...little did I know.
This film, a kind of update of "Blackboard Jungle" by way of "Clockwork Orange" and "Death Wish" is a fascinating look at an urban high school controlled by punk gang leader Stegman (Timothy Van Patten).
This film is extremely well made, a classic b-movie that is first rate compared to junk like "The Faculty" or any of the other awful "I Know What you Did Last Summer" type of teen flicks out these days....
Meanwhile , a teacher (Roddy MacDowall , though Dennis Weaver was originally offered the role but turned it down as being too violent, and this character was inspired by several true stories of school violence director had read about in papers) has brought a gun to class to control his students .
Andrew Norris (Perry King) is a new teacher from Nebreska who has a run-in with the local toughs when he refuses to just look the other way like fellow teacher, Terry (Roddy McDowell) warns him to do.
The sadistic, violence prone student, Peter Stegman, runs the school with his colorful gang of cronies that look like cast rejects from The Warriors.
There are a lot of moments really good in this movie: a few examples: The scene of the drug dealing, the scene where Timothy Van Patten hurts himself in the toilets, the track he plays at the piano, the scene of the rape, and the whole scenes of the end of the movie which goes crescendo in the violence.
Although the things about school violence happening in the film was seen as over the top now it has become a frightening reality.Class Of 1984 tells the story about a new music teacher named Andy Norris(Perry King) who has just transfered to Lincoln high to teach music.
When Andy gets to his music class he now has to deal with Peter Stegman(Tim Van Patten) and his gang of misfits who run the school.
When Andy tries tell the police and school officials with no luck, Andy must deal with Peter Stegman and his gang in a violent cat and mouse game leading up to a violent conclusion.Class Of 1984 is an amazing film from beginning to end because while there are things in the film that are over the top, the film is just as relevant as it was back in 1982.
Lester made this film because he wanted this movie to be a warning about what would happen if teenagers and High School violence wasn't handled.
This question definitely applies to Andy Norris who probably asks himself that question throughout the film and that's one of the great things about Class Of 1984 and where it rises above the typical B-Movie exploitation film.
It's ending that matches the tone of the rest of the film and is a unforgettable conclusion.Perry King does a brilliant job as Andy Norris,a new music teacher,with King bringing depth and intensity to the role and having great scenes with Van Patten.
The theme song I am the Future by Alice Cooper is amazing and unforgettable and you'll be singing during and after the movie.In final word,if you love Thrillers,Teen Films and Exploitation Films,you'll love Class Of 1984 an excellent film and a great Cult Classic that will stand the test of time and will stay with you after you watch it.
The acting is nothing short of fantastic, featuring breakout performances by Perry King as the caring Norris who slowly begins to lose his patience, the always incredible Roddy McDowell as Terry, the man who has lost all hope in his teaching abilities and dreams of actually making a good change in these kids lives, and, of course, Timothy Van Patten as Stegman, who plays the role with a mix of suaveness, psychosis, and even tragedy at his wasted life.
Fox also makes an early appearance as a good kid trapped in such a miserable world.The film does a good job of building the antagonists up as completely despicable so by the final showdown between Norris and the gang, you are itching for them to die, yet they are sympathetic in a way.
While Columbine may have proved that Lester's vision didn't go quite far enough, he sure as hell knows how to create the perfect B-movie.Brutal, fast and fun, such outrageously violent scenes as Andy cutting off a gang member's arm with a circular saw or burning another pupil alive ensured that Class of 1984 was heavily cut and even banned in numerous countries (recent R2 and R1 releases are fully uncut).Lester has claimed that he introduced America to punk rock with this movie.
While that's debatable, the gang all look the part, although Stegman boasts an unfortunate haircut that puts the 'wave' in 'new', and the soundtrack mixes the likes of Fear and Teenage Head with Alice Cooper.With its stylised brutality, punk rock soundtrack and relentless pace, Class of 1984 still hits you like a motorcycle chain to the jaw..
A gritty 80s re-working of 50s high-school drama The Blackboard Jungle, Class of 1984 exploited its audience's distrust of the current rebellious youth culture—punk rock—much further than its rock 'n' roll predecessor, presenting a bleak, violent, dystopian near-future that may have seemed a tad far fetched on its release, but which these days appears to have been scarily prophetic.An idealistic music teacher Andrew Norris (Perry King) moves to the suburbs with his pregnant wife to start a new job at an inner city high school, but is shocked to discover that his workplace is effectively controlled by gangs of juveniles, the worst being a group of punks led by psychotic genius Stegman (Timothy Van Patten).
Inevitably, the trouble escalates, becoming increasingly violent, and when Stegman's gang turn their attention to Norris's wife, the normally placid teacher finally realises that the only answer to his problem is to fight fire with fire.Although Tom Holland's script was obviously crafted to appeal to the same audiences who lapped up the violent right-wing retribution of Michael Winner's Death Wish movies, Class of 1984 is a little different to many of the revenge dramas that also followed in that film's wake.Firstly, unlike Bronson's Paul Kersey, Norris never actively seeks revenge: his violent acts are committed in self-defense and in order to save his wife.Secondly, the film suggests that it is previous generations' apathy and inaction that is to blame for social decay.
The adults in '84 seem to have given up trying to solve the problems facing their community, and are now simply content in dealing with them as painlessly as possible (or simply by turning a blind eye altogether): the principal of the school refuses to enforce stricter punishments for rule infractions; likewise, the police's hands are conveniently tied by red-tape; biology teacher Terry Corrigan (Roddy McDowell) has turned to the bottle and is simply biding his time to retirement; and Stegman's middle-class mother is so ignorant that she refuses to believe her son could be anything other than a complete angel.Finally, we have the intriguing notion that, given a little nurturing from his single parent mother, Stegman could easily have been a grade A student, but a combination of boredom and neglect (plus a dash of untreated psychosis) has made him the murderous nut-job that he is.Still, a murderous nut-job he most certainly is, which means that he (and his gang) deserve to die, and Andy Norris turns out to be just the man to teach these scumbag kids a few lessons they will never forget...Music: Norris succeeds in getting a decent tune from one punk by bashing him repeatedly over the head with a metal bar.
Physics: Norris allows Stegman to take part in a practical experiment about gravitational force, throwing the loutish gang leader to his death from the school roof.If, like me, you're a fan of exploitative and gratuitously violent trash, then these scenes will most likely be your primary reason for tracking this sucker down, for they definitely deliver the goods when it comes to brutal and bloody action.
Makes those previous films look like the little red school house.Perry King and expecting wife Merrie Lynn Ross are new to the city and the school where King has got a new job as the music teacher.
***SPOILERS*** Released in the summer of 1982 the movie "Class of 1984" is really a remake of the 1955 juvenile delinquency classic "Blackboard Jungle" but far more violent with high school as well as music prodigy Peter Stegman, Thimothy Van Patten, who used his gang of thugs to terrorize everyone including teachers and principles at Lincoln High.
It's now the naive and sensitive Andrew Norris, Perry King, who has no idea in what he's up against who was to take his place.Andrew Norris who was the victim together with his fellow science teacher Terry Corrigan, Roddy Mcowall, of Stegman and his gang's violent abuses that included Andrew's pregnant wife Diane, Marrie Lynn Ross, who was kidnapped and brutalized by them soon turned into a Chuck Norris in him dealing with them.
Perry King stars as a teacher who is forced to turn vigilante when mean punks kidnap and rape his wife during the school orchestra, of course this is all brought to the surface due to King and Van Patten's struggle among each other through out the entire movie.
Fox, Timothy Van Patten, Perry King Review:The story is about a music teacher called Andrew Norris.
Lester goes on saying that Class of 1984 was a 'prophetic' film about how slowly but surely violence was going to escalate in public high schools to the point where it would be almost uncontrollable.
I have enjoyed this movie a bunch of times now,very good film,very believable.Timothy VanPatten looks a little too "Hollywood" in the picture.Roddy McDowall gives a superb performance as a biology teacher fighting alcoholism and Perry King is excellent too..
Basically it's Perry King who isn't bad, as the new music teacher, against Stegman, where the two keep hitting back, making for an absorbing and revenge cheering the good guy on pic, but nothing more.
Class Of 1984 does a rape scene to, and hats off to the Lisa Langois as the female villainess, and Merrie Lynn Ross, very good, and does us solid as King's raped wife, while also watch for a younger Michael J Fox, so so, as a stabbing victim, whose friend high on drugs, climbed one too many flagpoles.
Actually, I recall this film getting released theatrically over here all those years ago and even its first airing on Italian TV a little time later but, somehow, I never managed to sit down and watch it for myself until now.Anyway, despite its being fashioned literally almost step-by-step on BLACKBOARD JUNGLE Itself - the lead teacher has a pregnant wife who is harassed while alone in her home by the thugs, the teacher's best friend and fellow schoolteacher suffers terribly at the hands of his students, the head of school is powerless to intervene but still condemns King's eye-for-an-eye retaliatory tactics, etc.
Music teacher Andrew Norris is given a teaching assignment at a tough inner city school and it's not long before he becomes a target for a tough gang who rule the school through a reign of fear This begins with a caption saying " unfortunately some of the incidents are based on real life incidents " Considering the setting is 1984 the film hints that it's a forewarning as to what the future may hold in store .
Class of 1984 (1982)** 1/2 (out of 4)Music teacher Andy Norris (Perry King) arrives at a new school where on the first day he notices fellow teacher Terry (Roddy McDowall) carrying a gun.
Pretty soon gang leader Stegman (Timothy Van Pattern) targets Andy and the attacks keep getting more violent.CLASS OF 1984 pretty much came out of nowhere and turned into a profitable hit that managed to score quite a few good reviews even from critics like Roger Ebert.
This trend continued in the 1980s with mainstream cinema churning out Death Wish and Dirty Harry sequels.This obscure B movie outing features an early film appearance by Michael J Fox, one of the few actors in this film who looks like a high school student.Perry Kings plays newbie Music teacher at Lincoln High whose idealism quickly goes out of the window as its run by a nihilistic gang of scumbags led by Peter Stegman who despite living a high style life, he can even play the piano spends most of his time living the life of violence and drug pushing.
Despite security guards, CCTV the Dean of the school can never find any wrongdoing by the thugs and other teachers just turn a blind eye until Roddy McDowall the Biology teacher snaps that is.Timothy Van Patten is having a hoot as the vile and cunning Stegman who really gets off in bringing misery which also includes an unsettling gang rape scene.
It was momentarily popular in its day because of the Orwellian connotations of the year 1984 which was just around the corner at the time.Perry King plays a new teacher who goes to work at an inner city high school run by ruthless punks led by Timothy Van Patten, who does a good, over the top job as the psychotic Stegman.
Perry King plays a bullied music teacher who's almost Had It Up To Here with the menacing gang terrorizing the school (one of the students is a fat Michael J Fox!).
Supposedly this is a modern update of an acclaimed 50's movie called "The Blackboard Jungle" starring Glenn Ford and Vic Morrow, but – even without having seen the original version - I heavily suspect the juvenile delinquents of that film to look like angelic choirboys in comparison with the psychopathic and anarchistic punk-kids of Lincoln High in "Class of 1984".
The ambitious and idealistic music teacher Andy Norris starts his new career at Lincoln High, but immediately notices that the entire school lives under the terrorist reign of gifted thug Peter Stegman and his gang of crazy lackeys.
As exploitation revengers go, this one delivers.Music teacher Andrew Norris (Perry King of "The Choirboys" and "Mandingo" - a bit of an exploitation veteran) arrives at the Abraham Lincoln High School as a substitute member-of-staff.
Naive and idealistic music teacher Andy Norris (a fine and likable performance by Perry King) gets a job at Lincoln High School in a crime-infested neighborhood.
Perry King does a great job as Mr.Norris while Timothy Van Patten does his role great as stegman.
Just how far might "Teach" go if the gloves really, finally, come off, and there is no (intention of) going back?Slow but steady escalation is the hallmark of "Class of 1984", in which millions of teachers everywhere get vicarious exploration of the above scenarios thanks to the work of Perry King as Mr Norris; and his problem is not truly "losing" control of his class, since his inevitable loss of control was decided by a group of by-definition-uncooperative, drug-crazed thug-pupils before he ever set foot on the graffiti-ridden inner-city premises of Lincoln High, with its X-ray scanning at the doors and omnipresent security cameras and guards.The film indeed commences with real-life news about violence and other problems encountered in US schools, so maybe it wants to make some serious points.
Timothy Van Patten, who does not act especially proficiently as mummy's boy/gang-leader Peter Stegman, does not really look like a psycho troublemaker (even if willing self-harming to damage Norris's reputation makes it clear he is one).
Perry King stars as music teacher Andrew Norris who arrives for his first day at a school only to become entangled in a war against a gang, led by Peter Stegman, played by Timothy Van Patten.
I see the comparison, however I feel it's irrelevant when discussing this film.timothy van patten (salami from the white shadow) plays a high school misfit who leads a gang into violence, drug dealing, and prostitution with an 80's punk vibe that even includes a memorable performance by the underrated hamilton based band teenage head.look for a young michael j.
When he's pushed too far and is teaching the kids while threatening them with a gun is intense but you feel good for Harry because of what the gang did, Perry King also does a great performance as Andrew Norris.
Class of 1984 starts as new music teacher Mr. Andrew Norris (Perry King) arrives at an inner city hell hole of a school named Abraham Lincoln High, he is somewhat shocked to discover the pupils carrying switchblades, selling drugs, intimidating other teachers & students & generally behaving in a very anti-social way to each other.
(Plot) Andy (Perry King) arrives at an inner city high school to take over the music class.
Perry King is a music teacher in the kind of school found mostly in movies. |
tt0118301 | Dead Man on Campus | Josh (Tom Everett Scott) gets into college on a scholarship, and Cooper (Mark-Paul Gosselaar) is assigned as his roommate. Cooper does little work and instead spends all the time partying and consistently fails his courses, but his father continues to pay his tuition. The normally studious Josh is led astray by Cooper's lifestyle, and spends the first half of his first semester partying instead of studying, and consequently flunks all of his midterms. To his horror, he then finds out that a condition of his scholarship is a passing grade average each semester, and that with his poor midterm score, he needs an A+++ (which is impossible) in all of his courses or he will lose his scholarship.
Meanwhile, Cooper's father finally realizes Cooper is not trying to pass his course at all, and threatens to pull his funding if he does not get a passing grade this semester, leaving him in a similar position. They find out about an obscure academic rule that states that if a student's roommate commits suicide, then the roommates get perfect grades for that semester, regardless of any previous academic standing. Cooper and Josh set out to find roommates who are likely to commit suicide; their first potential roommate, Cliff O'Malley (Lochlyn Munro), is more likely to get himself (and any one with him) killed than commit suicide. They soon realize that he will likely get them killed or arrested and jump out of his moving car when he is being chased by the police.
Next, they try Buckley Schrank (Randy Pearlstein), a computer geek who thinks Bill Gates wants his brain. After they move Buckley in, they try to help push him over the edge. First, Cooper poses as a suicide hotline volunteer, and when Buckley calls, he tells him that he is Bill Gates and wants his brain. Then, Cooper buys equipment that may assist in a suicide (rope, daggers, prescription drugs) and as Josh and he are trying to plant the items around the dorm room, Buckley discovers the pair hiding from him with a noose and knife in hand. Buckley, who thinks that they are trying to kill him, and that the conspiracy to kill him and steal his brain is real, runs away.
Finally, Josh and Cooper move in Matt Noonan (Corey Page), a moody rock musician. Later, Cooper catches him singing show tunes and learns he was voted Mr. Happy in high school, leading them to believe that he is only pretending to be depressed to impress girls and make a name for himself in music. Facing the loss of his scholarship, Josh stands on the edge of a bridge, about to commit suicide himself. Cooper tells Josh he is not a failure and talks him down. When Josh comes down from the bridge, he reveals to Cooper that he was faking his suicide attempt so the school would not fail him, and Cooper would look like a hero to his father. The film ends with Josh narrating that he was given an additional semester to improve his grades, in which he saved his scholarship, and that Cooper became a more serious student, but did work summers cleaning toilets for his father's business to learn how to eventually take over. | suicidal | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0054353 | The Sundowners | Irish-Australian Paddy Carmody (Robert Mitchum) is a sheep drover and shearer, roving the sparsely-populated back country with his wife Ida (Deborah Kerr) and son Sean (Michael Anderson, Jr.). They are sundowners, constantly moving, pitching their tent whenever the sun goes down. Ida and Sean want to settle down, but Paddy has wanderlust and never wants to stay in one place for long. While passing through the bush the family meet refined Englishman Rupert Venneker (Peter Ustinov) and hire him to help drive a large herd of sheep to the town of Cawndilla. Along the way, they survive a dangerous brush fire.
Mrs. Firth (Glynis Johns), who runs the pub in Cawndilla, takes a liking to Rupert. He takes to spending nights with her, but, like Paddy, he has no desire to be tied down.
Ida convinces Paddy to take a job at a station shearing sheep; she serves as the cook, Rupert as a wool roller, and Sean as a tar boy. Ida enjoys the company of another woman, their employer's lonely wife, Jean Halstead (Dina Merrill). When fellow shearer Bluey Brown's (John Meillon) pregnant wife Liz (Lola Brooks) shows up unannounced, she sees the young woman through her first birth.
Ida is saving the money the family earns for a farm that they stayed at for a night on the sheep drive. Even though Paddy has agreed to participate in a shearing contest against someone from a rival group, he decides to leave six weeks into the shearing season. Ida persuades him to stay. He loses the contest to an old veteran.
Paddy wins a lot of money and a race horse playing two-up. Owning such an animal has been his longstanding dream. They name him Sundowner and enter him, with Sean as his jockey, at local races on their travels after the shearing is done. Sean and Sundowner win their first race.
Ida finally convinces a still reluctant Paddy to buy the farm she and Sean have their hearts set on. However, he loses everything Ida has saved for the down payment in a single night of playing two-up. By way of apology, he tells her that he has found a buyer for Sundowner if he wins the next race. The money would recoup their down payment. Though Sundowner does win, he is disqualified for interference and the deal falls through. Nevertheless, Paddy's deep remorse heals the breach with Ida, and they resolve to save enough money to buy a farm one day. | romantic | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0084988 | The Black Adder | Set in the Middle Ages, the series is written as an alternate history. It opens on 21 August 1485, the eve of the Battle of Bosworth Field, which in the series is won not by Henry Tudor (as in reality) but by Richard III. Richard III, played by Peter Cook, is presented as a good king who doted on his nephews, contrary to the Shakespearean view of him as a hunchbacked, infanticidal monster.
After his victory in the battle, Richard III is unintentionally killed by Lord Edmund Plantagenet; Richard attempts to take Edmund's horse, which he thinks is his own. Not recognizing the king, Edmund thinks Richard is stealing it and cuts his head off. The late King's nephew, Richard, Duke of York (played by Brian Blessed) who is Lord Edmund Plantagenet's father, is then crowned as Richard IV. Lord Edmund himself did not take part in the battle after arriving late, but later claims to have killed 450 peasants and several nobles, one of whom had actually been killed by his brother in the battle.
King Richard IV of England and XII of Scotland and his Queen Gertrude of Flanders have two sons: Harry, Prince of Wales and his younger brother Prince Edmund. Of the two, Harry is by far his father's favourite, the King barely acknowledging his second son's existence. It is a running gag throughout the series that Edmund's father cannot even remember his name. However, despite his mostly dismissive attitude toward his second son, the series' finale makes it clear that the King loves Edmund as much as Harry: on Edmund's deathbed, the King does his best to console him and has the entire court drink a toast in his honour. In the third episode, when Edmund becomes the Archbishop of Canterbury and helps his father to secure some land before the church, the King acknowledges Edmund as his son, embraces him and even mentions to the Queen that he has "turned out well".
Using this premise, the series follows the fictitious reign of Richard IV (1485–98) through the experiences of Prince Edmund, who styles himself as "The Black Adder", and his two sidekicks: the imbecilic Lord Percy Percy, the Duke of Northumberland (Tim McInnerny); and Baldrick (Tony Robinson), a more intelligent servant of no status.
By the end of the series, events converge with accepted history, when King Richard IV and his entire family are poisoned, allowing Henry Tudor to take the throne as King Henry VII. He then rewrites history, presenting Richard III as a monster, and eliminating Richard IV's reign from the history books. In reality, Richard, Duke of York, one of the Princes in the Tower, was only twelve years old (and perhaps two years dead) when the Battle of Bosworth Field took place in 1485, and thus too young to have had two adult sons. One notable anachronism is Edmund´s title, Duke of Edinburgh, as Scotland was an independent kingdom ruled by a different royal house from its inception in the ninth century until 1603 (with the exception of some periods during the turmoil of the Scottish Wars of Independence) though given that this is an alternate history, it is possible that Henry Tudor falsified the history of Scotland as well.
=== Episodes ===
The episodes in this series, written by Rowan Atkinson and Richard Curtis, were originally shown on BBC One on Wednesday evenings, 21:25 – 22:00. Each episode ran for roughly 33 minutes. The series began on 15 June 1983.
Each of the episodes was based on a medieval theme — the Wars of the Roses, the Crusades and Royal succession, the conflict between the Crown and the Church, arranged marriages between monarchies, and the Plague and witchcraft. The final episode follows a planned coup d'état.
The series was broadcast shortly after the BBC Television Shakespeare productions of Shakespeare's four plays about the Wars of the Roses, the three-part Henry VI plays, followed by Richard III, which was first shown on 23 January 1983. Some of the same actors were used to enhance the parody of Shakespearean history. Ron Cook, who played Richard III in the Shakespeare productions, is cast as the villainous "Sean the Irish Bastard". Peter Benson, who played Shakespeare's Henry VI, played Henry VII in the first episode.
=== Character development ===
In this series, the character of the Black Adder is somewhat different from later incarnations, being largely unintelligent, naive, and snivelling. The character does evolve through the series, however, and he begins showing signs of what his descendants will be like by the final episode, where he begins insulting everyone around him and making his own plans. This evolution follows naturally from the character's situation. "The Black Adder" is the title that Edmund adopts during the first episode (after first considering "The Black Vegetable"). Presumably one of his descendants adopted it as a surname before Blackadder II, in which the title character becomes "Edmund Blackadder". Furthermore, Baldrick is shown in more favourable and intelligent light here - his 'cunning plans' are typiclly superior and more workable than Edmund's own. Starting from the second series, the character's relative intelligence and naivety clearly switch. | comedy, satire, alternate history | train | wikipedia | This comparison unfortunately causes the viewer to miss what makes this series such an excellent piece of comedy writing and production.The whole series centres on Edmund (Rowan Atkinson), the son of the younger of the two princes who in history were murdered in the Tower of London, allegedly by Richard III.
The first episode of the series lays the foundation, explaining how Richard III dies, how Edmund's father becomes King and also the important, accidental, foretelling by three Witches (a clever alude to the witches in Shakespeare's Macbeth) to Edmund that one day he will be King.
There is a definite bond between the main characters, Blackadder and his sidekicks, Percy and Baldrick (excellently played by Tim McInnerny and Tony Robinson respectively) and although Blackadder treats his underlings with contempt at times, they collaborate as a team throughout in a series of 'cunning plans'.
Baldrick is indeed the intelligent character of the group, the man in the know and his character has much more depth than his smelly and stupid character of later series.Each plot in the series follows a similar pattern - Blackadder getting himself into a situation and having to get himself out of it.
The late, great Peter Cook also makes an appearance as Richard III in the first episode.This series must be watched out of context with what followed.
This series not only shows Rowan Atkinson at his very best, but also the writing of Richard Curtis (and Atkinson) and it is an overlooked classic of British comedy..
Rowan has a great talent especially playing Edmund Black Adder.
Much has been written here about `Black Adder' already, and even if you haven't seen it yet, you probably know whether or not you like the dry, sarcastic style of British comedy that this show typifies.
However, DO NOT base your supposed knowledge of British history on this show, as they make things up for the sake of comedy.With the recent release of the wonderful `Complete Collector's Set' of Blackadder series on DVD, I had the chance to watch them all again.
Political correctness will be the death of comedy, yet.Among the special features of the DVDs are brief history lessons on certain historical figures, events, places, and cultural references in the shows, explained by Tony Robinson in Baldrick's wonderful, melodious working-class accent.
Also, they cover not just all four series, but every special show and skit associated with Black Adder, making it truly `complete.' The packaging design of the Complete Collector's Set is so cunning, you could brush your teeth with it, though I wouldn't recommend it..
Although series 2 ('Elizabethan'), 3 ('Regency'), and 4 ('Great War') were probably better overall, this was the series that introduced Edmund Blackadder to the TV-watching world twenty years ago.
In series 1, however, it was Edmund who was spineless and Baldrick who really did have the sense; in subsequent series these roles would be somewhat reversed and the idea then really took off.I do like series 1 for the following reasons: strong casting aside from Rowan Atkinson, Tony Robinson and Tim McInnerny; this series included Brian Blessed, Robert East as regulars and guests like Peter Cook (brilliant in the very first episode), and Alex Norton (as McAngus).
While the three following series were sharper and more studio-based (not always a good thing ...) I do think the wild open spaces of The Black Adder helped enormously to get some sense of the Middle Ages into comedy, even if all four series have played havoc with historical fact!.
The first series of Black Adder reminds me a lot of Monty Python films - full of hilarious moments but somehow not quite all there as a whole.
I'm not a huge Bean fan and there's too much Bean here for my liking.On the other hand, the second, third and fourth Blackadder series represent some of the best British comedy around (different script writer) and so the first series is worth watching just to introduce the characters.
The structure of the 4 original series (excluding Back & Forth) is brilliant - Edmund believes he is destined to be king of England; with each successive generation, though, his family drifts another stage further away from the crown, but ironically, with each generation the main character (Blackadder) is more intelligent, and had the family remained close to the crown he no doubt would have found a way to become king.
The fun does not stop there, this is but the first of four series that follows the intrepid Edmund Blackadder through time.
If you already liked Rowan Atkinson, you'll enjoy his facial muggings; but aficionados will miss the stylish, scheming sociopath we came to know and love.My pick, for those who want to check it out, is "The Queen of Spain's Beard", with Miriam Margolyes as the Spanish Infanta.
Though the show's epic settings aren't there for humour - just to bleed the BBC dry of money - they really do make this the best series to look at visually, and there are some good special effects on show (Richard III's head flying off its body is pretty well done).
This first series is a good start, and should be watched because it is unique to all the other Blackadder series, but if you aren't used to seeing Blackadder stupid, Baldrick smart, and no Stephen Fry or Hugh Laurie in the cast, you would be best off watching this series first.The Black Adder is very funny in parts, but all things get better as they go along, and whereas we do have some good episodes in this first series, the following three series are funnier and sharper.
I suppose it's because the Baldrick character is smart and Black Adder character is stupid.""Why does that bother you so much?""Well I suppose that it's more funny to see a stupid guy being made to look stupid who isn't in charge of anything.""Go on.""In the first series the Prince looks stupid, but he's in charge of things so they go wrong.
Blackadder is one of the best sitcoms ever put on television, with consistently excellent and brilliantly funny scripts all the way through........well, from Seasons 2-4 at least.The first Season of Blackadder, simply titled "The Black Adder", focusing on some sort of secret history where Henry Tudor was never king until later and he re-wrote history to eliminate his predecessor Richard IV (played by the legend that is Brian Blessed) from the history books, is generally regarded as the weakest season, and it is easy to see why.
The show was a lot sillier back in this season, and the character of Edmund (the "Black Adder") is pretty much a snivelling, unlikable toad rather than the witty character we would see in later seasons.That said, despite the first seasons many faults, it was still entertaining, so I guess that allows me to give it at least a 6/10.
The part when Edmund (Rowan Atkinson) accidentally beheads the old King Richard who he believes is stealing his horse "A Horse, a Horse, my Kingdom for a Horse," must go down as one of the funniest moments in British Television.An excellent series and for anyone who hasn't seen the other three series, they are just as funny..
I love the way that Rowan Atkinson uses history, twists it for fun, and makes wonderful satire out of it!
If you like Mr. Bean, by all means, watch, if you want the REAL Black Adder watch Season 2, 3, 4, the Christmas Special and the New Year special.
Atkinson, as the soul and the title of the series, challenges himself on all sorts of personas, from gullible to being cunning as a fox, his necessity on greed and humility is the fabrication of the history itself.Robinson is the apt supporter of his, on every literal sense where every now and then brilliant actors like Laurie and Fry invests their talent in, to raise the bar.
So I do know how the formula worksThe episode is rather weird with characters like blackadder are the opposite personality like the ones portrayed in other seasons and is acted in a goofy geeky type of way instead of sarcastic, more payed out versions.
But to make this review short I'll finish by saying that it was an odd way too start the series with some character who are not the greatest yet but there are a lot of gags with a good storyline to support it and also due to the fact it's the first ever blackadder episode 7/10.
This slimy schemer would be known by a name that would exist throughout all of time called "BlackAdder." From this moment onwards a legend was born, as it would go on to become one of the finest British sitcoms ever.Rowan Atkinson makes his debut in the role that made him famous.
Percy comes across as rather normal and Baldrick is actually a clever and articulate fellow instead of being the moronic tramp that BlackAdder would always loathe and ridicule.This first series is rough around the edges in general.
They're actually not that bad.The premise is that Edmund, The Duke Of Edinburgh (Rowan Atkinson) is a cowardly, idiot bastard who tries to become King over both his father, Richard VI (Brian Blessed) and his brother Harry.
While this is going on the King and Harry give him some tasks he doesn't like and usually is helped through them by his smarter (but given no credit) servant, Baldrick (Tony Robinson) and his friend Percy (Tim McInnery) who is dumber than Blackadder is.Okay so there are some things that I like.
Set in The Middle Ages - when life was cheap - you actually get the sense that his life really is in danger in every episode.The relationship between Blackadder, Baldrick and Percy was different in this first series.
He held a knife to a priest's throat and assaulted a Bishop - all in good fun of course!By series 4, Baldrick was a more a figure of fun, an empty vessel - his main purpose was to act stupid and make Blackadder look clever.The supporting cast in the first series was also the best IMO: Brian Blessed was brilliant as the menacing King and Blackadder's 'Dad'.
And we also have great acting; Patrick Allen's sardonic narration has me in squeals of laughter, and while Tim McInnery and Tony Robinson as Percy and Baldrick are wonderful and Brian Blessed relishes his role as King Richard IV while chewing the scenery at the same time, it is Rowan Atkinson as as slimy and selfish Edmund Black Adder who steals the show.
Overall, this is a great series, not the best(Black Adder Goes Forth especially was outstanding) but a fine start.
Funnily enough you never see this black horse again in the other series and I think he is one of the best parts.This series is a comedy running for 6 episodes.
The star is Edmund Blackadder, played by Rowan Atkinson.
His companions are Baldrick, played by Tony Robinson and Percy, played by Tim McInnerny.I recommend this first part to anyone who likes Mr. Bean in some way or another, who likes comedy historical series (just after Richard III) and for people who want a good introduction to Blackadder.
The characters of Edmund and Baldrick were not yet fully realised and the scripts unlike those in all later seasons, were co-written by Rowan Atkinson.
The best episodes are The Queen of Spain's Beard and The Black Seal but each are minor classics in their own right.Excellently acted and written and a great introduction to the chronicles of the Blackadder dynasty..
The other series and one-off specials were good but I think this was the best of a great lot..
If you enjoyed the Black Adder (who wouldn't) I'd strongly recommend the last series (Blackadder Goes Forth).
Related directly to royalty, until the twentieth century kicks in, where we find the Blackadder bloodline has been removed to officer class of the army.Edmunds finest hours were obviously when he became King of England for ten seconds, and Prince Regent after seeing the true one killed in a fit of pique by the Duke of Wellington.Ben Elton, after taking over the writing of the series, showed his sharp wit to the full by turning the characters around.
Are we supposed to spend thousands of hours finding out about what society was like then and who was who during that period?I've watched several episodes of Blackadder in order to try to get into it, but I'd need to be sitting next to a historian explaining the historical references in detail in order to understand it, let alone appreciate it.I've enjoyed other comedy by Rowan Atkinson, such as Mr Bean..
Rowan Atkinson stars in "Black Adder," a history spoof, which follows Atkinson throughout famous historical events/ time periods.Sometimes the show can have its hit-or-miss episodes, but most of the time its hilarious, and Rowan Atkinson makes it happen.4/5 stars-John Ulmer.
I've seen Rowan Atkinson in "Bean" and in a special he did on cable (i.e., both mime and talking), and I've always found him amusing.Not one thing in this pseudo-medieval comedy ever so much as raised a smile, and I watched all the episodes.
Best of the Lot. While all series of Black Adder are great, this is simply the best one.
Rowan Atkinson was funny as Mr. Bean, but he was downright hilarious as the Black Adder.
The premise of this British comedy series is that the central character, "The Black Adder", shows up at different points in history in various incarnations distorting historical events and poking fun at various British historical figures and situations along the way.Lots of people don't like Black Adder I, in which the title character, Edmund, is the younger son of a brutish man consumed with thoughts of war who actually becomes king of England through Edmund's own bungling - he arrives late for the Battle of Bosworth Field and winds up chopping off the head of Richard III, thus saving the life of Henry Tudor.
Season one will always be my favorite as it started an excellent series of Blackadders.
Rowan Atkinson(Best known as Mr. Bean) stars as Edmund Blackadder, a cunning yet slimy Duke of Edinburgh out to overthrow his father, Richard IV(Brian Blessed) and become King of England.
This was the first series of the popular sitcom written by Richard Curtis and Rowan Atkinson.
Set in the Dark Ages, the series see snivelling coward Edmund, Duke of Edinburgh, aka The Black Adder (Atkinson) constantly trying to find a way to rise to greatness, and weasel his way out of tricky situations.
I think the problem with this problem is that the character became much more funny in the following series, he is too much like a Mr. Bean replica, and it is odd to watch at times, but I suppose parts are funny.
Rowan Atkinson was number 18 on The 50 Greatest British Actors, he was number 24 on The Comedians' Comedian, and he was number 8 on Britain's Favourite Comedian, (the nastier) Edmund Blackadder was number 3 on The 100 Greatest TV Characters, and he was number 3 on The World's Greatest Comedy Characters, and the three following series were more focused as number 2 on Britain's Best Sitcom.
This series shows us King Richard IV's reign by following his second son; the snivelling Edmund; Duke of Edinburgh and self-titled 'Black Adder'.
Along the way he is accompanied by dim-witted friend Lord Percy Percy and servant Baldrick.This is often considered the weakest of the Blackadder series but I really enjoy it; perhaps because I watched it when it first aired and obviously had no idea how the character would develop in later years.
This fictional history is packed with hilarious moments and a fine cast which includes Rowan Atkinson, Brian Blessed, Tony Robinson and Tim McInnerny.
Rowan Atkinson is great as Edmund and Brian Blessed is hilariously over-the-top, in a way only he can be, as the King and Tony Robinson makes the role of Baldrick his own.
That name was "The Black Adder" and the series would become a momentous part of British Entertainment history.On the eve of the Battle of Bosworth Field, King Richard III (guest star Peter Cook) and his followers eat heartily with victory in mind.
Aided by his trusty friend Percy (Tim McInnery) and servant Baldrick (Tony Robinson), Edmund would become known as 'The Black Adder' and a legend would be born.The first series of an idea which would span the ages, this original "Blackadder" is the weakest of the series.
With the "help" of the even dumber than him Percy (Tim McInnery) and the surprisingly clever Baldrick (Tony Robinson), he attempts to take over the kingship from his father (veteran British character actor Brian Blessed) by indicting his brother Harry of being a b@stard and raising "the Black Seal", the wickedest men in England.
The first series of Blackadder was very bad; with its 'what if' storyline wherein Richard III wins the battle of Bosworth, the badly portrayed characters and poor acting.
We see Edmund put on trial for Witchcraft, barely escaping with his life, all of which lead him to finally take action in the last episode and launch his long awaited bid for absolute power.However for those who know what the next 500 years hold for the Blackadders and the Baldricks, it is worthwhile mentioning that this series should be viewed on its own merits and not part of the great historic saga that was to follow as it differs so much from future productions.
For some reason it is strangely under-rated and even dismissed in many quarters but although 'The Black Adder' is a little rough around the edges (although the production values are noticeably higher than in the subsequent series) it holds up better than the later episodes.
Every episode has enough jokes to keep you laughing throughout and on the whole the show holds up a lot better than most British comedies from the mid-eighties. |
tt2258345 | Fading Gigolo | Dr. Parker (Sharon Stone), a wealthy dermatologist, mentions to her patient Murray (Woody Allen) that she and a woman friend, Robbie, wish to experience a ménage à trois and asks if he knows a willing man. Murray, whose used bookstore has failed, convinces his friend and former employee Fioravante (John Turturro) to take the gig, as both are short of money. Soon, they build a thriving gigolo trade with Murray as the pimp. Murray lives with Othella (Tonya Pinkins) and her children, one of whom gets head lice. Murray takes the boy to Avigal, the attractive widow of a Hassidic rabbi, for treatment.
Murray tells her Fioravante is a massage healer who can help her and takes her to see him. Too observant to even shake hands with him, she nonetheless allows Fioravante to massage her back and that touch, the first ever of that kind in her life, brings her to tears. Meanwhile, Dovi (Liev Schreiber), who works for Shomrim, a Williamsburg, Brooklyn neighborhood patrol, becomes suspicious and follows Murray. Dovi is in love with Avigal, but she does not encourage him. Fioravante and Avigal meet several more times, culminating in a kiss in the park.
Fioravante is summoned to the long planned ménage, but is unable to finish. The two women cheerfully realize the truth—he has fallen in love. Murray is kidnapped by a group of Hassids, taken to a Rabbinic Court, and interrogated. Avigal interrupts the court and confesses to violating the laws of modesty, but nothing more, explaining she was lonely. Avigal now accepts Dovi, but has him drive her to Fioravante to say good bye. Fioravante tells Murray he is leaving, but reconsiders after an encounter with a beautiful woman. | pornographic, romantic | train | wikipedia | So it's odd and potentially exciting that he agreed to take a rather key role in Fading Gigolo, a passion project for actor-turned-writer-and-director John Turturro.
Even when it doesn't work, the cheeky byplay between Allen and Turturro's characters remains a selling point.The story goes like this: bookseller Murray (Allen) encounters hard times in the bookselling business, and hits upon the novel idea of playing the pimp to his unexpectedly charming friend Fioravante's (Turturro) gigolo.
But, even in the face of such voluptuous and voracious beauties as Dr. Parker (Sharon Stone) and her girlfriend Selima (Sofia Vergara), he's particularly intrigued by Avigal (an intriguing Vanessa Paradis), the buttoned-down widow of an orthodox rabbi who's barely surviving the extremely strict rules and regulations that accompany her husband's death.There's a lot to enjoy and even love in Turturro's gentle, quaint film.
The gentlemanly respect with which Fioravante treats all the ladies brought to him by Murray help the film's slightly out-dated message - women need a man to help them break down the walls that surround their hearts - go down a lot easier.But Fading Gigolo also veers into considerably less successful territory, chiefly by turning Fioravante and Avigal's relationship into an uncomfortable love triangle with Dovi (Liev Schreiber), an orthodox Jew who serves in the community police force in Avigal's neighbourhood and has loved her from afar for years.
But Turturro's tale takes such an odd left turn at the end that it undermines a lot of Fioravante's own growth within the film, which comes about when he realises just how strong an emotional connection he's forged with Avigal.Fortunately, the film benefits greatly from the spiky chemistry between Allen and Turturro - their characters spar and tease with words and glances, as Murray talks Fioravante into a business that really doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense.
And it's got Sharon Stone, still just as foxy as when she played Catherine Tramell in BASIC INSTINCT; the notion that a middle-aged man would get paid $1,000 to climb between her sheets is deliciously improbable (and very appealing to this middle-aged viewer).As we start another summer of CGI-heavy 3D blockbusters, FADING GIGOLO is a welcome return to They-don't-make-movies-like-that-any-more.
Also starring in supporting roles and fantastic to say the least; Sharon Stone, Sofia Vergara, Liev Schreiber, Vanessa Paradis, and New York's own, film legend Woody Allen.
But then the story does a sudden turn into deeper emotions when Allen connects him with the widow Avigal who is a devoted Jewess who after two years still mourns her dead husband...Although many scenes begin as a comedy some end on a very touching note.
And then there's the fuse that detonates this story: John Turturro, a flower seller and flower arranger turned gigolo by Woody Allen, who has had to go out of business as a rare book seller and, based on a casual remark by his dermatologist, finds pimping Turturro far, far more profitable.There are hilarious scenes.
John Turturro knows how to make a good Woody Allen movie.
Allen's character is his usual self, while Turturro's clients - played by Sharon Stone and Sofía Vergara - remind one of Mrs. Robinson in "The Graduate".The main thing that I took from this movie is that Woody Allen does best when he simply tries to be funny.
His best friend Murray (Woody Allen) tells that his dermatologist Dr. Parker (Sharon Stone) dreams on having a threesome and would pay a thousand-dollar to have with her friend Selima (Sofía Vergara).
Murray proposes to be Fioravante's gigolo and they start a male prostitution business.When Fioravante meets the Jewish Avigal (Vanessa Paradis), who is the widow of a rabbi, they fall in love with each other.
But the Jewish Dovi (Liev Schreiber) loves Avigal and will make life difficult for Murray."Fading Gigolo" is a deceptive and pointless movie that is neither a comedy nor a drama.
Woody Allen only acts in the picture but the John Turturro directed and stared film feels like the movie Allen never made.The title Fading Gigolo is perfect as it reflects Turturro who plays the gigolo, a man who could use a little more cash in his pocket so with the help of his friend played by Allen, he becomes an escort to some high class women looking for love and affection.Personally I think Mr. Tutturro cast himself as the gigolo just so he can show off how good he looks for his age.
And of course I can never leave out Sofia Vergara, who plays a sexy vixen who openly embraces the idea of the gigolo Though I find Woody Allen charming, I'm glad that his was a John Turturro film.
"This could definitely be the beginning of a very beautiful relationship between the three of us."Fading Gigolo is John Turturro's fifth turn at the director's chair for which he also starred and wrote the screenplay, although Woody Allen's participation in the film makes you wonder how much of a factor he was in the screenplay because there are several scenes that you know were influenced by him.
Then there's Turturro's clearly confused idea about what he exactly wants to do with the film, whether it'd be turning the film into a comedy satirizing the lives of pimps and gigolos by having impish characters fill their shoes or a drama commenting on the desire to feel pleasure in the strangest of forms.
Through several slow, droning scenes and the utilization of less-than-interesting characters, it's astounding to note how little Fading Gigolo does that's memorable in any of those regards.Turturro (who also serves as the film's sole writer) plays Fioravante, who is good friends with an elderly bookstore owner named Murray (Woody Allen), who has just lost his store and is in need of serious money.
Murray tells Fioravante that his wealthy dermatologist Dr. Parker (Sharon Stone) is looking to engage in a ménage à trois with her friend Selima (Sofía Vergara) and are in need of a male to accompany them.
Both men are, in turn, satisfied, hopefully like their female clients.A film that has Turturro as a gigolo and Allen as a pimp should've been contagiously funny, wry, cleverly irreverent, and smartly executed.
Unfortunately, Fading Gigolo is dreary and slow, with conversations frequently taking place that do nothing but run dry, with Turturro failing to conjure up a screen personality and Allen, while clearly having fun, having a thoroughly wasted character.
Turturro and Allen spark comedic charm once in a while, but the film is littered with distractions that make the film a challenge to recommend to anyone who isn't an Allen completionist, so tolerant, they'll sit through even a film he allegedly inspired.Starring: John Turturro, Woody Allen, Sharon Stone, Sofia Vergara, Vanessa Paradis, and Liev Schreiber.
Also, the way people feel towards each other can change.Written by, directed by, and starring John Turturro as the unlikely gigolo Fiorovante, an ungenerous soul might suggest that this improbable sex-based comedy drama was just an excuse for him to film a nude scene with Sharon Stone.
John Turturro uses New York like an extra character as he shows us around his characters.I haven't seen anyone else mention Liev Shcreibers great comic turn.Everything is handled with a lightness and sensitivity and I was in turns chuckling and smiling from start to finish.It won't be everyone's cup of tea but it might just be your cup of 'coiffee'..
To actor-writer-director John Turturro's credit, he actually pulls that part off quite well: His innocuous and laconic Fioravente is so far off the radar of female sex fiends such as Sharon Stone (yeah, she's still got it -- not bad for a 55 years old mum of three) that he just about manages to come off as mysteriously attractive.
Allen himself is also pretty funny as Murray the pater familias of a black patchwork family, turned part-time mack.Enters former pop nymphette slash jailbait Vanessa Paradis as Avidal, an ultraorthodox Jewish widow from Williamsburg.
But with his latest film, Turturro gets to portray what some may regard as a wish fulfilling role playing a successful gigolo who gets to sleep with many beautiful ladies.Fioravante (John Turturro) is a part-time florist who helps his old friend Murray (Woody Allen) – whose bookshop goes out of business.
But Fioravante's life is complicated by his relationship with an orthodox Jewish widow, Avigal (Vanessa Paradis).Fading Gigolo has advertised as a comedy with some of the main quotes on the poster focusing on the comic elements.
At a 90 minute running time Fading Gigolo has some parts which were only very minor, playing a bigger role in an earlier draft of the screenplay and should have been cut completely.Allen is the comic highlight of the film, bringing energy and expert comic timing.
Two scenes of note were Fioravante and Avigal first encountering and when the pair are in a park; given extra power by long takes and the lovely cinematography.The two women that want a threesome are Sharon Stone and Modern Family's Sofía Vergara, two of the least likely women who would struggle to find a man to join them.
There's some weird Jewish fetishness at play - I'm not sure if it's meant a tribute to Allen?It's definitely an interesting concept (ageing male prostitute and pimp), with plenty of comedic potential, but there's not too may laughs - Schreiber's wasted, Stone is boring and Turturro doesn't give himself much to do.
Woody Allen, Sharon Stone, John Turturro, Sofia Vergara, thanks for the promotion...
It gets increasingly difficult to believe in as its ninety minutes roll by.Passing delights include Sharon Stone revealing an unexpected comic flair, Vanessa Paradis' high cheek-boned beauty, Liev Schreiber excellent in an unlikely costume, and a cameo by Bob Balaban which re-assures you about not taking it all too seriously.Woody Allen plays it as if it's a Woody Allen film, which is fine if you like Woody Allen films (as I mostly do).The script's premise is so unbelievable that its striving towards something emotional towards the end cannot possibly work, in spite of the best efforts of the actors.It's a not unpleasant way to wile away an hour-and-a-half, in the company of some fine actors.
Laid back, casual, warm and amusing all the way this super little film (with a great performance from Woody Allen) tells a simple tale where Allen's dermatologist (Sharon Stone) tells him that she and her friend (the lovely Vergara) are looking for to have a menage a trois.
"If a man can't get a woman out of his guts, his heart, it means something." Fioravante (Turturro) is best friends with Murray (Allen).
'Fading Gigolo' finds Actor-Writer-Director John Turturro in fine form, as he delivers an entertaining film, that is funny & admittedly vulgar.
Very often when I go to talk with a friend or associate about this film I get shot down with "I don't like Woody Allen and "his" movies" and I get that(you don't like dry comedy that doesn't overwhelm but what needs to be understood is that this film is merely costarring Woody Allen as an enjoyable,humorously scheming accidental pimp in this film with John Turtorro handling the writing and direction excellent costars by the eternally seductive Sharon Stone and Sultry Sofia Vergara made this one interesting and fun for me especially Liev Schrieber as an overprotective neighborhood watch that gives sentimental and comedic value to the already comedic duo Of Turtorro and Allen..
But when it's the Woodman and Turturro or most anyone else on screen like his adopted black kids (lol) - and of course there's the whole running gag of beautiful women like Sharon Stone and Sofia Vegara paying to have sex, including a three way, with Vito from Do the Right thing as a middle aged man - it's exceedingly amiable.Occasionally it's very funny (and I was chuckling and or tittering through much) and in a couple of scenes Allen shows he's a good actor (which, you know, you always expect him to be wisecracking woody and he is but a couple of times he shows that he can reveal restraint, thinking on his feet, other things), but watch him in certain scenes, like when he comes to a realization with a woman character.
It's a good little New York City movie that is better than it has any right to be based on its silly but intrinsically amusing premise, and for a fair chunk of the run time it does take seriously the constructive world of Hasidics in Brooklyn and what happens when Liev Schreiber gets jealous and has to face his own complex emotions..
I always rate actors who can write and direct themselves so my respect goes to John Turturro who should be happy with the outcome.Budget: $30million Worldwide Gross: $13.3million (Terrible!)I recommend this movie to people who are into there romantic comedies about a gigolo whose pimped out by Woody Allen.
Brilliant movieOne of the best love stories ever madeI would challenge you to tell me of others .Terrific acting from John Turturro and some amazing acting from Vanessa Paradis.Greet movie describing the human condition from a variety of angles.Woody Allen is masterful in his genius exuding warmth and levity and propelling the movie forwardA masterful work of art Deserving of great recognition Full of wisdom and insights.
If you watch the films of Woody Allen you know that most are comedy drama types and focus on New York City and love and romance and off beat fun involving life.
Set in New York city Woody Allen is Murray an old classic bookstore owner who appears on his last leg, yet his younger buddy Fioravante(John Turturro)is a cooking chef who's cash strapped and only has like 600 dollars in his bank account.
FADING GIGOLO is at heart a comedy of two movements, which do not exactly cohere but are fascinating to watch nonetheless.One movement focuses on the male buddy relationship between Floravante (John Turturro), a flower-shop worker who decides to become an upper-class whore; and Murray (Woody Allen), who acts as his pimp.
Through such sequences Turturro makes some telling points about the ways in which women are still prevented from expressing themselves in patriarchal societies.Eventually the relationship between Floravante and Avigal ends (it has to, to endure the future health of the Jewish community), but we are left in doubt as to whether Avigal will enjoy future happiness, despite Dovi's protestations of love for her.Turturro - who wrote the script as well as directed the film - includes several nice jokes in the film, while focusing in detail on the relationship between the three protagonists.
He plays Fioravante who works at a bookstore run by his friend, Murray (Woody Allen).
If it's not already obvious from that set-up, Fading Gigolo is pretty much a Turturro homage to Woody Allen.
I have just watched John Turturro's "Fading Gigolo" and I am feeling very light-hearted and comfortably happy...I don't know if Woody Allen has any part in the scriptwriting of this movie, but the art piece has his watermark for sure.
I never thought I'd see the day where Woody Allen would play a pimp who had a male prostitute played by John Turturro.
Fortunately for everyone, that day has finally come, and I'm proud to say that I'm a big fan of the film 'Fading Gigolo'.We all know who Woody Allen is and most of us know John Turturro from a variety of acting roles he has done over the past couple of decades including Jesus Quintana ('The Big Lebowski'), Pete ('O Brother Where Art Thou'), Knish ('Rounders'), and of course Barton Fink.
Turturro worked very closely with Allen on the script for 'Fading Gigolo' and it completely shows.
An excellent New York actor, John Turruro stepping behind the cameras to direct both himself and Woody Allen in a Jewish tale seemingly tailor made for Woody's style of humor with backup support from actresses of no lesser stature than Susan Stone and French star Vanessa Paradis, plus Liev Schriver who seems to be in everything these days playing a tough neighborhood watch cop in Hassidic drag.
Saw the new Woody Allen --as actor only -- in "Fading Gigolo" a flick directed by and painfully starring John Turturro.
Have you seen this Turturro delight, everything that Mark Kermode says happens, but it is definitely not beyond the role of possibility for a hot Sharon Stone in a boring marriage to want more , and solicit Turturro for her needs.This is a cracker of a little film Woody Allen is brilliant and Turturro is at his poignant best , it is maybe a little too much to believe at times but don't we go to the movies for escape from reality NOT escape to!Big 4.5 stars from me and partner, can't recommend highly enough.
Woody Allen plays himself in every film, but he certainly knows what works for him.
Supporting players are Sofia Vergara ("Modern Family"), Liev Schreiber ("Ray Donovan") and Sharon Stone ("Casino"), the two ladies being actually typecast for roles that do not look too different than some of their work in the past.The best part of the film was probably Allen playing a pimp.
There was one scene where his character makes a quote about competition, which was pretty funny given Allen's long history of absence at award ceremonies.One of the most interesting things here is how all the women admired the name Fioravante as he must be some great Italian lover and the one he actually likes doesn't even know his name.
Fading Gigolo (2013): Dir: John Turturro / Cast: John Turturro, Woody Allen, Vanessa Paradis, Liev Schreiber, Sharon Stone: Faded is the innocence of youth, however, in John Turturro's hilarious comedy we learn that age and passion can mend together.
He stars as Fioravante who arranges flowers and is best friends with Murray, played by Woody Allen who works at a failing bookstore.
FADING GIGOLO writer\director\title character John Turturro channels Woody Allen's obsession with America as a melting pot in this White remake of the themes of that 2005 Afro-Centric film. |
tt0036060 | Jungle Drums | Deep in the jungle, a tribe of aboriginal warriors are having a celebration. Their leader is a tall man in a white cloak. Secretly, he's a Nazi commander, and the tribe's sacred temple is actually an underground Nazi outpost. The Nazis eagerly await the arrival of an American convoy with information about an Allied attack. When a military plane flies overhead, the Nazis shoot it down. The commander sends the warriors to search for survivors.
At the wreck site, the mortally wounded Lieutenant hands his secret documents to the crew's only survivor, Lois Lane. He tells her to destroy the documents. Then he dies. Lois is caught by the natives and tied up, but frees herself, runs into the jungle and avoids capture long enough to hide the documents under a rock. She is then captured and brought back to the temple for interrogation where she is tied to a chair. When she refuses to talk, the commander orders the warriors to burn her at the stake.
Meanwhile, Clark Kent and another pilot are flying out to meet with Lois' convoy. They spot the wrecked plane not far from the aboriginal village. Clark parachutes down to investigate. Once on the ground, he changes into Superman. He flies to the village. Lois is already being burned at the stake with the commander watching her. Just then, one of the warriors approaches the commander and gives him a set of papers. It's the documents Lois hid in the woods. Overjoyed with success, the commander has his men radio headquarters and send the Nazi U-boats to attack the Allied fleet.
Superman arrives and saves Lois from burning to death. When the warriors see a man who can walk through fire, they run in terror. The Nazi soldiers futilely fight back against Superman. Meanwhile, Lois takes a spare white cloak and sneaks in to use the radio. The commander catches her but before he can do anything to stop her, Superman comes to her rescue. She sends a message to the American headquarters, warning them about the Nazi subs.
Out at sea, the Nazi subs prepare to decimate the Allied fleet. Before they can attack, they are bombed by a squadron of Allied B-26 bombers sent in response to Lois' warnings. The subs are destroyed, and the Allied fleet is saved.
Meanwhile in Berlin, Adolf Hitler listens to a newsflash about the defeat of his U-boat force. Angrily, he flips a switch on the radio and hangs his head in frustration as the tune Praise the Lord and Pass the Ammunition is heard. | psychedelic | train | wikipedia | Another WWII Superman cartoon.
For reasons never explained Lois Lane is flying with some man over a jungle with top secret American war secrets.
Unknown to them the Nazis have taken over the native tribe in the jungle (for some reason the Nazis dress like the Ku Klux Klan!).
They shot down the plane--the man dies but Lois lives--she hides the plans and is captured.
The Nazis threaten to torture her but she won't tell them a thing.
So they decide to have the natives burn her at a stake (!!!).
Will Superman find her in time to save her.Vague story and plot loopholes galore mar this cartoon.
But it is VERY colorful with the expected great animation.
Also there are some real surreal scenes when Lois is being burned.
It's worth seeing just for that.
Jungle Drums is another Superman cartoon made during World War II.
This is another in the Fleischer/Famous series of Superman cartoons.
In this one, Lois Lane is flying over a jungle with the pilot when the plane crashes into the place with Ms. Lane ending up with the dying man's papers.
Unfortunately, the white hooded men that turn out to be Nazis have tortured Lois at the stake in order to make her give up those papers' hiding place.
Forturnately, her colleague Clark Kent finds out about that and...well, you probably know what happens next.
Meant as a propaganda piece, Jungle Drums get points for providing some very exciting scenes of fire and bombings of enemy submarines and of seeing Adolf Hitler wince at the Americans' triumphant turn at battle.
Otherwise, you'd probably be confused at why things happened the way they're depicted in this short....
Lois Was Born to Be in the Wrong Place at the Wrong Time.
Lois was a good soldier.
As she travels with a man in a plane over a jungled area, the plane is shot down.
She survives and manages to ditch a file of secret information.
She is captured by Germans (I believe) who are disguising themselves as Natives (I guess that was the term for black indigenous persons).
They seem to be wearing the conical white hoods that typify the KKK.
I don't know if this was deliberate or not (hard to imagine that is wasn't deliberate.
Anyway, Superman has to get into the act because Lois, refusing to talk, is going to be burned at the stake.
Will he get there in time?
How will he know precisely where she is?
These issues haunt these cartoons..
Superman #15.
Jungle Drums (1943) ** (out of 4) Lois is flying over the African jungle for some reason when she ends up on the ground with a native tribe.
For some reason the Nazi party have taken over the tribe and of course Superman must come save the day.
If you're looking for logic then you had better keep going because nothing in this short makes any sense.
I could go even further by questioning why the Nazies appear to be wearing KKK outfits and I'm still not clear what their mission was suppose to have been.
The animation is once again pretty good throughout but this, again, doesn't make up for the rather weak story..
"It's A Bird, It's A Plane, It's Superman!".
A SUPERMAN Cartoon.Intrepid girl reporter Lois Lane uncovers a dastardly Nazi plot in Darkest Africa.
But when she falls into the clutches of the villains & JUNGLE DRUMS pound out the revelry attending her imminent immolation, it begins to look like a job for Superman...This was another in the series of excellent cartoons initially created by Max Fleischer for Paramount Studio.
They feature great animation and taut, fast-moving plots.
Meant to be shown in movie theaters, they are miles ahead of their Saturday Morning counterparts.
Bud Collyer is the voice of Superman; Joan Alexander does the honors for Lois Lane..
So...Nazis are hiding out in the jungle in a fake temple....I am sure this happened all the time!.
"Jungle Drums" is probably the weirdest and most contrived Superman cartoon from the Fleischer Brothers.
While having Superman battling the Nazis is not unusual, so much about this cartoon is just plain weird.It begins with Lois and a pilot having their plan knocked out of the sky by some weird device that looks like a temple in the jungle!
However, it's actually a Nazi facility and all their minions are dark-skinned natives.
Why they are in the middle of the jungle and how this will benefit them in the war is anyone's guess!!
A bit later, Clark just happens to fly overhead in a plane and spots the wreckage of the previous plane--so he goes to investigate.
However, he has to fight not only the local savages but Nazis in weird white hooded robes (did they team up with the Klan?!).
Here's the kicker.
After Superman saves the day once again, the cartoon ends with Hitler sitting at home listening to broadcasts telling about this latest Allied victory!
Strange but enjoyable, it does lose a point or two because the plot is so ridiculous--even for a superhero cartoon..
Superman vs Nazis.
I love the Fleischer Superman cartoons.
The animation is smooth and fluid with vivid colors.
The distinct art-deco style, vintage science fiction imagery, and use of noirish shadows gave them a look unlike any other cartoons.
The music and voice work is superb.
They're fun, accessible, enduring animation classics.
While this is a cartoon from Fleischer Studios' successor, Famous Studios, it still tries to maintain the Fleischer style.Fifteenth in the Superman series is about a group of Nazis hiding out in the jungle, masquerading as some kind of cult leaders to a (presumably) African tribe.
Lois Lane's plane is shot down and she is taken prisoner by the Nazis.
When she refuses to tell them the location of some top secret papers, they turn her over to the native tribe, which plans to burn her at the stake.
Will Superman show up in time to save her?
Some cool visuals with the temple and statues and the tribal stuff but there's surprisingly little Superman or action in this.
Still, some good bits and the last bit with Hitler was a plus..
Nazis in the jungle.
"Jungle Drums" is one of the final Superman cartoons made during the days of World War II and after the Japanese got their fair share already, it is time for the Germans this time.
And it is all very absurd.
They are dressed like KKK members and apparently operating a cult somewhere in the jungle right next to indigenous tribes.
So yeah, the story and backgrounds don't make much sense.
And it's also nothing new unfortunately.
Lois gets in the middle of trouble again and Superman comes to her rescue.
The only somewhat interesting thing at the end here is the depiction of Adolf Hitler himself, which is nice to compare to how he has been depicted in other works from that era.
Especially cartoon makers loved to make fun of him and it's the same here too.
This is one of the Superman cartoons that were neither directed by Fleischer or Sparber.
Not one of the best, not one of the worst either.
Overall, not recommended. |
tt0236640 | Prozac Nation | Elizabeth "Lizzie" Wurtzel is a 19-year-old accepted into Harvard with a scholarship in journalism. She has been raised by her divorced mother since she was two years old and hasn't seen her father at all in the last four years. Despite his lack of interest and involvement, Lizzie still misses her father, a contributing factor to her depression. Through a series of flashbacks, it is clear that there was a total communication breakdown between Lizzie's parents, which is soon reflected in Lizzie's own relationship with her mother.
Soon after arriving at Harvard, Lizzie decides to lose her virginity to an older student, Noah. Lizzie proceeds to alienate Noah by throwing a loss-of-virginity party immediately afterwards with the help of her roommate Ruby. Although best friends in the beginning, Ruby soon becomes another casualty of Lizzie's instability. Although Lizzie's article for the local music column in The Harvard Crimson is presented an award by Rolling Stone early into the semester, Lizzie soon finds herself unable to write, stuck in a vicious cycle with substance abuse.
Lizzie's promising literary career is at risk, as is her mental and physical health. Her mother sends her to expensive psychiatric sessions toward which her father, pleading poverty, implacably refuses to contribute anything at all. After a long period of treatment under medication and a suicidal gesture, Lizzie stabilizes and begins to adjust to her life as it really is. | psychological, flashback | train | wikipedia | I think I should start by stating that I was hungry for this film, the book Prozac Nation, which chronicles Elizabeth Wurtzel's battle with depression, meant so much to me and each delay to the film (and there were many) only served to increase my desire to see it.
The performances, from a cast that includes Jessica Lange and Anne Heche, are solid (although somewhat unfairly Jason Biggs will always be the guy who humped the pie in my eyes) and in the case of Christina Ricci, who played Wurtzel herself, exceptional, the soundtrack's cool (well it does include The Pretenders, Lou Reed and Bruce Springsteen after all) and if you haven't read the book you'll probably like, maybe even love, it.
The film sucks out all the depth that made the book so brilliant and so important to millions, for example, instead of being a emotionally messed up young woman who fears abandonment and uses sex and anger as defence mechanisms, Wurtzel becomes a bitchy, whiny slut who is difficult to relate to or feel sympathy for.
Furthermore the time constraints lead the film to focus solely on the Harvard years cutting out the important childhood/teen years and leading to a resolution which occurs far to early making depression seem like a problem which can be solved within a year.
well if you're one of those rare creatures that would answer with a 'no' then watch this movie you'll understand how hard is get out of a bed when you are depressed, how hard is to find a reason to live and why you just can't explain the way you feel.
there's also issues that actually affect our youngsters this days, and changes during the movies, the Part that Jonathan Rhys Meyers has here is small and looks like non important at all but it is, he's crucial for the whole story to be told, shows the difference between a depression patient and just a messed up kid.
The movie obviously compressed a lot of details in the book, but I think if it had just focused on the main crisis of the book, the character's descent into depression would have been easier to understand and empathize.
As it was, it tried to do that, but it also tried to cram in other things, and I feel that if I hadn't read the book or gone through something similar myself, I would not have understood why Lizzie was so afflicted at this particular point in her life.I thought the acting was excellent: Michelle Williams and Jason Biggs were great, and Christina Ricci was phenomenal, capturing the entire range of the pain and anger and self-loathing of depression.
I thought Jessica Lange put in a good performance, although her bizarre accent and the fact that she in no way resembles the darker and petite Christina Ricci was really distracting.
Or, if you've suffered from severe depression, then watch it and know that there are other people who feel the same way you do and think the same thoughts as you, and who would understand why you feel and act the way you do.
I liked this movie so much that I can't wait to read the book when I find it (the film is based on the novel of the same name).The movie tells the true story of Elizabeth Wurtzel (played by the beautiful Christina Ricci)and her battle with depression.
And aside from her character in the film, Christina Ricci herself was beautiful; her gorgeous nude body is shown at the beginning of the movie!
I believe Erik Skjoldbjærg holds the record for most 'J's in a director's name, but apart from that, he also shows good restraint and a keen eye for narrative and detail in helming 'Prozac Nation.' Basically a period piece set in the mid 80's, the film relates the collegiate memoirs of Elizabeth Wurtzel, who now writes a music column for The New Yorker.
This film is about a young first year Harvard student's life with depression and personality problems.Christina Ricci's acting is superb in this film.
The scene with her arguing about the medical bills with Christina Ricci is amazing, they both displays brilliant acting skills.The film is not bad at all, it was a pity that it did not receive a theatrical release..
"Prozac Nation" is a case study of clinical depression with Ricci as a Harvard frosh trying to cope with her own identity crisis, poor self esteem, and uncontrollable mood swings; the expectations of an over-compensating divorced mother; the absenteeism of a shallow father; and the sincerity of a love she can't believe is real.
The film does a good job of accurately representing the destructive influences of the disease of depression in spite murky flashbacks, a hazy narration by Ricci, and a melodramatic and contrived feel.
A showcase for Ricci, who meets the demands of her role, this film's lukewarm reception may have more to do with the lack of understanding of the Jekyll-Hyde nature of the depressed person than a poor presentation of the character.
So as soon as I could I rushed to the theater to see Prozac Nation.The movie's plot is very simple but at the same time very complex, Lizzie played by the beautiful and talented Christina Ricci is a depressed girl.
When her all-night, drug-fueled writing binges and emotional instability alienate her roommate and best friend, Ruby (Michelle Williams), as well as both her first (Jonathan Rhys-Meyers) and second (Jason Biggs) boyfriends, Lizzie seeks psychiatric counseling from Dr. Diana Sterling (Anne Heche), who prescribes the wonder drug Prozac.
But Christina Ricci's acting isn't the highlight of this film, that award goes to Jessica Lange who plays her role like she actually was going though this in real life.
Based on a true story, it is simply about Christina Ricci's character and her struggle with depression, drugs, friends and family as you can probably tell from the title.
I would say there was a dramatic moment every five minutes, and the movie moved through her life extremely fast, and this left no room for us to connect with Christina Ricci's character.
In the moving performance of Christina Ricci as Liz Wurtzel, the film portrays a young woman with unlimited potential as a Harvard student and as a writer.
No light was shed on what the film alleged to be a runaway problem in "The United States of Depression." In the story, Liz had a caring therapist (Anne Heche), a caring roommate (Michele Williams), a caring boyfriend (Jason Biggs), and a troubled but caring parent (Jessica Lange).
You meet a person here, who relates to her mother (good acting by Jessica Lange as well) and her father and her female friend and her boyfriends, but have great difficulty in relating to herself in any possible way.Ricci is an artist already, although being very young.
Christina Ricci plays Wurtzel during her days at the prestigious Harvard University, dealing with sex, drugs and alcohol and forcing her friends and mother (Lange) away through her ongoing battle with depression, most likely founded by her parent's separation.
When her psychiatrist (Heche) prescribes Wurzel with Prozac, she is able to calmly see things from the outside which eventually turns to anger and frustration when she realises how reliant she is on the drug in order to appear 'normal'.Ricci's performance of Wurtzel was fantastic, as was Lange's performance of her closet-smoking and slightly unhinged mother.
After a long period of treatment under medications, and an attempt of suicide, Lizzie stabilizes and adjusts to the real word."Prozac Nation" is a successful book that I have never read (and I do not have the intention), but the movie is a complete deception.
no way any man could live with such woman(with kids or without).Jessica Lange is PERFECTLLY cast here and a good actress exactly because she is able to show the mother's flaws in details and very subtle at times)))4- i found Christina Ricci "flash" in the first scene as a pure commercial attempt in catching the viewers attention and teasing him that there could be more.
Granted, Christina Ricci and Jessica Lange both give knockout performances, as anyone trying to reenact situations like these should be required for full effect, the excesses of cinematic trickery, crying and screaming and cursing, sex, boozing, and soon enough, drugs of all sorts, become a neurotic display of self-indulgence, something only tolerable for so long.
I realise that no film can be as good as the book, but this is one of those movies that really makes a bad job.
Ricci does a ok job but i feel the part was too big for her, with a movie like this i understand that the actress needs a large free reign, but the script really lets her down.
Instead of illuminating the darkness within or offering insight into mental illness, this film makes you feel that the main character, Lizzie (played by Christina Ricci) simply needs to be spanked.
I read the book 'Prozac Nation' by Elizabeth Wurtzel as a depressed, medicated teen and found myself watching the film as a reformed, non-depressed adult.
This movie does not educate about Prozac (and its sisters Xanax, Zoloft, Wellbutrin, etc.).Now, about the movie itself, I like Christina Ricci and Anne Heche, love Jessica Lange, so I enjoyed the actors but this is not a movie I would recommend to anyone for entertainment or enjoyment, but I think someone who is going through a lot of depression and still dealing with it might like to watch it just for that good old "misery loves company" feeling.
The premise of a story reads like a Brent Easton Ellis novel - a lot of drugs, hopelessness and self-induced tragedy as a young Elisabeth Wurtzel (played by Christina Ricci) tries to cope with being a suicidal loser, that can't seem to accept that she is actually living a good life and that basically she is pathetic for being such a baby...
The director apparently was on Prozac when directing this imitation of a movie and hence let the movie go on autopilot making it an unbearable mess.The only redeeming features are a sympathetic Jason Biggs, as Wurtzel's boyfriend (who thankfully decided to dump the self-indulgent egocentric egomaniac) and an unbelievably good Jessica Lange as the cry-babies mother.
Pure class.I don't know if this is really who Wurtzel is or was, but the film has successfully made me totally uninterested in her writings.In the end I finished watching this movie and instantly started to think: OK.
Film-version of Elizabeth Wurtzel's memoir about a turbulent young woman's life turned around by the anti-depressant Prozac wants to have it both ways: to be a finger-wagging diatribe on the perils of curing mental or emotional instability with drugs AND an exaltation of Wurtzel herself, who took Prozac--and got a best-seller out of it in the bargain!
Christina Ricci plays Wurtzel as a first-year student at Harvard, full of journalistic promise but quickly hitting a writer's block and alienating all of her classmates; her love-hate relationships with her mother and her absentee-father also extend to that of her romantic prospects, and pretty soon Ricci is in therapy with Anne Heche (in the thankless role of a pensively concerned doctor with a sensible hairdo).
Unfortunately, many well-intentioned movies covering this sort of subject do but I thought I ought to give it a try.Starting out with Elizabeth's (Ricci) mother, Jessica Lange, getting her daughter prepared for Harvard, where of course, Elizabeth is thrown into the usual round of new friends - and losing her virginity, to dishy Jonathan Rhys Meyer, then Jewish boyfriend Jason Biggs and flashbacks to an absent father.
I probably saw more of Christina that I would have seen in the other movie anyway.I have to say that she was really incredible and entirely believable as someone who is going through depression, and trying to get off the pills, but finally coming to the realization that you will probably never get rid of them totally.
While Jessica Lange plays the overburdened mother who would sacrifice her life, her safety, and her comfort for her daughter, Christina Ricci plays a selfish self centered girl.Both Lange and Ricci give compelling performances, however the script tends to gloss over the damage generated by someone in the state of mind of the character Wurtzel.
At once the film condemns and praises the use of anti-depressant drugs as the panacea of modern life.My concern by this film is that it would provide a guide and an excuse to other young women who create a fantasy world of problems despite living an otherwise highly desirable lifestyle.I never read the book nor do I intend to, but if this movie is true to the tone of the book we bear witness to someone who is completely selfish and self destructive as a form of manipulation.
Christina Ricci stars as Elisabeth Wurtzel, a young woman heading for a good life in Harvard, but stumbles when realizes how hard it is to be everything that others expect from you.
Prozac nation isn't a failure of any kind (or a bad film) but rather an experiment that could have had better results, if someone actually had sit down and thought what is depression because clearly no one did but at least the director had some idea of what it looks like and how you can explore it.
Prozac Nation veers dangerously close to being a truly terrible movie but it is saved from that fate by the performance of the film's star, Christina Ricci.
That probably is the reason why mostly only persons who have suffered from a depression- or are still in the middle of one, still like watching this movie.
I thought the performances were really strong, particularly those by Christina Ricci and Jessica Lange (who as always, can be understated or emotional with such brilliance).I thought the story was wonderful too, and having gone through the same thing in my teens, this movie really struck a nerve with me...it hit very close to home.
About the actors: Christina Ricci gave depression a face in the movie, just like Elizabeth Wurtzel did in the novel.
This movie takes a serious look at a young woman, Elizabeth Wurtzel (Christina Ricci), on her way to Harvard.
Christina Ricci imparts humanity to the often-annoying behavior of Elizabeth Wurtzel, a Harvard scholarship writer with an overbearing mother (played sublimely by Jessica Lange).
She was very needed, which ran Rafe off, but she was like that because of her dad.But, I think the main reason this movie never achieved a theater release is that not enough happens with the plot and the story is not written well.FINAL VERDICT: Truthfully, I'd only recommend this if you are interested in seeing Ricci's first nude scene.
Prozac Nation is a well-directed movie featuring particularly strong performances from its star Christina Ricci, and Jessica Lange, who plays Ricci's mother; it is, however, an almost totally joyless experience, charting the mental problems suffered by promising journalism student Lizzie (Ricci), whose troubled childhood, and subsequent substance abuse, has left her with a severe case of depression.
Watching Lizzie slowly become more paranoid, obsessive, and self-destructive, driving away those who love her in the process, is far from fun viewing, and I strongly recommend that those suffering from depression themselves give this film a wide berth.I know I should have stopped watching straight after Ricci's nude scene (the only bit in the film to put a smile on my face).Being such a downer of a movie, albeit a well made one, Prozac Nation is hard to rate, so I'll take the easy way out and give it 5/10..
That said, being as I don't know how it is I need to say that this movie is a great piece of work (I just found out that is based on a book)because of two things: first, it informs people who aren't familiar with the issue of depression, because a lot of people don't understand it...they want to fix people and are just frustrated that depressed people ''don't know what bothers them.'' Ricci's portrayal was in my opinion extraordinary..I think as I watched I just felt her pain and there were moments when I wanted to scream with her, to feel uncomfortable in my own skin.
And second, I think that it is a great movie for people struggling with depression, because it kind of shows them that they are not alone, and things get better.
I'm sure you don't need to hear about me so I'll tell you this...if you really want to know what it's like to be someone with "depression" or if you wanna drop a few hints to that friend of yours...this is the perfect film to watch.
The film contains two spectacularly brilliant lead performances, one by the 20 year-old Christina Ricci as Elizabeth Wurtzel, and the other by Jessica Lange as her mother.
No time to feel sympathy whatsoever.So I guess, in that way, the film failed to offer an insight, but rather to show what it's like to be a friend or family member of a depressive.
The book which was written by Elizabeth Wurtzel herself and is her life story, shows more sympathy for her than in the movie.
Prozac Nation, however, left me scratching my head, wondering how Jessica Lange and Christina Ricci could both give such bad performances.
Congratulations to Christina Ricci for making this movie and putting her mojo behind this important subject and trying to make a great film.
I think you have to know someone that behaves like Christina Ricci's character in this movie in order to appreciate the reality of the performance.
But that is NOT the reason to see "Prozac Nation." About 20 when it was filmed, Ricci is in the role of Elizabeth Wurtzel, whose autobiography forms the basis for this movie. |
tt5756242 | Marudhu | Maruthu (Vishal) is a labourer from Rajapalayam who personally does not tolerate injustice anywhere. He leads a happy life with his grandmother Appathaa (Kulappulli Leela) and his younger brother Kokkarako (Soori). One day, he encounters Bhagyalakshmi alias Bhagyam (Sri Divya), a bold young woman, at a temple, but their first meeting does not go well due to a misunderstanding and he ends up at a police station. However, with the help of Appathaa, Maruthu soon manages to win Bhagyam's heart. One day, he sees some goons chasing Bhagyam and her father near the market where he is working. Maruthu beats up the goons and then learns from Bhagyam's father why the goons are after them.
Bhagyam was the daughter of Mariyamma (Aadhira Pandilakshmi), a brave woman who stood up to the atrocities committed by the municipal chairman Rolex Pandiyan (R. K. Suresh) on the local people. When she decided to contest against Pandiyan in the upcoming municipal election, Pandiyan and his men brutally hacked her to death and stuffed all her body parts except her head into a bag. Bhagyam and her father are unable to prove in court that Pandiyan committed the murder since there is no head and the police inspector is Pandiyan's henchman. They are also threatened of dire consequences by Pandiyan if they continue to target him. Appathaa, who witnessed Mariyamma's brutal murder and upset that she did not stop it, gets Maruthu married to Bhagyam the next day to repent her earlier actions, and Maruthu also promises to avenge the death of Mariyamma.
A cat-and-mouse game soon begins between Maruthu and Pandiyan, with Pandiyan using all means to stop Bhagyam and Appathaa from going to court and testifying against him, to no avail. At the court, Appathaa testifies against Pandiyan, and a warrant is issued to arrest him. In retribution, Pandiyan kidnaps Appathaa and brutally tortures her to death. When Maruthu finds out how his grandmother had died at the hands of Pandiyan, he single-handedly fights him and his gang and kills them all. | romantic, murder | train | wikipedia | Family Entertainer !!!. Director Muthaiah of Kutti Puli and Komban fame teams with macho Vishal for one more flick, which again is a village based subject which the director is known for.Marudhu checks in right in all the boxes that such films are known to have in them as ingredients. There is a lot of sentiment in Marudhu but this time we feel it between the hero and his granny. There is love and there is action which in fact is overloaded to justify the U/A certification. And there are also pearls of wisdom from almost every character in the film. For all those proverb lovers, Marudhu offers plenty.The template is standard. There is Vishal on one side, who is the personification of all things good which is conveyed by his crony Soori at the start, quantified by an intro number. Vishal shows off his gym toned body with a lion's face tattooed on his forearms and torso. There are bad men on the other side who swish their aruva like how normal humans swing their mosquito bat. The good and the evil cross path and we have Marudhu.The initial scenes give us a feel that the story is going to be between the two local warring groups. And then, the film shifts to a romantic focus which after a while gets too tedious. And then we shift back to action. There is a lot of predictability about the film, which makes Muthiah lose his grip over the audience.What is interesting in Marudhu is the characterization of its women. All the women who are shown, be it on the good side or on the other side, they are very strong and not the meek ones we come across every Friday. Kudos to Muthaiah for this!Coming to the performance, it is an easy task for Vishal, who portrays Marudhu with all his sincerity. His action scenes show his agility and power. Sri Divya is apt as a strong village belle. RK Suresh once again proves that he is an effective villain material. As the menacing Rolex Pandian, he is perfect with his dialogue delivery and action sequences. Kulappulli Leela as Vishal's apatha could be a find of the season. But her character gets too preachy and boring after a while. Soori is his usual self and has work in the pre-interval block. Radha Ravi has a small role to play.Technical side of Marudhu is just about ordinary. The songs are functional. Anal Arasu's action choreography is good.To cut to the chase, Marudhu could work for audiences who like to watch a rural masala flick with a lot of action.Verdict: One more rural flick riding high on melodrama and violence. Maruthu (2016). The film is good. Vishal's fighting scenes are good. BGM is good in the movie. But the climax was very bad and very violence. Its not a superb film but it is good movie. |
tt0031747 | The Oklahoma Kid | President Cleveland signs the bill allowing the sale of the Cherokee Strip (actually, the Cherokee Outlet) in the future state of Oklahoma. After the money arrives by train, it is then loaded onto a stagecoach which subsequently gets robbed by Whip McCord (Humphrey Bogart) and his gang. Jim Kincaid, also known as "The Oklahoma Kid", (James Cagney) sees the robbery, and then ambushes the gang and makes off with the money.
Settlers are arriving to stake their property claims in what would be the Cherokee Strip Land Run of 1893. At a settlers' dance, the Kid meets Jane Hardwick (Rosemary Lane), daughter of Judge Hardwick (Donald Crisp), dancing with her and asking if she can "feel the air." Before the new territory is opened, McCord sneaks in with his cronies and stakes a "sooner" claim. When John Kincaid (Hugh Sothern) and his son, Ned Kincaid (Harvey Stephens), arrive, they are swindled into granting McCord the saloon and gambling concessions in exchange for the site that they had planned to develop into a town. After the area is built and developed, it is overcome by crime and unlawful killings under McCord's influence. Hoping to bring about law-and-order, Judge Hardwick and Ned campaign to elect John Kincaid as mayor of Tulsa, but when another candidate is killed, McCord frames John Kincaid and has him arrested for murder.
While living with Mexicans in a small cabin, the Kid reads in a newspaper about the arrest of his father. Even though he was cast aside as the black-sheep son, he rides into town in order to free his father from jail. After the Kid raids the jail and enters his father's cell, John refuses to escape and instead wants to fight his arrest judiciously. The Kid leaves before being caught. Upon learning that the Kid is John Kincaid's son, McCord incites a mob at his saloon. Then, led by three of his own men, they break into the jail which allows McCord's cronies to lynch Kincaid over the outside balcony of the jailhouse.
In exacting vengeance, the Kid tracks down those who murdered his father. He kills three of them when they don't surrender peacefully, but brings back Ace Doolin (Edward Pawley) in order to testify against McCord. Ned and the Kid seek out McCord at his saloon. While attempting an arrest, Ned is shot by McCord. The Kid and McCord engage in fisticuffs, and the Kid is nearly killed, but Ned shoots down McCord before dying himself.
The Kid plans to continue on with his nomadic ways, but Jane and Judge Hardwick convince him to stay. | revenge, murder | train | wikipedia | Same goes for Bogey.Humphrey Bogart, as he so often was before he became a mega-star with Casablanca, played the bad guy.
It is a western with James Cagney as a cowboy and Humphrey Bogart his black-clad nemesis.
There is some humor in it, but it was made too early to be consciously campy; and as it was produced by Warner Brothers it has a fast, urban pace, but alas lacks the sophistication its dynamic star duo need to elevate it to clasic status, or even make it a good movie.
Neither star is at home on the range, and Cagney looks silly in a cowboy hat.
On the other hand James Wong Howe's photography has some stunning compositions, and has about it, in its contrasting use of black and gray, a twilight quality that is very appealing but, like so much in this movie, not too appropriate for a western..
One of my favorite movie lines of all time is from The Oklahoma Kid where James Cagney expounds on his philosophy of life to Donald Crisp in a saloon as the land rush is starting.The rest of the film is your usual fast paced Cagney film, just set out west instead of the big city.
It was the first western for both Cagney and Humphrey Bogart.
Cagney did a fine western in the Fifties Run for Cover and replaced Spencer Tracy in another one, Tribute to a Bad Man.Bogey did one other western, Virginia City, and next to that Whip McCord of the panhandle is an Oscar winning part.
I'm not denigrating his work on Oklahoma Kid, but Bogart used to cringe whenever Virginia City was mentioned and that chintzy Mexican accent he was forced to adopt for that film.In Oklahoma Kid, he's the leader of a group of outlaws who've jumped the starting gun and put up a claim at the spot Hugh Sothern and son Harvey Stephens want to start a town.
Cagney and Bogey went back to the city streets except for Bogey's ill conceived visit to Virginia City.But Oklahoma Kid is not a bad film and fans of the two stars will not be disappointed..
Oklahoma Kid, The (1939) *** 1/2 (out of 4) When Warner decided to throw James Cagney and Humphrey Bogart into a Western it got headlines in 1939 and it continues to do so today among film buffs.
The idea of Cagney and Bogart in a Western will always draw new people to this film but it's a shame the headlines have gotten in the way of the fact that this is an extremely good movie.
The film takes place as Oklahoma is giving away free land where a father (Hugh Sothern) and son (Harvey Stephens) plans on building a city that can do good.
Unfortunately for them a bad guy (Bogart) ends up getting is hands on the territory and soon the new city is full of gambling and murder.
When the father is falsely accused of murder and a mob kills him, his secret son known as The Oklahoma Kid (Cagney) shows up to seek vengeance against the bad guys.
The Western genre was full of revenge films even by 1939 but this one here comes off incredibly fresh for many reasons but the main one is that the movie is rather dark and doesn't pull any punches.
Apparently he and Cagney didn't get along too well here due to a comment Bogart made but that bitterness certainly carries over to the film and helps.
All in all, this is a very impressive little gem that continues to get new viewers but I think it's should be better known as a good film instead of just a film with two stars you wouldn't expect..
Good Movie Despite Cagney's Mushroom Hat. I don't agree with a previous poster that Bogart and Cagney looked too urban to be in a western.
The writer Robert Louis Stevenson also went west.I'd would have played up Cagney's New Yorkisms by having him wear a derby rather than that over-sized hat he wore.
Poor Bogart.That said, 'Oklahoma Kid' an entertaining movie.
Well done in all departments.Cagney plays the good-bad guy and Bogart, in a pre-Sam Spade role, plays the bad-bad guy.One of the interchangeable Lane sisters (in this case Rosemary)is the love interest.Long story short; somebody done somebody wrong, with fistfights and gunplay and double-crosses and all the elements that make westerns so greatly entertaining.
When you consider how you would imagine an "Oklahoma Kid" to be and act, then Cagney was perfect for the role.
4. He blows the smoke off his gun one too many times, if you know what I mean, and I think you do.If you are a casual Bogart or Cagney fan, and figure it might be a change of pace to see them in a western, do yourself a favor and forget that thought.
(That is, when they don't look bored.)In all fairness, I admit that westerns are my least favorite film genre, but I've still seen much, MUCH better than this.On a comedy level, or as high camp, The Oklahoma Kid works.
No, Oklahoma Kid!" He was refering to this odd misfit, but enjoyable western.James Cagney and Humphrey Bogart look as well suited in the old west as Gabby Hayes and Lash LaRue would look in a Manhattan speakeasy, but these two pros have fun with the film anyway.
I was never sure about either James Cagney or Humphrey Bogart being in westerns but "The Oklahoma Kid" is not too bad.
It has a brief running time, a fair measure of action and incident, the music is perfectly tolerable and at least Cagney and Bogart have a proper one on one confrontation at the end.
Cagney is a "Robin Hood" type of hero who hides his true identity behind the name "The Oklahoma Kid." Bogart is a killer and dishonest businessman who wants to turn the local town into a place of sin, corruption and degradation.
Gold intended for the Indians is hijacked by the gang of Whip McCord (played by Humphrey Bogart).
The gang is in turn ambushed and robbed by Jim "The Oklahoma Kid" Kincaid (James Cagney).
It is basically the swagger of James Cagney and Humphrey Bogart that propels the movie, and makes it work.
Makes it quite amusing at times, too...On a side note, this might actually be the first movie to include both Cagney and Bogart, so the movie is of historical significance too..
Let me say at first that I am a great fan of Jimmy Cagney and have really liked most of his movies, particularly "White Heat", "Yankee Doodle Dandy" as well as most of those crime movies he made over the years for Warner Brothers.
The story is quite okay, and the cast is impressive with people like Donald Crisp and Ward Bond, while Humphrey Bogart was a scream as the baddie, and Rosemary Lane just had to look pretty - which she did.
Cagney and Bogart make forgettable western less so.
Diverting western would be completely unmemorable except for the fact that it stars James Cagney and Humphrey Bogart.
The film features a solid supporting cast that includes Donald Crisp and Ward Bond, which helps as well, but this film really could have been any number of routine Tim Holt westerns, except for maybe one song and dance number performed by Cagney..
I also enjoyed Bogart as the villainous Whip McCord, not exactly his cup of tea but none the less he looked pretty good in a Cowboy hat.Best Scene: The brawl finale between Cagney and Bogart.
President Grover Cleveland declares some Oklahoma Cherokee land to be available for western settlers, which attracts singing cowboy James Cagney (as "The Oklahoma Kid" Jim Kincaid) and his more dastardly, dark-suited rival Humphrey Bogart (as "Whip" McCord).
In hindsight, this is more of a novelty than a movie.***** The Oklahoma Kid (3/3/39) Lloyd Bacon ~ James Cagney, Humphrey Bogart, Harvey Stephens.
Everyone goes on so much about how misplaced it was to place Cagney and Bogart in a western, but the characters they play are totally in line with the gangster figures they are more commonly associated with, and present compatible shadings of good and bad and lawlessness and justice that fit equally well into a western as well as a gangster picture.
And Bogart and Cagney both inhabit their roles in their own, unique way.
It is more than a little too big for this short actor, and though it may perhaps be a quirk of the character of the Oklahoma Kid, I think somebody in the costume department should have gently led him to another hat..
The few times they try, it always ridiculous (except, perhaps, for They Died with their Boots on - which is a cavalery western.) I have read that Humphrey Bogart, seing James Cagney with this big cowboy hat on his head, said that he looks like a mushroom.
Cagney and Bogart are too urban, too XXe century to be credible in a western movie.
Every 10 minutes, I figure I can see Bogart and Cagney drops their little guns and put hands in a machine gun to get away from the set in a 1930's black car..
At start, Hollywood told Cagney that gangster films did not need two novel hippie tough-guys * * that Bogart was more than enough to satisfy the hungry moviegoers.
Together they curiously pair for this classic Western drama, and Cagney's first major screen role.
And indeed Cagney shines here as Jim Kincaid (The Oklahoma Kid).To some degree Cagney nearly upstages Bogey here, with his clever, cocksure, fast-talking wit, to Bogart's serious, deadpan bantam.
The problem is not the actor, James Cagney (The Oklahoma Kid) but the unwritten credibility rule that this film (unlike most westerns) does not follow: a hero cannot be as good on the draw and fistfights as to place him too far above the others.
Add to that a routine plot and the conclusion is that Cagney and Bogart deserved something better.The big hat does not suit Cagney well, he keeps blowing the smoke off his gun and in a cheesy scene he sings a lullaby in a poor Spanish.
Only avid western movie fans like myself would care to see this film and overall it is a rewarding experience, after all we learn to appreciate even the flaws..
'The Oklahoma Kid' is competent but slightly disappointing star western memorable for the clash in this guise of its protagonists, more usually seen as gangsters
The film is generally far more to the living of the Western traditionalists, and it never once allows its size to create an atmosphere of self-importance
Nevertheless it maintains a pleasant tongue-in-cheek approach which makes the occasional tragic moments stand out in even greater relief
But even with two such big names on hand, 'The Oklahoma Kid' moves tediously against the colorful backgrounds of a colorful era
Cagneywho makes his own law with his fast draw brings his cheeky personality to the West without making the slightest change in his standard characterization
Bogart plays it without even the mordant sense of humor that he usually brings to his gangster roles
As a sinister figure all in black, he gives an equally unconvincing performance as an outlaw gang leader who deceitfully obtains saloon and gambling rights in return for letting Cagney's father and brother have rights to a site on which they plan to build a town.
If you can't picture James Cagney and Humphrey Bogart as gun totin' Western outlaws, then give yourself a treat and try "The Oklahoma Kid".
Granted, neither actor appears as comfortable in their cowboy persona as they do as gangsters, but they manage to pull off a fairly credible and interesting story, with a rather talented cast around them.The setting is the 1883 land rush that civilizes the six million acre Oklahoma Territory known as the Cherokee Strip, and future site of the city of Tulsa.
Cagney's entrance as the Oklahoma Kid is heralded by his hijacking of Whip McCord's (Bogart) plunder of a stagecoach carrying money in payment for Indian land.
The Kid is the "good" outlaw, who for the remainder of the film plays out his secret identity of Jim Kincaid, who's businessman father (Hugh Sothern) and sheriff brother (Harvey Stephens) attempt to bring McCord and his gang to justice following their illegal land grab.Adding an element of romance to the story is the presence of Jane Hardwick (Rosemary Lane), daughter of Judge Hardwick (Donald Crisp), who's involved with sheriff Ned, but is immediately smitten with The Kid; Oklahoma endears himself to newcomers by asking them to "feel the air".When bully McCord frames John Kincaid for murder, he sends a phony letter to Judge Hardwick to get him out of town, so his own hand picked replacement can push through a guilty verdict.
The finale finds the Oklahoma Kid and McCord in a rather well staged barroom brawl that ends with the "good" bad guy on the winning end.OK, high drama it's not; for a truly memorable film of classic status in a Western setting with either of these stars, you'll have to turn to Bogart's "Treasure of the Sierra Madre".
James Cagney writes about "The Oklahoma Kid', his first western film, in his fascinating autobiography, Cagney By Cagney.
But James Cagney manages to make this film entertaining by adding his typical charming and sentimental touches, such as his character Jim Kincaid " feeling the fresh air with his finger tips " and singing his own father's favourite song, " I Don't Want To Play In Your Yard." He even got to do a fancy rope trick.
In one scene Cagney is standing on a rock while a bunch of bad guys led by Humphrey Bogart and Ward Bond pound by on their horses, and Cagney's character is supposed to launch a lariat around the neck of Ward Bond's horse.
Anyone who loves James Cagney along with a solid cast of fine actors, Humphrey Bogart, Donald Crisp, Rosemary Lane, Ward Bond, will find watching this film, a lot of fun and very entertaining..
Bogart and Cagney, the well established Big City hardboiled guys seem to have lost their way in the Warner building and in order not to waste the day, take what they find and try to play it serious, whereas the whole thing has something of a tongue in cheek cameo show.
The whole thing centers around the Oklahoma Land Rush and the revenge exacted by the title hero, played by Cagney, to the bad guys having killed his father.
Cagney all in bright with a cowboy hat, that could serve as a family sun cover and Bogart, the all-black sneering villain, confront each other in well-known form.
I know as well as anyone, that he is at his best in gangster movies, but despite doing only four westerns, he is not bad in them either.
It is about Jim Kincaid ( Cagney) (aka'The Oklahoma Kid') who is the bad seed son of Judge Kincaid who lives by his own rules, and goes up against even nastier Whip McCord ( Humphrey Bogart).
Jim does end up married to Jane, in a cute way which is being pushed into it by her father ( also a judge ( played by Donald Crisp)).
This movie should be a must for Cagney and ( or) Bogart fans..
Good cast for this 1939 western.
THE OKLAHOMA KID is a somewhat unusual western in that it stars the inimitable pairing of James Cagney and Humphrey Bogart, two actors best known for their roles in contemporary gangster movies.
Cagney is the titular character, a Robin Hood-style lone cowboy who has a bounty on his head, while Bogart is part of a ruthless gang who use violence and murder to hold sway over a small town.
Cagney's atypical presence in a western is one of the few - if not the only - entertaining thing about the movie.
Cagney and Bogart Out West!.
As westerns go "The Oklahoma Kid" is a pretty fair western what with Warner Bros.
It's hard to watch James Cagney and Humphrey Bogart in a western in that we were more accustomed to seeing them in gangster movies.
In fact they faced off against each other in "Angels Have Dirty Faces" the previous year and in "The Roaring Twenties" later in 1939.Having said all of that, "The Oklahoma Kid" is an entertaining western set at the time of the Oklahoma land rush.
We first see outlaw Jim Kinkaid (aka The Oklahoma Kid) foiling a stagecoach robbery by Whip McCord (Bogey) and his gang of monies meant to compensate the Indians for their land taken away for the land rush.
But McCord sneaks across the line before the rush begins and blackmails Kincaid in to conceding the gambling rights to the town in return for the parcel of land.The Kid meanwhile turns up in town spending some of the stolen cash and romancing at the same time Jan Hardwick (Rosemary Lane) the daughter of upstanding Judge Hardwick (Donald Crisp) and the girl friend of his brother Ned (Harvey Stephens).McCord and his gang have laid the town wide open.
Bogart on the other hand appeared again as the all in black villain, this time with a laughable Mexican accent in "Virginia City" (his last western) the following year..
In addition, this film has the advantage of its cast: Bogart makes an ideal western heavy and yet he was only once again to play a role even slightly similar and that was in Virginia City (1940).
Cagney is in his element too as the personable, charmingly talkative, tough, law-unto-himself Kid. Among Bogart's henchmen it's nice to spot Ward Bond, Edward Pawley, Trevor Bardette (Pawley is especially convincing in his climactic scenes) and John Miljan as his smart lawyer and Arthur Aylesworth as a sombre, corrupted judge. |
tt0117826 | Bordello of Blood | Vincent (Phil Fondacaro) and his associates explore a forest, until they find a cave containing a coffin with the skeleton of Lilith, mother of all vampires. Vincent takes a box out of his pocket, which contains the four sections of her heart. He puts it in her body, and she rapidly begins reanimating. Revived, she rips the hearts out of the associates and goes after Vincent, who produces the key artifact seen in Demon Knight. Vincent then explains that the artifact from "Demon Knight" and the blood within it allows him to have full control over her. Vincent then turns to Lilith and asks her if he allows her to eat the last associate would she then behave. She replies "Anything for you, lover".
The Crypt Keeper is having lunch with the Mummy (William Sadler), who is boring him about film industry life. The Mummy challenges the Crypt Keeper to a contest of rock, paper, scissors which the Mummy wins, and he slices off the Keeper's hand with a meat cleaver. The Crypt Keeper laughs (as it didn't hurt him at all) and the Mummy gets ready for the next round. The Crypt Keeper addresses the audience, and the movie continues.
Catherine Verdoux (Erika Eleniak) lives with her delinquent brother Caleb (Corey Feldman). He goes out one night against her wishes and, while hanging at a bar, is informed of a secret brothel in the guise of a funeral home by an odd man named Jenkins (Kim Kondrashoff). Caleb and his friend Reggie (Matt Hill) go to check it out, where they do indeed find the information true (albeit forced by the mortician McCutcheon (Aubrey Morris). Unknown to them however, it's run by the fully regenerated Lilith (Angie Everhart). All the women there are vampires turned by Lilith, completely evil, lustful and subservient to her. Lilith uses them for both business and to lure food. Reggie is taken by Tallulah (Juliet Reagh) and Caleb is taken by Patrice (Leslie Ann Phillips), each for a private session in which Lilith visits them both as the prostitutes prepare to drain their blood. Reggie is killed when Lilith kisses him and extends her tongue down his throat to push his heart out of his body. She promptly rips it out and eats it afterwards. Lilith then sets her sights on Caleb. As she offers a three-way, the screen fades to black as she growls ominously.
A week later, Catherine asks the police to look for Caleb to no avail, so she reluctantly hires Rafe Guttman (Dennis Miller), a cynical and sarcastic P.I. whose office is an old adult movie theater, to look for Caleb. After getting the names of Caleb's friends from Catherine, Rafe tracks Caleb's trail to the bar where he finds them playing pool. One of them directs him to the funeral home. At his first visit (during the day), it appears to be just a funeral home, complete with a funeral in progress. He meets Catherine at her job working for the Reverend J. C. Current (Chris Sarandon) and tells her Caleb went to a whorehouse. She thanks him for his help and dismisses him. He returns to the bar, where he runs into Jenkins, who gives Rafe the same info he told Caleb and his friends, and Rafe revisits the funeral home that night. He is denied access the first time as the brothel is closed for the night, so he sneaks in and discovers that the money and other valuables from the clients visiting the brothel are put towards Current's organization which is being used as a front for their shady dealings. Rafe also passes by Lilith interviewing a woman, Tamara (Kiara Hunter), whom Vincent recommended for a job. At first, Rafe dismisses it as nothing, but as he continues snooping, he hears Tamara scream followed by a body hitting the floor, however he has to leave before he can look into it.
On his second visit, Rafe is admitted into the brothel and is given to Tamara, who's now much more seductive then when she was being interviewed, an obvious sign she's been turned. He escapes by strapping her to a torture rack and investigating the funeral home further, finding Mr. Jenkins, a dead servant of Lilith's in the process, before fleeing. However, he drops his wallet while doing so, allowing Lilith to find his address. Having tasted some of Rafe's blood that Tamara managed to scratch off, Lilith takes an interest in Rafe and tries to seduce him, but he is unswayed by her sexual advances. At that moment Catherine comes by to check on his progress. She leaves when she thinks he's flirting but he tells her of the brothel's activity. They tell the police about it, but when they get the police to look over the grounds, all the evidence has been covered up and Rafe is dismissed as a fraud. Meanwhile, Vincent destroys the key so Lilith is now immortal at the cost of no control over her.
As Catherine is looking over some footage shot at the strip club where they confronted Lilith, she notices Lilith isn't in the shot. Realizing that Rafe might be right, she calls him over to look over the tape as well. While they are discussing the tape, Caleb calls for help, asking them to meet him at the power plant. When they arrive they find Caleb on the ground. Rafe is wary and goes to check on him first. His instincts prove right as Caleb is now a vampire, having been spared having his heart eaten in exchange for undead servitude to Lilith. Rafe and Catherine try to escape, but Rafe, in trying to swing across a gap, swings too far and out a window, landing on the police chief's car. Catherine, who took a ladder down, is caught by Caleb, Vincent and McCutcheon, and is brought back to the brothel into Lilith's clutches.
Rafe awakens in a hospital, but is strapped down to be taken into custody once he's healed. Rafe manages to break free just as Tamara, posing as a nurse, arrives to kill him. However, Rafe succeeds in getting the back of her outfit open and pushing her into a window, where the sunlight causes her to explode. This disturbs his sleeping roommate (Whoopi Goldberg), who tells him to keep the noise down so she can sleep. That night Lilith awakens to feed on Catherine in order to bring her into her undead horde. Catherine pleads for Caleb to help, but he's clearly beyond the point of humanity, and tells his sister that being a vampire "is pretty damn cool."
Rafe loads up on Super Soakers filled with holy water and raids the brothel, killing Vincent and McCutcheon. He meets up with Current, who realized his wrongdoing and wishes to make amends after Rafe luckily saved him from Vincent who had turned on him. Current tells Rafe that the holy water won't work on Lilith. Her heart has to be removed from her body and cut into four pieces, as before she was found by Vincent. Rafe gives him a spare water gun and the two enter the brothel, spraying all the vampires, including Patrice and Tallulah, who burn and explode on contact with the water. They split up to find Catherine. Caleb attacks Rafe with an axe, but Rafe sprays a hole straight through Caleb's midsection.
Current finds Catherine, but it turns out to be Lilith in disguise. He tries to stab her, but she easily stops his attack, breaks his hand, and kills him with his own knife. Rafe arrives shortly after and manages to cut into Lilith's body with an axe. It does damage, but doesn't kill her. She reattaches her body before fleeing while Rafe finds the real Catherine and they tend to Current, who dies from his wounds.
Rafe and Catherine head to the church to reveal the existence of vampires via the church's media equipment. Lilith returns, leaving a bloody trail as she confronts the two. She handcuffs Rafe to a railing before going after Catherine, who's no match for her in human strength. Rafe uses a nearby laser machine (used in Current's sermons to make cross-shaped burns) to aim and hit Lilith in the heart, cutting it into four parts. However, as the heart pieces need to be out of her body, Lilith remains alive. She turns her attention to Rafe, devolving into a hideous form. Just as she's about to kill him, Catherine grabs a candle stand and stabs Lilith's heart out from behind. Lilith's body burns as a result before collapsing to the ground, dead for good.
The next day, the two have Lilith's remains burned to prevent her from returning, and lock away the box with the heart pieces in it. When asked why she saved him, Catherine says she had her reasons. As they sit in his car, he begins fondling Catherine, which she oddly seems more accepting of now. He asks "What's that perfume you're wearing?" He then pulls back her skirt to find a pair of bite-marks on her thigh, where she was bitten by Lilith. Catherine replies "It's not perfume. It's sunblock." Catherine, dropping all pretense of her former self, then bites into Rafe, showing us that Lilith may be dead but her legacy will continue.
The movie then goes back to the Crypt Keeper, where he jokes that if Rafe and Catherine got married, she'd know "what's eating him... She is!". He has also apparently bested the Mummy at the game and reduced him to nothing but a head. The Crypt Keeper tells him to "quit while he's 'a head'" before laughing, ending the movie. | violence, dark, humor, comedy, cult | train | wikipedia | How can you go wrong?"Bordello of Blood," the second "Tales From The Crypt" feature film, supplies the viewer with ample amounts of all of the above, leaving room for little else.
Armed with super-soakers full of holy water and with the help of a guitar-slinging reverend (Chris Sarandon), the two set out to put the joint out of business once and for all.Dennis Miller is essentially playing himself, but keeps the humor pumping through the film's ridiculous premise.
What we also have is an absolute blast!!!I'm sure women won't enjoy this as much and will probably b*tch about the overdose of female nudity, but for all you guys who just don't give a damn and just want to kick back and have a good time: You will love this movie!!
The film, like Demon Knight, is very gory and violent, although apart from the Crypt Keepers puns, and some of Miller's lines, this didn't have that much to offer.
I recommend it(like the first) to fans of gory horror films, and people who just want to be entertained for 90 minutes without having to think very much.
This one, Bordello Of Blood, was more funny than anything (quite funny humor I must admit at some points in the movie) with gore, that's all it was, funny and bloody, I was shocked that this movie really didn't have a real plot to it (none that I realized anyway) except obviously, there was vampires, and they wanted them dead...
Dennis Miller tries to stop a group of female bi-sexual vampires (led by the ultra-erotic Angie Everhart) who pose as prostitutes at a funeral home that acts as a front for a supposed prostitution ring.
A wise-cracking sleazy Private Eye Rafe Guttman (Dennis Miller) is been hired from a born again lady (Erika Eleniak) to find her punk goth brother (Corey Feldman).
Bordello of Blood-1996-Dennis Miller, Erika Eleniak, Chris Sarandon, Aubrey Morris, Corey Feldman, Angie Everhart, Phil Fondacaro, John Kassir(as the cryptkeeper) and William Sadler(as the mummy).This is a very silly movie.
Admittedly you have to be in the mood for a cheesy, somewhat silly B-movie horror flick but if you're in the right frame of mind this will do the trick.Also, maybe it's better that you're somewhat fond of Dennis Miller, since he basically carries this vampire flick.
In the great "Tales from the Crypt" tradition, this is full of great gore, low-brow humor and and a twist ending to boot.The cast here is great, with lovely eye-candy's courtesy of Angie Everhart and Erika Eleniak, the slightly-better-half of the Corey's (that reminds me, I have to dig up "Licence to Drive" one of these days) and the sorely underrated Chris Sarandon hamming it up as a crazy preacher doin' the Lord's work in inventive ways.While not as successful as "Demon Knight", "Bordello of Blood" is a fun horror flick that packs in a good dose of silly humor and gore.
Private eye Rafe Guttman (Dennis Miller) is hired by Katherine Verdoux (Erika Eleniak) to find her missing brother Caleb (Corey Feldman).
The second of the 'Tales from the Crypt Presents' movies is nowhere near as good as the criminally underrated Demon Knight.
Add a few funny one liners from the great Dennis Miller, some decent effects and semi-humorous story and you get exactly what you paid for on your local video store's dollar day!
From the concept of the bordello offering plenty of fun here with the topless workers parading around for the unwary victims, the several attempts to engage in tortuous sexual acts using the different devices to hold them in order to feed and the numerous scenes involving them around the strippers or topless clientele gives this one quite a strong sleaze quotient which has a lot to like overall.
The story in this Crypt story involves private investigator Dennis Miller hired by Erika Eleniak to do a missing persons case that leads to a nest of vampires in the titular bordello, led by supermodel Angie Everhart.
Tales From The Crypt :Bordella of Blood(1996) Starring:John Kassir, Dennis Miller, Erika Eleniak, Angie Everhart, Chris Sarandon, Corey Feldman, Aubrey Morris, Phil Fondacaro, and William Sadler Directed By:Gilbert Adler Review Hello kiddies your pal the crypt-critic here let me tell about a film so disappointing it had barely any blood to show for.
The movies not so fun premise is not the kind of lusting vampire film that I would want to sink my teeth into, it just feels like their could have been more or something.
This was the second Tales from the crypt movie that was ever released, the first being demon night which is my favorite so far, but bordello is more for the adult-watching lust having vampire horror viewers out there and it if that's your thing then you can really sink your teeth into this.
like standing there waiting to be shot at."But look at this amazing cast: Chris Sarandon, Corey Feldman, Dennis Miller, Angie Everhart, William Sadler and more...
Alas, this isn't for real and so Dennis Miller's chances of dying aren't as high.This all surrounds a woman/vampire, Angie Everhart, who was brought back to life doing the work of a televangelist in a whore house/mortuary.
Bram Stoker's Dracula -------------------------------------------------Nosferatu -------------------------------------------------------------The Lost Boys ---------------------------------------------------------Fright Night ----------------------------------------------------------I have this thing for Vampire movies and I've got to say, I believe this one was a classic.Although it may not be so intriguing to those who are looking for an intellectual movie, if you like old classics, this may be the movie for you.Completed with comedic lines, gore that just doesn't impress the people of the millennium, and a classic Crypt Keeper ending twist, Bordello of Blood is a good watch..
A lot people will disagree that this is no where near as good as Universal/ Tales from the Crypt first movie 'Demon Knight' - I personally think its just as good.
OK so its not the best vampire flick ever made ( the lost boys, was better) but its pure fun - Did you honestly think any of the actors would take there roles that seriously in a tales from the crypt movie??
Angie Everhart is great as the wise cracking vamp and Erika Eleniak is not much different from her bay-watch character, so you can kind of get the idea what its going to be like - go in open minded and just go with the flow.
Dennis Miller seems merely inserted into the action, like he got some points in his contract where he gets his own movie in exchange for services to be rendered later, so he is retrofitted into some script, in this case a Tales From The Crypt thing.
Chris Sarandon is very good as the televangelist and provides plenty of laughs as well.The movie has a fair amount of gore and basically plays as a longish tails from the crypt episode.
That done let me repair that by saying any film with Erika Eleniak in it will receive one bonus star.Tales From the Crypt's second feature is little more than a campy vampire tale.
It is the tale of the Queen of the vampires 'Lillith' (erotically portrayed by the best looking redhead in film, Angie Everhart).Dennis Miller, is his wise cracking self throughout this movie.
Bordello Of Blood is a somewhat disappointing follow up to the previous (and far superior) Tales From The Crypt feature "Demon Knight".
The other performances range from good (Erika Eleniak) to bizarre (Chris Sarandon) to delightfully fun (Aubrey Morris) to frighteningly wooden (Angie Everhart and Corey Feldman).
While it could have been a very good fun little schlock fest instead it doesn't seem to quite know what it wants to be, and as such comes out as very uneven in tone, throwing the film off balance and not letting you just enjoy it for what it is (or should be), simple fun schlock horror.Despite it's problems Bordello Of Blood still manages to be an enjoyable tongue in cheek piece of hokum for lovers of the genre, but it's unlikely to convert anyone else, and isn't a patch on the first Crypt film.
He works very well in this vampire film that is better than the last "Crypt" movie.
Filmed on what appears to be a massively low budget (is that a contradiction?) with a cast of Z-grade actors and a few famous-for-being-awful stars (ahem, Dennis Miller) this "Tales from the Crypt" spin-off is fairly entertaining but also, simply put...horrible.First of all it relies on excessive sex and language which isn't necessary at all and gives it a strange porno-vibe.
Things get a little more complicated for Lillith when the prudish Katherine comes to search for missing brother, assisted by the private eye Rafe Guttman.The cast of 'Bordello of Blood' is filled with familiar faces.
Of course, it's hard to picture a former playmate and Baywatch-vixen like an opponent of premarital sex
Saturday Night Live clown Dennis Miller is decent and there are good supportive roles for Corey Feldman, Chris Sarandon and Phil Fondacaro (the midget from 'Troll').
An obvious Dusk 'Til Dawn wannabe, this gopher turd of a moovie manages to waste the slim acting talents of such grade b actors as Dennis Miller and Chris Sarandon, and non-existent talents of Corey Feldman and Angie Everhart.
stupid but dumb fun all the way it has cheesy acting a very funny performance by Dennis Miller the gorgeous Angie Everhart shes has a couple way too cheesy one liners though it's always nice to see Chris Saranadon he does his job well if you pay attention Whoopi Goldberg has a cameo in this as a hospital patient if you like gore this movie is filled with we get tons of ripped out hears nasty burning vampires and tons more but this is lacking in plot and story and the ending wasn't that great the direction is shoddy and this could have used more story but we do get to see the crypt keeper he is always fun to watch so all this adds up to if your looking for a smart scary horror flick look bit if your looking for some cheap dumb fun look no further i had fun with this one worth a watch **1/2 out of 5.
If you just want to watch for gore and nudity, then hit this movie up, it's got a lot of both.Dennis Miller should stick to comedy, as his acting in this film made me want to cry.
Bordello of Blood (1996) ** 1/2 (out of 4) When Katherine's (Erika Eleniak) brother Caleb (Corey Feldman) goes missing, she hires private eye Rafe Guttman (Dennis Miller) to find him.
Guttman traces the brother to an old funeral home, which is also being used for prostitution and in a major twist the hostess Lilith (Angie Everhart) is a vampire.BORDELLO OF BLOOD was the second Tales from the Crypt movie that was made by Universal but after it turned out to be a box office disappointment it pretty much killed the series.
The introduction to the whore house is something that seems out of a drive-in flick from the 1970s and there are also some wonderful special effects, which include countless bloody death scenes.The film also benefits from a fun cast including Miller who does a very good job as the smart-mouthed jerk of a private eye who constantly has something funny to say.
Everhart is perfectly cast as the sexy vampire.As with DEMON KNIGHT, the biggest problem with this film is that it pretty much runs out of story and there's just not enough here to carry on the 87-minute running time.
But the real meat (pun intended) is in Angie Everhart's role as sexy vampire Lillith; she makes anyone admire those bloodsuckers.Overall, maybe this movie is just cheap entertainment, but it ensures a good time.
Bordello of Blood is a fun film meant to be humorous, grisly, and rated R for nudity and violence.
Don't get me wrong, Bordello of Blood is not a great horror film but is a funny, inventive horror/comedy.
The film got me laughing through most of the last hour and although the blood n guts didn't really turn me on the constant interludes of T and A didn't receive any complaints from me.Dennis Miller's one liners and wise cracks made it seem as though the movie was made only for him since he was the only one that seemed as though he was taking the p**s whilst everyone else was just setting themselves up to have the p**s taken out of them as they acted camp or exaggerated their parts.This is definitely a film that bonds the feelings of guilt and pleasure as you watch it.I've never seen the other tales of the crypt episodes or the first film but i have to say i was quite entertained and definitely appreciated a break from all the heavy films i was watching previously.Also Angie Everhart is a stunner.
"Bordello of Blood" is about a Christian woman (Erika Eleniak) who is looking for his missing goth brother (Corey Feldman) and therefore hires a private detective to find him (Dennis Miller).
It turns out that the women of the bordello are vampires, and the place is being run by a Reverend (Chris Sarandon) who wants to get rid of sinners.Lots of comments deal with the fact that this movie is gory and filled with nudity; it's true, and I think there is a scene that captures its spirit:Dennis Miller and the Reverend, decide to kill Lilith (Angie Everhart), the "leader" of the vampires.
Dennis Miller (of all people -- was Jon Lovitz out sick that week?) is the PI who's looking into Feldman's disappearance for Erika Eleniak, a born-again type.Pluses include tons of gratuitous nudity, tons of gratuitous gore, Corey Feldman, who belongs in these kind of roles, Dennis Miller wisecracking his way through everything, a midget, a creepy old guy playing a necrophiliac, good uses of "Thirty Days in the Hole" and "Ballroom Blitz", and Angie Everhart chewing the scenery.
"Bordello of Blood" does offer some undemanding B movie entertainment, even if it's never quite as much fun as one might like it to be.
Rafe is hired by uptight Katherine Verdoux (Erika Eleniak) to locate her indolent brother Caleb (a well cast Corey Feldman), and tracks him to the mortuary, doubling as a bordello, where Caleb is last seen, tangling with evil boss vampire Lilith (Angie Everhart) and teaming up with slick televangelist J.C. Current (Chris Sarandon).
Dennis Miller stole the show, even with the bordello full of beauties, Erika Eleniak, Angie Everhart and others, Dennis is in top notch form as the new Bob Hope in this gore & breast fest of one liners and jabs at the vampire world in general.You don't need to know the plot, you won't even care, if you want to laugh and get a bit scared, this is a great film to do that.
It's about a placid detective (Dennis Miller, kickin ass I must say) investigating the disappearance of some horny young fella (played by clearly-not-a-teen-anymore Corey Feldman - haha, he's in a movie again!) which leads him to some kind of vampire brothel where the girls don't just take your money, they bleed you dry!
And like the first film, this runs short at only 87 mins - a good thing too, any longer would have been too long.This was great fun to watch, and much better than I'd anticipated after it's score here.
An unoriginal vampire tale this time, set in a brothel with lots of ladies eating biker types much like 'From Dusk Till Dawn' or 'Vamp' but nowhere near as good.Plot is pretty standard but like the previous Crypt flick is does have a wonderful array of makeup and prosthetic effects all over the show with blood squirting and fangs flying, nothing you haven't seen before but it looks good.
Casting is drab but does include 80's horror comedy star Sarandon and 80's teen star Feldman both of which raise the film slightly, Angie Everhart looks delicious as 'Lilith'.You know what your gonna get with this franchise so your either gonna love it or hate it.
I'm not sure ALL the drugs the filmmakers, cast, crew, extras, producers, writers, behind the scenes assistants, casting directors, editors, and puppeteers were doing during shooting but I at least know a few and also, the decision to ordain Dennis Miller as the primary protagonist in this film, Bordello of Blood (BoB), is such a living and an ongoing, never-ending, hellish, freakish nightmare that I would LITERALLY rather spend some quality (qt) time at the Bordello of Blood with all those super hot topless vampire babes and have a fun little trip down that coffin ride than have to watch this '90s cinematic feature for ANY reason other than for the reason of seeing all of the hot girls at the Bordello naked, mainly Angie but she doesn't even appear nude in this.
Miller carries the movie and Erika Eleniak's amazing in it and William Sadler from Demon Knight's good as the mummy and I love Bordello of Blood (BoB).(TftC: BoB's classic Cryptkeeper).
Like Robert Rodriguez's From Dusk Till Dawn from the same year, tongue-in-cheek horror Bordello Of Blood takes its inspiration from under-rated 1986 movie Vamp, but replaces that film's strip-club nest of vampires with a brothel full of bloodsuckers.
Erika Eleniak stars as Katherine Verdoux, who hires private detective Rafe Guttman (Dennis Miller) to try and find her missing wayward brother Caleb (Corey Feldman).
BORDELLO OF BLOOD is the second of the TALES FROM THE CRYPT TV series film spin-offs and a sequel to DEMON KNIGHT, which I enjoyed.
The unknown-to-me Dennis Miller is an unlikeable lead and Angie Everhart is very poor as the chief vampire, but at the same time there are positives here too. |
tt0243255 | À ma soeur! | Anaïs (Anaïs Reboux) and her older sister, Elena (Roxane Mesquida) are vacationing with their parents on the French seaside. Bored of staying in their vacation home, the two walk into town while discussing relationships and their virginity. Although the highly attractive Elena has been promiscuous, she is saving herself for someone who loves her, while heavy-set, overweight Anaïs thinks it is better to lose one's virginity to a "nobody" just to get it over with.
They meet an Italian law student, Fernando (Libero De Rienzo), at a cafe. While Elena flirts with him, Anaïs orders a banana split. Later, Fernando sneaks into the girls' bedroom for a liaison with Elena. Anaïs is awake and watches their entire interaction. After a conversation about Fernando's previous relationships with other women, Elena consents to have sex with him, but backs out at the last minute. Frustrated, Fernando pressures her through various means, including threatening to sleep with some other woman just to alleviate himself. Finally, Elena is coerced into anal sex as a "proof of love", although it is obviously a painful experience for her.
In the morning, Fernando asks for oral sex from Elena before he leaves, but Anaïs has had enough and tells them to let her sleep in peace. The next day, the girls and Fernando go to the beach. Anaïs sits in the ocean in her new dress and sings to herself while Elena and Fernando go off alone together. Later, as the girls are reminiscing about their childhood together back at the house, Elena reveals that Fernando has given her a mauve opal engagement ring while at the beach. That night, Elena gives up her virginity to Fernando as Anaïs silently cries on the other side of the room.
Later, Fernando's mother arrives at the house that Anaïs and her family are renting, asking for the girl's mother to return the mauve opal ring. Their mother discovers Elena's and Fernando's relationship, and angrily decides to drive back to Paris. On the way back she becomes tired and decides to sleep at a rest stop, where an axe murderer arrives, killing Elena with an axe and strangling her mother. He takes Anaïs into the woods and rapes her. When the police arrive the next morning, Anaïs insists he did not rape her, and the credits roll. | bleak, violence, suspenseful, murder, romantic | train | wikipedia | Written and directed by Catherine Breillat, whose other controversial movies about girls and sex I've somehow missed and will now catch up on, the original title of "A ma soeur!" (to, or maybe colloquially for, my sister) makes a lot more sense.But not since the very scary "Smooth Talk" have I seen the seduction of a pretty teen-ager by a hunky older guy shown so effectively, as this is a whole lot more explicit and sensually realistic in how they interact in a cagey game of alluring naiveté vs.
When you feel like that?"And we watch this all played out in a fascinating way, from the viewpoint of, with devastating impact on, her younger, titular sister who has to endure an up close and personal intimacy with them under the noses of oblivious parents.While the sibling relationship is the anchor, the ending may be a culminating precautionary statement on a very negative view of the battle of the sexes, but no one walking out of the theater was sure.The Ontario Film Review Board missed the educational point in censoring the film, but I concur that it's a disturbing film.Listening to Top 40 radio on the way home sure made me suspicious of all those declarations of love pouring out from all those guys.Coincidentally, I re-saw the Rohmer film "Pauline on the Beach" hours later on IFC and now see that Breillat is making a dark commentary on that classic, both riffing off a 14-year-old on vacation amidst a sexual whirligig; the French may have a different reaction than me.(originally written 10/27/2001).
Catherine Breillat showed the jury the world of two sisters which do not only differ in the physical aspect of their characters but also have their own very distinctive expectations and desires when it comes to their first time having sex.
The strong hand of the director and the personal theme makes Fat Girl a film which will be remembered for a long time and which will be the subject of many discussions..
It is only at the end, after some horrible things have happened, that it becomes clear that the film has been leading us to understand the fat sister Anais's strange reaction to what happened to her.
Such criticism misses the point of the movie, I think, which is about the contrast between Anais's first sexual experience and the lovely Elena's, and Anais's acceptance of rape as being preferable to being in love with the boy, as Elena had been, when we and Anais watched Elena's first intercourse.I thought the acting in this film wonderful, and Anais Reboux, as the fat girl is an outstanding find.
Catherine Breillat's "Fat Girl" (2001) is an astounding movie that provides uncompromising and unblinking look at the relationship between two teenage sisters, and their first sexual experiences.
There are two long, thorough and uncomfortable scenes of seducing Elena that take place in the girls' bedroom with the younger sister, 12 years old Anais, the fat girl of the title not quite asleep.
Directed by the 'controversial' Catherine Breillat (she showed a hard-on in her last movie, 'Romance'), the story revolves around a family on holiday with two adolescent sisters, the chubby 13 year old Anaïs (played by Anaïs Reboux) and the rather more svelte Elena (Roxane Mesquida) who is two years her senior, although rather less mature.
Indeed, this is one of the most beguiling scenes in the movie; you feel awkward bearing witness to what is going on - the constant demands of Fernando for 'a demonstration of love', which after refusals brings forth the sorts of coercing phrases regarding anal sex that so many girls must dread to hear.
The only thing that feels out of place is the long sequence at the end of the film, which comes out of nowhere and leaves the audience stunned, as proved by the people that flocked to read the review posted on the lobby of the Lincoln Plaza cinemas, as many viewers obviously had trouble understanding the film.Those last minutes of the film seem endless and proved nothing more than perhaps a director who ran out of ideas and didn't know where to take the story, therefore the ending that will disappoint even those avid Breillat's fans..
Elena is too smart for her age to already know this herself, and tells Anais that the only way she will want to loose her virginity is to a man who she doesn't love and will never see again.The acting between these 2 girls is just pure beauty.
The film seems to be a "Last Tango in Paris" for teenagers, as a young man from Italy takes up with a French girl who has a love/hate relationship with her fat sister (the title character).
But after watching 'Fat Girl', I've realized some foreign movies are as bad as Hollywood's not-much-acting with too-much-special effect films, if not worse.
Virginity is an interesting double standard that woman have to deal with in our society and this film explains that in a very direct way.If you are an easily offended or easily shocked person, do not watch this film because chances are you will be thinking too much about being shocked to think about what Catherine Breillat is trying to say.In my experience, Breillat makes films that are not meant to be "enjoyed" in the traditional sense, but rather analyzed and understood through thought and symbolism.If you are not someone who likes to think about films past the surface, you may not want to watch this film.I think there is a lot to be thought about an analyzed from this film, so if you're up to seeing something unlike you've ever seen before and you're not easily shocked, go for it..
For a dirty old pervert like me to come out of a film that featured a beautiful, naked teenage girl and think "that was bad", it must have been a real shocker.Maybe the cuts that were considered "too much" for our delicate British eyes would redeem it, but I doubt that anything could indulge such contrivance..
The French title, by the way, means "To my sister." To a surprising extent, the movie is a near-remake of the director's earlier 36 Fillette, which also dealt with the sexual travails of a young fat girl.
Words like Provocative, Controversial, Shocking when used to describe a film usually mean a film has already been made that deals with the subject that has more taste, cleverness, attention to narrative believability and character development than the Provocative Controversial and Shocking one.Provocative, Controversial, and Shocking filmmakers can get people to watch their films by being Provocative, Controversial, and Shocking over and over again on basically the same theme.Girls (at least in France) will start French kissing you in a public cafe within the first 2 minutes of meeting you in front of your sister if you are from Italy, cute and have limited command of French but can amazingly have 30 minute intimate conversations and then mentally rape you with their limited command of French.Teenagers (at least in France and parts of Italy) think about sex 24 hours a day and have no other interests that would make them fully rounded human beings worth really caring about and when they actually are intimate show no compassion tenderness or enjoyment of eroticism because men always mentally rape girls and girls are really dense.Mental Rape consists of being - conned into having Anal sex(because it's not real sex)by someone who doesn't really speak your language well- with your sister in the room.
Telling the girl you really love her and want to see her again and then still not really knowing you've been mentally raped because mental rape means you don't realize you're being mentally raped.Wondering if %100 percent of civilization has been missing out by not having their sister in the room while having passionless sex.There can be really cool scenes on highways that build up and then go nowhere.Serial Killers can blunder out of Nowhere smash your window without your Mother waking up, kill your Sister, rip your mothers clothes and fondle her for no apparent reason before killing her and then not kill you but rape you and make you eat your own underwear but letting you live so there will be a cool freeze frame at the end that is Provocative Controversial and Shocking.It is OK and not outrageously hypocritical for a Director seeking the "truth" to lie to a 13 year old actress by telling them their dog just died to get a performance out of them.It is OK (in France at least) to have a 13 year old perform a brutal explicit rape scene and gag on her own underwear as its stuffed into her mouth and have it not considered pornographic but artistic because its the "truth" - by way of a dead dog that's not really dead.It is OK to mock people even liberals!
It is not the same as Enlightenment in the age that nobody cares about anymore because it happened along time ago and they don't bother to teach it in school because they would have to cut the budget on the new Football field to pay for the classes.It is OK and not outrageously hypocritical for a Director seeking the "truth" about the degrading aspects of sex on women as dealt by men to hire a notorious porn star who has dunked womens heads into toilets while having anal sex to act in your film because he has a big weenie.It is OK and not outrageously hypocritical to say professional seasoned actors are all mediocre and conformists because they are too smart to agree to be in your films.It is OK and not outrageously hypocritical to say professional seasoned actors are all mediocre and conformists because they don't look good nude or have small weenies.Saying "All true artists are hated" is only %50 true.
It won't make you an artist but it will get you hated.It is OK for a filmmaker to have a grossly unhealthy, childishly obsessive and ugly view of human sexuality without offering any juxtaposition, contrast or thematic development of this limited theme and pass it off as Provocative, Controversial, Shocking and "truthful" over and over again while using manipulation, hypocritical views, methods and a serious lack of narrative common sense, instead of seeking some kind of therapy so they will stop making the same movies on the same subject the rest of their lives..
This comes from the controversial director who gave us two years ago the erotic thriller from France called "Romance"(2000).If you do,please be forewarned that this is not for the faint of heart."A ma soeur!" or "Fat Girl" which it is called here in the states, tells the story of a sexual coming-of-age thirteen year old named Anais who is against her beautiful sibling Elena,who is fifteen and having sexual intercourse with strangers.
We are well aware of her beliefs at this point in time, however, we can see that she has a common curiosity about sex so much so that she simply wants to see just how the act is performed and executed.This scene is one lengthy, naturalistic shot Breillat conducts in the room shared by Elena and Anaïs, boldly establishing real-time, mood, and discomfort just by the way the shot is framed, how long it lasts, and how the characters are placed inside the shot.
Anaïs is laying in bed several feet away, closing her eyes and pretending her sister's innocence isn't being taken away in front of her.Fat Girl works well because it illustrates the sexual tendencies of the female and a believable sibling rivalry that is captured with surprising purity and tenderness.
If that's the case, it would be tough to communicate such a resonance, but Breillat finds ways to do so in Fat Girl that make the film an unsettling and often very consuming piece of work.Much has been made about the ending that is admittedly out of nowhere, able to shock the most hardened viewer raw because of its jolting nature, and implied to add ambiguity and an additional layer to the story.
Most notably a scene on a beach where Anais tenderly sings to herself.As the film comes to a shocking end it's important to remember the comments on societies ideas of happiness and beauty.
Fat Girl (2001) **** (out of 4) 12-year-old Anais (Anais Reboux) and her 15-year-old sister Elena (Roxane Mesquida) are on summer vacation when the two discover sex and start to explore their virginity.
Breillat's sexual politics come through clearly, as the two main male characters are seen to be obnoxious abusers, exercising their control through sex (the boyfriend) or paternal/capitalist power (the father).The ending, shocking as it is, is too ambiguous.
In this film, premiered at the New York Film Festival and now running at Lincoln Plaza Cinemas in Manhattan to apparently sell-out audiences, the complex interdependence of a beautiful fifteen-year old teen with her thirteen- year-old obese, unattractive and perpetually gluttonous sister is sharply etched through the younger girl's unavoidable, and perhaps intended, voyeuristic sharing of the other's initiation into various sex acts with a smooth-talking Italian law student.As a law professor I often can not avoid noting whether legal issues and lawyers in general are protrayed accurately or not.
I have been reading the comments on this film with some interest, but also with a sense of frustration--I feel like somebody who wasn't invited to a party.I won't be able to judge whether Breillat (whose Romance was, bizarrely, passed for viewing here) has made a good film or a bad one, or whether the rape scene has artistic merit, or...what's the use of even discussing this?
Oddly titled 'Fat Girl' for international release, the ambiguity of the original French title of this Catherine Breillat movie is quite important as the film is equally about two sisters: one conventionally pretty and the other slightly overweight.
For those who don't know, Fat Girl tells the story of a chubby 12 year-old gal and her sexy fifteen year-old sister who may as well be called Lolita.The film is pretty short and simplistic but it definitely leaves a lasting impression.
Elena (Roxanne Mesquida), is a breathtaking 15 year old beauty, (so gorgeous almost makes the movie tolerable), while her sister, Anais (Anais Reboux), is an awkward, antisocial, plump (Fat Girl) 12 year old, who is both jealous and fascinated by her sister, who in turn is thrilled to have an audience for her mischief.The plot unfolds, when a slightly older Italian picks up Elena at a café, and is soon sneaked into her bedroom, where in an absurdly cliché manner, he seduces her to have sex with him.
But the stereotypical cultural stereotype of sexually highly strung young Italian, ahem, stallions did slightly drag it down...I didn't actually care much the first time i saw it- i was researching Breillat for an auteur project for college and i happened to discover her in 1000 Movies you must see before you Die and thought yep she's everything i need to be different from the average Tarantino or Scorsese project- she's a Foreign Female Feminist whoop whoop- but I've since had experiences which made me reflect highly upon the subject matter and how much it (the personal experiences) don't actually differ,personally.Sorry, i do film studies..
Elena's reference to being in the "dead man's seat" and the mother's reluctance to drive as well as Anais' commitment to having sex for the first time with somebody that's she's "not in love" with all point to a resolution like this.
(CONTAINS SPOILERS-The ending is discussed) Another stunningly strange film from Catherine Breillat, director of Romance, Anatomy of Hell and Real Young Girl.The plot concerns two sisters the older one, Elena who is about 14 or 15, and is thin and beautiful, and the younger,Anais, who is 12, is fat.
Food and Sex. Fat Girl opens with a scene depicting the sister Anais, 13, and Elena, 15, walking to town from their vacation how to get a drink.
However, the sexual acts depicted in the film are not meant to titillate but to make the viewer feel uncomfortable, because it is one of the few films that reflect the suffering of a young girl who has been suckered by a man she "loves," she is already talking to Fernando about getting married which he fully supports to reach his "goal," and the damaging effects that it has.
Catherine Breillat's "Fat Girl" is another one of those European coming-of-age films where two friends/relatives, one more sexually active than the other, spend a summer vacation in a beach resort.
Unlike other films with strong sexual content, Breillat never switches on the "porno mode", making the scene seem like one single unbroken piece.Briellat's films are famous for having graphic depictions of sex but "Fat Girl" uses a more subtle approach.
***END OF SPOILERS*** One of the best, and darkest, coming-of-age films you will ever encounter, "Fat Girl" is essential viewing to anyone who likes the genre.
A ma souer (crudely re-titled Fat Girl) tells the story of Elena and Anais, two sisters only a few years apart in age.
Being a woman Breillat offers no sympathy to young female characters in her films since she understands their motives like the pretty Elena who want's love before sex but forces herself to believe Fernando's words and allows him to have his way.
There's an interesting story to be told here, too bad it gets cut short by the end-scenes, which feel to me as though they were included strictly for shock-value and to liven up the film a bit, or as a way to abruptly conclude a film without committing to any real resolution.A family on vacation repeatedly shows the audience their dysfunctions, especially amongst the two young sisters - one a 15 year old beauty, the other, her slightly younger sister who is the "fat girl".
While in some scenes, audience get to see how Anais expressed her desire on having sex.What shocks me in the film was not how Elena shared her affection with Fernando, but more rather, Anais's reaction to sexual issues. |
tt0091338 | Killer Party | Three friends, Vivia, Jennifer, and Phoebe, decide to pledge a sorority. The night of the initiation, Vivia (Sherry Willis-Burch) plays an elaborate prank on the sorority sisters as the three girls are being initiated through a hazing ritual. Subsequently, all three girls are chosen to join the sorority, and Vivia learns that her prank was the only reason for her acceptance. Now she must gimmick up a traditional April Fools party that the sorority is hosting for a fraternity. The party is to be held at an old abandoned frat house where a young man named Allan was killed 22 years prior. Jennifer (Johnson), is bothered by this house, but Phoebe (Wilkes) and the guy she is interested in (Hewitt), convince her to go along with the party plans. Unfortunately for the friends and everyone else at the party, someone or something else does not want anyone in the abandoned house.
Near the end, it's revealed that Jennifer who happens to be possessed by the demon tries to kill Phoebe and Vivia with a trident, but Vivia and Phoebe escape from Jennifer and head upstairs to escape by breaking off the blocked window and escaping to the roof, but then Jennifer appears on the roof and attacks Vivia outside of the house, causing her to fall from the roof and landing on the ground in damage. Phoebe, with a sharpened wooden column, saves Vivia by impaling the possessed Jennifer with the wooden column through her chest, apparently killing both the girl and the demon. However, the film ends with the demon taking hold of Phoebe just before the police arrive and take her into custody. As bodies are removed from the house, Vivia is placed on a stretcher and taken to an ambulance where Phoebe is waiting, still under the demon's control. Vivia begs not to be put in the ambulance with Phoebe, but her screams are ignored. The movie ends when the ambulance doors are closed and the vehicle drives away as Vivia's cries continue. It is left to the audience to wonder if Phoebe will kill Vivia at the Hospital or at a certain point. | paranormal, revenge, murder, prank | train | wikipedia | What I will say is that this fraternity is one that people figuratively and literally "die for!"If I were to compare it to the 1978 comedy fraternity phenom of Animal House, I actually enjoyed Killer Party much more because it does not rely solely on gross humor to satisfy its college and younger audience.
Killer Party provides an abundance of camp, comedy, a little bit of horror, a little bit of suspense and a lot of mystery as to who is actually killing off the school faculty members and the frat boys and girls?Since this film was released more than 30 years ago and I just watched it, I must say that it holds up very well and should be considered a five (5) C which stands for Canadian, Campy, Creepy, Cult, Classic!I give Killer Party an entertaining 8 out of 10 rating!.
"Killer Party" opens like no other horror/slasher movie ever.
Unfortunately, a party is to be held in an abandoned frat house, where a pledge was accidentally killed years before.
It appears this pledge does not rest in peace, and the party-goers are about to find out the hard way."Killer Party" is a horror movie with a sense of humor.
However, for a slasher/horror movie, the death scenes are relatively tame, and not all of them do we see for long or, in some cases, at all.
A horror movie with humor, standard slasher conventions, a taste of the supernatural, a dash of college hazing hi-jinks, and it's own music video!
"Killer Party" really does seem to be the "Everything and the kitchen sink" horror movie.Overall rating: 7 out of 10..
(** out of *****)It's another sorority pledge/killer-in-the-house flick, with three pretty sorority babes and all their friends getting butchered at an April Fool's Day costume party by the vengeful spirit of a reincarnated fraternity pledge.
Only, none of this really gets going until the last half hour -- for most of the movie, we're treated with long, dumb scenes of typical fraternity/sorority hijinks, pranks and shenanigans (I wish my college experience had been half as fun as this movie makes it look.) Also, I docked this movie half a star for the obnoxious and totally unnecessary double-fake-out beginning (a movie inside of a stupid, "Thriller"-like music video inside of a movie).
Paul Bartel makes one of his typical B-movie cameos as an uptight college professor, and the three main girls are played by Elaine Wilkes, Sherry Willis-Burch, and Joanna Johnson.
') sounds like a generic 80s song, but hearing it after most of the cast gets wiped out was amusing in a (most likely unintentional) ironic sort of way.HIGHLIGHT: Johnson's performance as the drooling, wall-climbing, possessed college cutie, Jennifer, is the film's highlight.
In my view, it is better than the 1978 comedy Animal House, as the 1986 Killer Party doesn't rely solely on gross humor to win the college and teen crowds over.
This is the frat party to literally and figuratively "die for!"I will definitely be adding this 1986 five (5) CC (Canadian, Cult, Camp, Classic, Creepy) film to my MUST OWN list!
Attempting to pledge a sorority, a group of friends decides to join the other sorority members in transforming a nearby deserted house into an April Fools gag house, and when a mysterious killer shows up the dwindling survivors fight back against the deadly intruder.This here was one of the best examples of the cheesy slasher.
The sequence at the staff meeting starts out hilarious and soon becomes even more so, and from the boys' opening prank to their hazing ritual and then onto the house pranks themselves all the way to the general atmosphere and tone this is barely a dent in the film's cheesiness.
When it's not being funny, there are some good slasher moments as well including the early stalking in the sorority, the professor's shocking encounter in the basement and the way that just about all the deaths occur during the party allows it to just be over-the-top fun.
There's just a ton of action in that scene, as the killer gets going and seems to kill someone every five minutes and that just makes it seem all the more fast-paced as just about the entire cast is knocked off in rapid fashion and the great stalking and supernatural destruction throughout make it really exciting.
It was like the director thought "Oh I forgot, we're shooting a horror comedy let's kill some people." The kill scenes for that matter are bad.
Killer party offers a combination of horror and laugh-out-loud bad effects.
Lets start with the facts- This movie was originally filmed in 1984, sat on a shelf for 2 years, until MGM/UA picked it up, had a week or two theatrical release in spring of 86.
The movie, is basically about college horror, 20 years ago, a pledge was accidentally killed during a prank.
All three are accepted into the sorority mainly so that Vivia can set up the coming April Fool's party in the old frat house.The movie starts with two fake-outs and the low grade horror begins.
College students throw a party in an old frat house, only to have someone start killing off everybody and raising demons (?!)Canadian 'horror' drivel is one mess of a movie.
The movies theme song 'Best Times of our Lives' is memorable though.Those who enjoy silly 80's schlock might have a good time with this one, but all in all Killer Party is totally inept as a horror film.BOMB out of ****.
Then the name of the band appears on the lower left of the screen (MTV style) and as the camera pulls back, this is all just a rock video that one of our main characters was watching.Then begins our movie.
Lots of humor and some great characters and dialogue lead us to a point where things seem to be just your average cliche slasher, but then the finale is definitely refreshing and very tongue-in-the cheek.other great Canadian horror films include: Hello Mary Lou, Prom Night 2 and Ginger Snaps.
Supernatural/slasher hybrids rarely work, and Killer Party is an example of one of those genre confused movies.It starts off interestingly with a movie within a music video within a movie.
This time, though, there are not so funny, but I guess they're fun, too.The gang is planning a sorority party in an old run down frat house, where a man was killed years ago.
It's not scary enough to be a supernatural horror, or bloody enough to be a good slasher, and certainly not funny enough to be a decent college comedy.Nice ending can't save a relatively dull, incompetent film.
"Killer Party" is a pretty dumb and righteously forgotten mid-80's horror-comedy that only gets funny when it's meant to look serious and vice versa.
But, alas, this is not the case, as the killing are too few, most of them away from the lense of the camera, definitely not inventive (come on, what a sissy costume for a slasher killer is that?) and the supernatural explanation (with the previous heroine acting like Linda Blair in The Exorcist) is thin as carbon copy paper.
A sorority and fraternity hold an April Fool's Party in an old frat house, but a supernatural force begins to kill them off on by one.
A sorority holds an April Fool's party in an abandon frat house that was closed down, because of the accidental death of a pledge.
As all the guys and girls arrive, it appears the pledge's spirit has never left the house and is determined to get revenge on somebody.Your usual 80's slasher film cliches and a low budget barely hurt this fast paced slasher pic with neat death scenes, excitement, some appealing performances (mainly Martin Hewwitt and the female lead), and a memorable finale.Rated R; Violence, Sexual Situations, Profanity, and Nudity..
"Killer Party" will never be confused with a good horror movie.
Dozens of characters with little or no development are cavorting around an old fraternity house trying to have an April Fools Party.
Tongue-in cheek horror Killer Party begins in perfect cheesy, 80s fashion with a 'film-within-a-film-within-a-music-video' pre-credits sequence that features a big-hair metal band named White Sister.
After suffering various humiliating rituals, the trio are accepted, and are given the task of organising a practical joke at the yearly April Fool's party (being held at an old abandoned frat house which is rumoured to be haunted).During the celebrations, however, an evil spirit interrupts the fun by turning Jennifer into a demonic, scuttling creature (complete with long tongue and a nice line in guttural noises) who proceeds to butcher the other party-goers.Although the possession at the end of the film does lend for some creepy scenes (with Jennifer crawling up vertical walls in a spider-like fashion), there are not nearly enough scares, and way too much silly student buffoonery (one fraternity plays a prank on the girls of Sigma Alpha Pi which results in some predictable gratuitous nudity), for Killer Party to be deemed a success.Perhaps if the studio hadn't seen fit to cut out the bloody effects that were filmed (apparently they expected more of a comedy than a horror, got cold feet when they saw the graphic gore, and excised the lot!), then maybe the film would've been more bearable, but in its severely trimmed form, Killer Party turns out to be a bit of a non-event..
Then the movie is a tame Animal House rip-off, then we get completely bloodless slasher killings, then the demonic showdown.
When watching a horror movie on a station other than HBO or one of those stations it is expected to have some scenes removed because they are a bit graphic or may contain nudity.
This movie went overboard though and a couple of times I didn't know what happened or how a person was killed the cuts were so bad.
Music videos, pledging a sorority and enjoying the best times of our lives.
Killer Party is one of those titles that does not often get mentioned when people discuss 80s slasher movies.It's relatively unknown yet seems to have a loyal following amongst its fans.
Filmed in 1984 under the title The April Fool but not released until 1986, Killer Party is three films rolled into one.It begins as a music video, then becomes a college comedy filled with sex jokes and pranks.
Phoebe is excitable one and goes along with the group, and Vivia is the nerdy prankster.The actress who played Vivia, Sherry Willis-Burch, was also in the 1981 slasher movie Final Exam.The girls must go through the typical sorority hazing and tasks in order to become members.
Ralph Seymour was also in the 1980 backwoods slasher classic, Just Before Dawn.The criticism of Killer Party is that it takes much too long to become a horror movie.
The final half of the movie takes places at an abandoned frat house which was the site of a fraternity prank gone wrong 20 years before.Does this tragedy from the past have something to do with the recent killings?
In fact, I would argue the final act of Killer Party is one of the best found in a slasher movie.I remember watching it for the first time in an edited form on TBS in 1989 and was amazed by the performance of the killer.
However, April is just a warm up to what is the theme song of Killer Party: a song that goes by the name These Are The Best Times of Our Lives.
Currently Killer Party does not have an official DVD release but is a part of the Warner Archives.My old VHS copy has seen better days but I return to it like an old friend I have known for years.
College horror / slasher starts out fun but ultimately fails to deliver in the end..
Shy Jennifer (Joanna Johnson), vivacious Phoebe (Elaine Wilkes) and geeky Vivia (Sherry Willis-Burch) are the three newest pledges of the prestigious sorority Sigma Alpha Phi ("the wet dream of this college!") where they must endure such rush week indignities as paddling, having raw eggs cracked into their mouths, being fed goat eyeballs (!) and being forced to say "I myself prefer a big, fat cucumber" in the middle of class.Thankfully, all that's about to come to an end as the girls approach the end of their hazing period, only they're about to trade the feelings of embarrassment and humiliation for the feelings of death and bodily possession instead.
We get a good look at college life to start things out, but the movie wastes way too much time on that and the various pranks going on on campus, including bees unleashed upon a bunch of topless girls in a hot tub.
Pranks are a major theme in this decent horror comedy that also calls to mind the slasher "Final Exam" the way that it focuses on frat and sorority nonsense for a good part of its running time.
The filmmakers, led by under-rated Canadian-born cult director William Fruet ("Death Weekend", "Cries in the Night", "Trapped"), do have fun playing around with tropes of the genre and create some pretty good atmosphere in the more serious moments.The thin story revolves around three college babes, Phoebe (Elaine Wilkes, "Sixteen Candles"), Vivia (Sherry Willis-Burch, "Final Exam"), and Jennifer (Joanna Johnson, 'The Bold and the Beautiful') working their way into a sorority that plans on partying inside an old, closed building which the students are advised to avoid.
It seems that a frat dude died as a result of pranking some years ago, leading to some effective supernatural horror and good practical effects in the fairly entertaining big finish.The cast of familiar faces also includes Martin Hewitt ("Endless Love" '81), Ralph Seymour ("Just Before Dawn", "Ghoulies"), a hilarious Paul Bartel ("Eating Raoul") as a huffy professor (whose character is named Zito, a nod to director Joseph Zito, who'd directed "Friday the 13th: The Final Chapter", also written by Barney Cohen), Terri Hawkes ("Hello Mary Lou: Prom Night II"), Howard Busgang ("Terror Train"), and Jason Warren ("Screwballs").
This focuses on 3 college girls, Jennifer (Johnson), Phoebe (Wilkes) and Vivia (Burch) who pledge a sorority and get in enduring pranks and humility.
The sorority decides to throw its annual April Fool's dance in a condemned former Greek house that's been closed for 20 years, ever since a pledge was accidentally killed in a guillotine prank, two words that should never go together.
It is a good basic premise and is indeed a Killer Party with some April Fools..
It's all very obvious padding, so much so that one has to wonder why time wasn't instead devoted to explaining some murky plot details, like the fraternity pledge who was (I think) killed in the past.The movie starts to get going during the last twenty minutes, quickly adding to its body count and containing some energy.
Don't expect over the top situations like SCARY MOVIE, 'cause KILLER PARTY prefers to quietly rip-off certain movies instead of parody them openly.Story-line: On a university campus the Sigma Alpha Pi sisters decide to throw an April Fool's Day-party in an abandoned sorority building.
Apparently, someone got killed twenty years ago in that same building...On a positive note, the filmmakers were sort of original by shooting three different opening scenes (We have a funeral-scene, which is part of a movie in a drive-in theatre, which is part of a music-video one of the main characters is watching in her livingroom).
All this nonsense lasts for almost an hour and we only get two occasional bloodless killings (an old hag and a teacher).It is when the party finally starts that the filmmakers suddenly seem to realize that they were making a horror movie, so in comes the mysterious slasher/killer dressed in a ridiculous antique diving suit.
Now, we do get some hints during the party scenes that something's wrong with Jennifer, but still the final climax comes as a surprise because it totally changes the mood of the film, reminding us a bit of NIGHT OF THE DEMONS, same atmosphere.
If you like practical jokes in horror movies, you can also check out the more suspenseful slasher-movie APRIL FOOL'S DAY.
Both movies are (though not really comparable) better than KILLER PARTY..
It's really kind of a cheat, too, to set up the plot like there's a real-world psycho killer on the loose, and then conveniently decide right at the climax to make it a supernatural entity, even more especially a silly Exorcist-type ripoff demon, too.As it is, this is a film that only 14-year-old girls could really enjoy, and be scared by.But if you happen to be one of those deluded souls who like crappy 80s music, there's plenty of that on the soundtrack here..
I like 80s horror, and while it might seem I'm being very hard on this movie, the fact is, I think I actually enjoy it.
KILLER PARTY would be an excellent example of the ubiquitous 1980's teen horror comedy films that almost dried up the whole genre.
The sequence allows for a neat "film within a video within a TV show" relationship that actually works pretty darn good when seen in the context of watching a home video on your TV set.The rest of the film is not nearly as clever but will prove entertaining for fans of mid 1980's teen horror and comedy both -- stuff like NIGHT OF THE CREEPS, which would stand as the model example of the form if better written than most of them.
Like the SCARY MOVIE and even the Austin Powers films the joke is sort of lost on me, and having a bad joke explained can only make it worse.
They are hilarious on their own without any need for a single "joke", where KILLER PARTY goes for bale with yanking at any possible movie cliché for a laugh. |
tt0780126 | Re-Animated | Jimmy Roberts (Dominic Janes) is a 12-year-old boy who can't seem to say "no" to anybody, and as a result, ends up getting taken advantage of on a regular basis, even by his best friend Craig (Micah Karns). This problem continues during his class trip to Gollyworld, where he misses out on many of the rides because Craig tells the popular kids that Jimmy will hold their items for them. The popular kids then, on Craig's suggestion, tell Jimmy to go try to find Milt Appleday's frozen brain, which supposedly is hidden somewhere in Tux's Arctic Adventure. As usual, Jimmy unwillingly gives in, and once there, bumps into Milt's middle-age clumsy son Sonny (Matt Knudsen), who is attempting to retrieve the brain from underneath the ice. After being spotted by Sonny, Jimmy quickly flees and during his escape, accidentally runs onto the path of an oncoming train and is sent to the hospital, where Milt's brain (which one of the doctors keeps in his lunch cooler) is transplanted into his head. He makes it out of the operation just fine with his personality intact (explained by the doctors salvaging his "personality gland") but, he can now see all of Appleday's characters in real life, while no one else can.
With the help of his crush, Robin (Eunice Cho), who is also Craig's sister, Jimmy and the characters learn that the reason they've lost their popularity is thanks to Sonny, who unwittingly ruined their cartoons through his own ideas, especially Golly who is crushed to learn that his top spot as most popular cartoon character in the world has been reduced to nothing, but he figures with Jimmy now at the helm, he can quickly make him a star again. Now that he's president of Appleday Pictures. Sonny was fired by the Chairman of the Board, Jimmy is immensely popular, but no longer has time for school or his friends.
Meanwhile, Sonny has rented out a room in Jimmy's house and now lives with his family because Jimmy's dad allows him when it is obvious that Sonny is deceiving the family. Sonny has dinner with them and meets Jimmy's alien sister, Yancy (Rhea Lando), all the while constantly scheming to get Milt's brain out of Jimmy's head and for himself. And without the brain, Jimmy would die. He devises a plan to modify Crocco's train to include several dangerous devices on it that will decapitate Jimmy and get him what he wants. However, he says this plan out loud (yelling it at the top of his lungs) and Yancy catches on.
Eventually, Robin attempts to point out to Jimmy that the cartoons are walking all over him just like everybody else used to, but he denies this, adding that the only reason Robin even liked him was because of him having Milt's brain. He takes off for his television debut, leaving her behind to encounter Sonny, who says that since she knows his plan, he'll have to do away with her. At the studio, Jimmy tells the ego-maniac Golly that all that the Presidency of Appleday Studios has gotten him isn't what he really wanted, which drives Golly to get angry at him and shout at him that it is impossible for him to say no to anybody. Jimmy finally realizes Robin was right and denounces his position as President on-air. Sonny, however, still wants the brain, and has tied Robin down to the train tracks, forcing Jimmy and the characters (even Golly who apologizes along the way) to go save her. Golly temporarily changes Jimmy into a cartoon "Knight in shining armor".
Robin is saved from being run over after Jimmy goes inside the train and destroys the engine. Sonny's plan is foiled. Jimmy dresses up as Milt to hide from Sonny, and Sonny is momentarily distracted by his affection for his father. Yancy saves Jimmy just in time by using her power of teleportation. Robin and Jimmy return to Craig's house, where he was planning to throw a party with Jimmy as the guest of honor, and everything is patched up between them. However, since the partygoers were watching the show he was on, and saw him talk about the importance of friendship, they figured Jimmy wasn't cool, and instead just stupid at giving up all that fame, and leave the party.
In an epilogue, Jimmy is leaving for school. Sonny still wants the brain and is seen hiding behind a curtain. He has a device that can grab his head. Sonny almost succeeds, but the crane misses its target. He laughs evilly in the end, with Yancy telling him to shut up.
=== "Golly Gopher: Hero in Train-ing" ===
It is an exclusive animated short always produced by Renegade Animation, imaginarily credited as Appleday Studios, who which is included as a bonus on Re-Animated DVD; an extract was shown in the movie itself but only after the intro. Its main protagonists are Golly Gopher, Dolly Gopher, Crocco, and Tux.
The plot consists of Golly who must save his girlfriend Dolly from an approaching train led by Crocco. | psychedelic | train | wikipedia | null |
tt1017464 | The Tortured | The film tells the story of a couple, Elise Landry (Erika Christensen) and her husband, Craig Landry (Jesse Metcalfe), whose lives are shattered when a serial killer named Kozlowski (Bill Moseley), kidnaps, tortures, and kills their only son, Benjamin.
Craig feels immense guilt, as he saw Benjamin being kidnapped, but could not catch up to the fleeing vehicle. Elise blames Craig for not watching the child more closely. During the trial, Kozlowski makes a plea bargain, and in exchange for providing details on other murders, is sentenced to only 25 years to life. Elise and Craig are livid with the court's verdict. Elise asks Craig to get her a gun so that she can kill Kozlowski, but Craig refuses. Elise moves out of the house and Craig, left alone, contemplates suicide. Later, he meets Elise to say that just killing Kozlowski will not be enough, and the two formulate a plan to kidnap the killer.
Craig steals medical supplies and drugs from the hospital where he works. They follow Kozlowski when he is being transferred to prison via police van. The officers soon stop to get some coffee. Craig distracts them, while Elise spikes their drinks. After some time, the police van pulls over, and Craig is successful in hijacking the van with the prisoner inside. In the confusion and panic of the escape, Craig crashes the van and it rolls over a bridge. Elise, following behind in her car, is relieved to see Craig is all right, and the prisoner, though thrown from the van and severely injured, is also still alive. Elise soon receives a call from the case detective (Fulvio Cecere) informing her that Kozlowski had taken the police van and escaped. She is able to sound normal to avoid arousing any suspicion.
They take their captive to the basement of an abandoned cabin and chain him up, just as he did to their son. They gag him, stating that nothing he could say will make them change their minds. They berate him as less than human for his abominable actions. They begin to torture him in various painful ways. During one session, Craig hangs the key to the chains above the captive, taunting him. As the torture progresses over several days, both Elise and Craig are haunted by their deeds, but carry on, remembering the horrific loss of their son.
Meanwhile, the police manhunt for the escaped Kozlowski begins narrowing down to the area near the cabin.
Back in the basement, Craig removes the gag in an attempt to suffocate the captive, who begs for a chance to talk. He explains he has no recollection of anything before the van accident. He claims he does not think he could be a vicious killer. The Landrys are taken aback, and retreat upstairs to discuss. Craig feels the torture is unnecessary on someone who cannot even remember his crimes. Elise is certain he is merely lying to avoid any more suffering. They return to the basement and begin crushing his foot in a vise until he tells the truth. Elise demands that he speak their child's name. Under duress, he eventually says 'Benjamin', which convinces Craig that they can continue with their plan. They leave him alone for the evening, promising that the next day's torture will be the worst yet. Through extreme agony, he manages to reach the key and free himself. He makes his way upstairs and there is a struggle. Craig is knocked down the stairs and the captive escapes out the back door. The police finally track down and apprehend the captive in the woods nearby.
Flashbacks show that unknown to the Landrys, the prison van was actually carrying two convicts; Kozlowski, and another man serving time for tax evasion. Following the crash, Craig mistook the bloodied man thrown from the vehicle as Kozlowski and took him as a hostage instead. The real Kozlowski later emerged from the van relatively unhurt and went on the run. Coming by the cabin, Kozlowski witnessed Elise's and Craig's torture of the other man.
At the cabin, Elise and Craig enter the barn, finding the real Tax evader (who they believe is Kozlowski) just as he hangs himself in the barn, with a note in hand. Based on what the couple did to him, having amnesia, he must be a monster, something he had never seen himself as despite being a serial killer, and that he deserved everything they had done to him. In the letter, he apologizes and begs forgiveness. He simply could not stand any more torture, so he hanged himself.
Satisfied, the Landrys get in their car and leave, unknowingly passing the police - who are returning the tax evader to prison.
Conclusion: The tax evader (who the Landrys believe to be Kozlowski ) was tortured by Landrys, hung himself, and was buried by the Landrys. The real Kozlowski (who they Police believe to be the tax evader ) is taken into custody, returned to prison only be released in 18 months with the Tax evaders identity. The news release say they don't know the whereabouts of Kozlowski. | revenge | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0080464 | The Boogey Man | The film opens with Willy and Lacey as children watching their mother and her boyfriend preparing to make out. When the mother notices them, she has her boyfriend tie Willy to his headboard before sending Lacey to her room. She frees Willy from his bed and Willy enters their room and repeatedly stabs his mother's boyfriend with a chef knife in front of a large mirror.
Twenty years later, Lacey now an adult, is married with a young son and lives with her aunt and uncle on a farm. Willy who also lives with them, but has not spoken a word since the night he killed his mother's boyfriend and sometimes, Willy takes various knives from the kitchen and hides them in a drawer. One night over dinner, Lacey finds a letter in the mail from her mother, who claims to be on her deathbed and wishes to see them one last time that night, but Willy burns the letter.
Lacey suffers from nightmares, and has a particularly frightening dream where she is dragged, tied to a bed and almost stabbed by an unseen entity. Her husband, Jake takes her to a psychiatrist to help her confront her fears, and decides to go visit the house she grew up in. They arrive not knowing who is actually living there and meets two teenage girls and their younger brother. Their parents, the homeowners, have apparently just placed the home for sale and then gone out of town. The daughter thinks Lacey and Jake have been sent by the real estate company to view the house. Jake and Lacey pretend they want to buy the house so they can look around. At the house, however Lacey sees a reflection of her mother's deceased boyfriend coming towards her in a mirror inside the bedroom where he died and smashes the mirror in a panic with a chair. Her husband takes the broken mirror with him in an attempt to repair it, but a piece is left behind which later glows red as the teenage girls and their brother are all killed by an unseen force. However, the vengeful spirit of the deceased lover has been released from the mirror.
Willy who's also having problems with mirrors. Seeing his reflection in one caused him to strangle a girl and so he paints all the mirrors in the house black. Later, pieces of a broken mirror in a bag at his feet cause a pitchfork to levitate and nearly impaled him, but misses the attack as he gets saved from it.
Another shard from the broken mirror becomes stuck to Lacey's son's shoe and is left on the ground where the light refracts across a lake where a group of teenagers are partying at the lake by an abandoned house. A couple who are soon impaled by a screwdriver while kissing in their car as another couple drove off and leaves them. Soon after, Lacey flees to get in the house, only to see that her shirt supernaturally starts to tear apart which also leads to her aunt and uncle who are also killed when they're found dead in the barn.
Later, Lacey's husband brings in the family priest to investigate the mirror, only to see that when the priest's hand touches the mirror, it suddenly turns red. A piece of the mirror floats across the room and becomes lodged over Lacey's eye, letting the ghost possess her body. Controlling Lacey's body, the ghost kills her husband and attacks the priest. Before he dies, the priest removes shard from Lacey's eye, releasing her from the ghost's control, and throws it into the kitchen sink, where it bursts into flames as it touches the water. The remainder of the mirror is then thrown into a well, where the same thing happens, as an explosion releases and destroying the mirror once and for all.
The film ends with Lacey, her brother and Kevin visiting the graveyard. After they leave, the final shard of the mirror on the ground, which had gotten stuck to her son's shoe, glowed red. | revenge, cult, murder, violence, flashback | train | wikipedia | What's odd, though, is that THE BOOGEYMAN is also an amalgamation of several other horror films, like THE EXORCIST, AMITYVILLE HORROR and slashers in general.The story is about two kids, Willy and Lacey, who kill their mother's kinky lover, who is abusive to them.
Terrified, Lacey breaks the mirror and basically "releases" the boogeyman's murderous rage (BTW, this is the best scene in the movie.
I don't know if this was intentional (I doubt it) but it's different.When you combine all of this mishmash of several movies with the very odd direction (which at times is goofy); the good to terrible acting from the cast; and the couple of questionable scenes, like when the boy is attached to the bed (which is probably why this film became a Nasty in the UK), the final product ain't stellar and yet, in the end, it's unique, in its own peculiar way.
It starts when through the reflection in a mirror, a little girl witnesses her brother kills their mother's lover .
Caught in a series of otherwordly events, she becomes inextricably involved in creepy murders .This spooky movie packs terror, tight pacing, bone-chilling scenes, tension, grisly killings and numerous images have you on the edge of your seat.It's a very average little horror movie and has some cool death scenes.
The story of a brother and a sister named Willy and Lacey (who are actually in real life both brother and sister as well ironically) who are traumatized by witnessing a murder that happened during their childhood, Lommel takes us as the viewer all the way to their adulthood for the most part of the film where their past still seems to haunt the both of them.
While Michael Myers was the physical embodiment of the 'boogeyman' legend (I say legend, but it is more a term given to whatever scares little children at night), Ulli Lommel's shockingly s**t video nasty goes the extra mile and adds a supernatural spin to the story in the shape of a haunted mirror.The quite effective opening has a young girl and boy spying on their slutty mother as she seduces a man with a stocking on his head.
Her psychiatrist Dr. Warren (John Carradine, looking like he's hoping nobody will notice his presence in the film) advises her husband Jake (Ron James) that she should go back to her childhood home to confront her demons.
Horror movies have long made killers out of strange things (tomatoes, clowns, a house), but a mirror that influences suicides?
surprising because Ulli Lommel was involved in writing directing and producing this thing.i didn't realise Lommel was behind it until i got it home.by then figured what the hey.i mean how bad could it be,right.after all,i managed to see at least some of Lommel's other travesties,B.T.K and Black Dalia.those were putrid.The Boogeyman however,is not.it has interesting story,some decent performances,and some unusual music/sound effects.it is readily apparent a low budget production,but i could watch it all,without having to pause to vomit,so that's something.no classic by any means,but still...for me The Boogeyman is a 5/10.
It has an interesting premise, a deadly mirror, but there are obvious cheap elements stolen from Halloween, Amityville Horror(there is a priest in this too), and other like films.
Ulli Lommel directed this rancid little horror film about a couple of kids who kill their neglectful mother's abusive boyfriend.
Years later the now grown kids, the boy now a mute man, the girl now a somewhat hot woman, return to their childhood house to find that the bedroom mirror has become possessed by the evil that it witnessed all those years ago.
Boring story, limp film making, bad acting...just not much to brag about here.A young girl witnesses a murder and gets traumatized and her brother goes nuts and an evil spirit has possessed a mirror and...ah who cares?
A concentrated evil power coming by an evil mirror wreaks havoc with the inhabitants of a small American farming community."The Boogeyman" directed by Ulli Lommel("The Devonsville Terror")isn't just a generic slasher film.It borrows some elements from "Halloween"(1978)and "The Exorcist"(1973),but it's very creepy!There are some gruesome death scenes,the film includes also mirror symbolism,childhood trauma etc.This is pure horror without any humor,so check it out!Recommended!.
It seems like Ulli Lommel watched more than one good horror movie before he made this, but he didn't quite know how to make one himself.
Here are some random movies that crossed my mind while seeing "The Boogeyman": "Halloween" (1978) (the opening-scene), "The Amityville Horror" (1979) (man, that one house almost looked like a replica), "The Exorcist" (1973) (throw a bit of possession and a priest in the mix) and "Suspiria" (1977) (those colourful lighting techniques towards the end).
Interesting premise: pieces of a broken mirror that "witnessed" a murder are now possessed by the dead man's spirit and are causing more murder and mayhem 20 years later.The scene with all of the mirrors in the house being painted black (a Rolling Stones reference?) was very creepy, but the idea of just simply running water on the broken mirror to destroy it was pathetic.
The camera-work - in particular the scene where sexy little Susannah Love is talking to her shrink John Carradine, filmed looking into a mirror - is intriguing and puzzling at the same time.
It seems like the people that made this movie had some good ideas but just couldn't make them come together on such a low budget as this, so this ends up being just a mish mash of scenes: some clever, some pathetic and everywhere in between.
I was suprised that this movie got such a low rating, to me it's one of the better horror films I've seen in some time.
Young Lacey (Natasha Schiano) is forced to watch as her brother Willy (Jay Wright) stabs their mothers' lover to death with a big, sharp kitchen knife.
Now, Lacey is afraid that the lovers' vengeful spirit has been released from the mirror and is out for blood.Overall, the script (by producer & director Ulli Lommel, Suzanna Love (his real-life wife at the time), and David Herschel is pretty slight, and sloppy.
This film was THE BOGEY MAN.In the opening scenes, the HALLOWEEN influence is clear, with a young boy murdering his mother's lover.
The fact it made this list merely indicates the insane lack of logic that went into the compilation of this often arbitrary list; whatever the case, its infamy as a video nasty is certainly one of the chief reasons people continue to seek it out today.It starts out with a prologue set twenty years in the past, where a couple of little kids kill their mother's abusive boyfriend.
It turns out that a mirror that literally reflected the earlier murder is now host to the malignant spirit of the evil lover and one thing leads to another and this mirror is smashed, unleashing the evil being who then proceeds to go on a killing spree.The influence of the earlier film Halloween (1978) is pretty evident in this one, with its opening prologue set 20 years in the past where a child murders an adult, its prominent synth score and even the title references the name that Michael Myers was often referred to in that earlier movie.
The boogeyman of the title is never seen after all and is an invisible being, while the film ends with scenes very much of the type seen in many religious themed horror movies that were somewhat popular in the 70's especially.
The boogy man 1980 I never this movie before however I did see the Bogey man 2 , years ago, I actually had it on DVD For some odd reason ( well I don't were that DVD went, I couldn't care less)As second one was full of the flashback , so I felt like I seen this movie already.The movie did start of a bit to much like Halloween and music was tad same with little twig to it I liked the how the evil mirror force used random things to kill them one by one And now days the way they are really funny The deaths scene in the movie make the feel more out dated then rest of the movieThe acting was decent for this kind of movie 5 our of 10.
I'll give this film some credit for originality, as the killer is unseen for the entire film, but it's easily assumed the "boogeyman" is the lover of Lacey and Williy's mother, who was stabbed to death by Willy after he tied the young boy up after he spied on them fooling around.
Suzanna Love was pretty good as Lacey, and her real brother Nicholas not as much as the mute Willy; he didn't have much screen presence, even though he finally speaks near the end.
Ulli Lommel's "The Boogeyman" is a reasonably creepy and atmospheric 80's horror effort, but ultimately lacking since it expects you to believe nonsense about supernaturally possessed mirrors and trapped murderous spirits homing inside them.
Lacey and her mute brother William (well, he's not really a mute, he just decided to stop talking at one point) are living on their relatives' farm ever since Willy killed his mother's crazed lover at young age.
The story focuses on Lacey; a woman who, as a child, witnessed her brother murdering her mother's boyfriend through a reflection in a mirror.
The Boogeyman (1980)*** (out of 4) As a child, Willy killed his mother's lover and all of it was reflected in a mirror and witnessed by his sister Lacey.
Soon a possession and murders follow.Ulli Lommel's THE BOOGEYMAN is a rather effective horror film that I've always felt deserved to have a much better reputation.
Towards the end you see she kinda starts to act like the girl in The Exorcist.I guess the only good thing to come out of this was Suzanna Love.
However, whilst looking around the house, the young woman is horrified to see her mother's dead lover reflected in a mirror, and so smashes it with a chair; in doing so, she unwittingly releases the vengeful spirit of the long-dead man, who embarks on a series of grisly murders.These days, director Ulli Lommel's output is so lousy that he even gets mentioned in the same breath as Uwe Boll during discussions on crap horror films; way back in the early eighties, however, the man once displayed a modicum of talent with The Boogeyman, a supernatural slasher that, whilst not exactly groundbreaking, still managed to deliver enough memorable moments to make it worth a watch.
Plus, it even made its way onto the official DPP Video Nasties list, thus forever ensuring itself a place in horror history.Part Halloween, part The Exorcist, and part something else I can't quite identify, The Boogeyman is a low budget blend of stalk-and-slash style killings and ghostly goings-on that manages to serve up a reasonably creepy ambiance.
The clever use of reflections from the shards of mirrored glass to foreshadow the killings, plus an atmospheric synth score, also help to make this one of Lommel's better efforts.The highlights of the film are definitely the gory death scenes, which are both inventive and gruesome; they include a girl pushing a pair of scissors into her neck (after kindly cutting her t-shirt open to reveal her breasts!), a boy having his neck crushed by a sash window, a pair of lovers pinned together with a carving knife, and a man impaled by a pitchfork.
It is unique.Everything culminates in a Exorcist-type nightmare where a priest manages to get control and allow them to consign the mirror, and presumably the boogeyman, to hell.But you know that's not going to happen.If you like slasher flicks and, especially if you are a Halloween fan, this is for you..
Even on the most base level however - gore effects - the film is not phenomenal, and the status as likely stemmed from the fact that children were involved in so much of the goings on.Overall it was such a bad movie, starting from the blend acting, very cheap and cheesy plot already seen a thousand times in a horror industry, and "actors" were really stellar like they were doing some kind of cheap commercial.
This is where the terror begins as now where there is a shard of this mirror the dude scene in the mirror can now reach out from beyond the grave and kill people and seeing as how this movie is four years older one can not say they copied this from "A Nightmare on Elm Street" though that is easily the superior film.
Willy is a young boy who takes bloody revenge on his mother s abusive boyfriend by sneaking up on him in bed and savagely stabbing him in the back while his sister Lacey watches in the mirror.
Anyway I haven't seen this in a couple of years but as soon as I track down a DVD I will.It's nothing like that other one I mentioned.It's better.From the first scene where a boy and his sister's mother is in a very kinky bondage session with her boyfriend.The boy Will is tied down to the bed only to get free and eventually stab and kill his mother's lover(Boogeyman).This is all witnessed by the mirror which the Boogeyman comes through in spirit.I know it sounds weird but this is actually a creepy,and somewhat scary flick.It has a certain grim atmosphere that reminded me a lot of the original 'Halloween'.The musical score that accompanies it is also good.There's also more than a few deaths,some gory.I think one of the reasons it might not be that known is because of the weird factor.But that doesn't change the effectiveness of this.I recommend checking this out or maybe even a purchase..
Directed by Rainer Werner Fassbinder protégé, and former actor, Ulli Lommel, who had previously show his capabilities with his film 'Tenderness of the Wolves', The Bogeyman is an effective, interesting, if somewhat cheap horror film.A young boy named Willy is tormented by his mother's hulking lover.
However, In the interest of time, I'm going to try and not concentrate on those films, rather on Boogeyman itself.From this point on there ***will be spoilers*** Boogeyman is a film about a brother and sister, Willy and Lacey, how grow up in an abusive and sadistic home, with their mother, and her lover.
Willy then goes into his parents room and proceeds to stab his mothers lover to death, while Lacey looks on, viewing the events from the reflection in a mirror.The film then picks up several years later, Lacey now with a son and husband, Willy a mute, living on a farm.
I know this film was made on a small budget, but all the better reason to rely on the suspense of the kills then trying to exectue shoddy death scenes.It seems as though Ulli Lommel wanted the pieces of the mirror to seem like their own character in a sense, jumping off the frame, often finding themselves to the most convenient of locations.
The synthesizer-score sounds like as if it was stolen from Carpenter´s movie or Charles Kaufman´s "Mother´s Day" and the only notable thing is the appearance of horror-legend John Carradine - unfortunately, he doesn´t save the film at all!
This ultimately weird horror film starts with a John Carpenter's HALLOWEEN styled opening as brother and sister creepily watch their mother and step father from an outside window.
Fast forward twenty years and we see the siblings (played by real life brother and sisters Nicholas and Suzanna Love) living in a home that looks like the home from THE AMITYVILLE HORROR.
Now we're in the present and Lacey (Suzanna Love, who was married to the director of the film Ulli Lommel and appears in all the sequels) is married with a young son, living with her aunt, uncle and Willy (Nicholas Love, Suzanna's real-life brother)on a farm.
After witnessing her older brother "Jake" (Ron James) being tied up and gagged by his mother's lover, a young 3-year old girl by the name of "Lacey" (Suzanna Love) gets a knife and cuts him loose.
The boy then goes into his mother's bedroom and stabs the man to death with that same knife while his sister watches everything through a side mirror on the wall.
Twenty years later the mirror is shattered, freeing his evil spirit, which seeks revenge for his death.Horror fans are often mixed on this movie.
"The Boogeyman" is a 1980 horror film that focuses on Lacey and Willy, two siblings who grew up with a careless mother who let her boyfriend abuse them.
One evening, after being hog-tied to his bed, Willy breaks free and stabs his mother's boyfriend to death with a kitchen knife, while Lacey watches the murder from the bedroom mirror's reflection.
Her husband takes the broken mirror back with them hoping to further Lacey's recovery, but wherever a piece of the mirror falls, a savage murder seems to occur; could the man's soul be trapped in the shattered glass?Before Ulli Lommel began his hopeless streak of directing cheap, all-around poorly constructed direct-to-video horror flicks in the late 1990s and 2000s (which I may say from experience are very, very horrible films), he scripted and directed this bizarre little feature in 1980.
Why, at the end of the film, does Lacey become possessed, levitate, and have a piece of glass stuck to her eye, while all others who come in contact with the mirror are simply murdered by an invisible being?
If you like independant horror flicks that are dark and scary I recommend The Boogeyman, but don't show it to your children.!!!POSSIBLE SPOILERS!!!We open up in the early 60's where a boy kills his mother's lover because he was mean to the boy.
They learn that when the boy killed the man, his spirit got trapped in a mirror and wherever it would reflect, tragedy would strike.Good story, acting, and music score. |
tt1127896 | Taking Woodstock | Set in 1969, the film follows the true story of Elliot Tiber (Demetri Martin), an aspiring Greenwich Village interior designer whose parents, Jake (Henry Goodman) and Sonia (Imelda Staunton), own the small dilapidated El Monaco Resort in White Lake, in the town of Bethel, New York. A hippie theater troupe, The Earthlight Players, rents the barn, but can hardly pay any rent. Due to financial trouble, the motel may have to be closed, but Elliot pleads with the local bank not to foreclose on the mortgage and Sonia delivers a tirade about her struggles as a Russian refugee. The family is given until the end of the summer to pay up.
Elliot plans to hold a small musical festival, and has, for $1, obtained a permit from the town's chamber of commerce (of which he is also the president). When he hears that the organizers of the Woodstock Festival face opposition against the originally planned location, he offers his permit and the motel accommodations to organizer Michael Lang (Jonathan Groff). A neighbor, Max Yasgur (Eugene Levy), provides his nearby farm land; first they agree on a fee of $5,000, but after realizing how many people will come, Yasgur demands $75,000, which the organizers reluctantly accept. Elliot comes to agreement about the fee for the motel more smoothly. Initial objections by his mother quickly disappear when she sees the cash paid in advance.
Elliot and Yasgur encounter a little bit of expected opposition. The local diner refuses to serve Elliot anymore, inspectors target the motel (and only his) for building code violations, and some local boys paint a swastika and hate words on the hotel. However, resistance quickly dissolves in the tidal wave of peace and love (and commerce) brought to the area. The Tiber family works hard serving the massive influx of visitors and become wealthy in the process. A cross-dressing veteran, Vilma (Liev Schreiber), is hired as a security guard. Elliot also struggles with hiding his homosexuality from his family, when he connects romantically with one of the event organizers staying at the motel.
On the first day of the concert, Elliot, his father, and Vilma hear the music begin in the distance. Elliot's father, transformed and enlivened by all the new life in town, tells Elliot to go and see the concert. Elliot hitches a ride through the peaceful traffic jam on the back of a benevolent state trooper's motorcycle and arrives at the event. There, he meets a hippie couple (Paul Dano and Kelli Garner), who invite him to join them on an LSD trip in their VW Bus a short distance from the crowd. Elliot has trouble relaxing at first, but gradually melts into a psychedelic union with them. When they finally emerge after sundown, Elliot watches the vast crowd and brilliant lights of the distant concert ripple with harmonious hallucinatory visuals that swell into serene white light.
Elliot returns home from his liberating experience and has breakfast with his parents. He suggests to his mother that they now have enough money to replace him, but she cannot bear to let him have his freedom. Elliot storms out, facetiously suggesting his mom eat the hash brownies Vilma has just offered. After another beautiful day at the festival, during which his friend the Vietnam veteran, Billy (Emile Hirsch), appears to overcome his post-traumatic stress disorder, Elliot returns home to find his parents laughing and cavorting hysterically, having eaten Vilma's hash brownies. The once-brittle family (particularly Sonia) is united in joy and delirious affection.
The next morning, however, Sonia inadvertently reveals that she has secretly saved $97,000 in cash in the floorboards of her closet. Elliot is upset that his mother hid this from him while he put his own savings into helping his parents.
After the final day of the concert, Elliot decides to move to California as he packs up his things and says farewell to his father, after his father encourages him to strike out on his own. As Elliot pays one last visit to the concert and looks out over the muddy desolation of the Yasgur farm, Lang rides up on horseback and they marvel at how despite the obstacles, the event was a success. Lang mentions his next big project: staging a truly free concert in San Francisco with the Rolling Stones—the infamous Altamont Free Concert. | anti war | train | wikipedia | It's all there, the music, the rain and mud, the buzz on the soundtrack replicating the buzz on the sound system at Yasgur's Farm.But if you want to get a feeling of what Woodstock meant on a personal level, then Ang Lee's your man and you've come to the right place.How Lee managed to film this recreation without using real footage, I have no idea.
This movie completely captures how amazing people can be when they remove themselves from the hum drum monotony of their day to day lives and get together with like minded strangers for a few days of complete freedom and joy.A great feel good movie with a lot of veiled depth about the people that helped make Woodstock one of the most famous events the world has known..
Building a sweet coming-of-age comedy around a major American cultural event of the Sixties, 'Taking Woodstock' is lodged on the periphery of the legendary half-million-strong August 1969 "peace and love" rock concert held on Max Yasgur's 600-acre dairy farm near the hamlet of White Lake, in the town of Bethel, New York.
Though Lee's young protagonist, Elliot Teichberg (Demetri Martin), a gay Jewish every-youth and the dutiful son of an impoverished middle-aged couple whose decrepit motel has useless pretensions to being a Catskills resort, is depicted as making it all happen by, as head of the minuscule township's Chamber of Commerce, linking up charismatic, bushy-haired young promoter Michael Lang (Jonathan Groff) with enterprising dairyman Max Yasgur (Eugene Levy), Ellie remains a peripheral figure of the concert, not even the witness of any of the 32 acts performed on stage.
Ang Lee's new film lacks the somewhat hackneyed solemnity and pretension of his (admittedly far more emotionally powerful) 'Brokeback Mountain' or (much more stylish) 'Lust, Caution,' but his idea of depicting a great event, like Breugel, by magnifying peripheral figures, is a nifty one.Elliot Teichberg is the main such Breugel figure, but his parents, the long-suffering Jake (Henry Goodman), and the rigid, paranoid Sonia (Imelda Staunton) loom large for him and us, humble laborers who make the crucifixion come to life.
On the other hand, the borderline caricature depictions of Jews, Schreiber's amiable but overly broad transvestite, and even Emile Hirsch's clichéd, if lively, battle-scarred vet, all could have been thought through better.Broaching such large events even peripherally, Lee and his writers, James Schamus, Elliot Tiber (author of the source memoir) and Tom Monte, arguably do owe us a bit more of the sex, the bad trips, and the music itself -- which can't be left outside the story of a great concert, whether its protagonist got to the stage or not.
Equality for many racial and sexual minorities were fulfilled
or are being so fulfilled at this time
and one of the more ironic points of the film was actually scored during the trailers that preceded the feature: the previews for Michael Moore's "Capitalism" and that subject is what really ended the counterculture.But for Ang Lee he gives the 40th Anniversary of the Woodstock festival an original and unsentimental celebration.
Here is something i liked more than anything in the movie.......rather than WOW you with awesome music, or have them cut the camera away to show Janis Joplin or Jimi Hendrix.......they actually focus on the how this all came together, which was great......because not only was the story very entertaining, but it created this essence about the concert, that it was something far off in the distance that you would never see, and you only heard people talking about it......i mean you obviously know now what it was all about.....but it takes you on this incredible journey of this small town family, and when you finally get a small glimpse of the concert......oh my goodness, it was enough to take your breathe away.
Ang Lee does a masterful job capturing the madness and chaos associated with trying to stage a major rock festival in a rural community, even to the point of borrowing split-screen techniques from the Woodstock documentary.Demetri Martin plays Elliot Tiber (Teichberg) and does a fine job as the son torn between independence and duty to his aging parents, Imelda Staunton and Henry Goodman (five-star performances by both).
Obviously, Ang Lee drifts attention from the concerts and the music of those three epic days in 1969 to focus on the personal story of a young man and his odd family who worked and lived in the background of this great event.
Ang Lee and James Schamus like their hippie culture, and love themselves that August 1969 summer of Woodstock, and also the act of trying to capture it on film as it was to be there, on the outside and suddenly coming into the fold of looking in.
It's a been-there-done-that affair in terms of the major characters, and its more significant background subject provides more of the color and excitement in its two-hour run time.It's basically about the people behind the scenes at Woodstock (we never see anyone famous, aside from certain semi-figures like Michael Lang and Max Yasgur, portrayed by actors), specifically the young guy Eliot who got together the Woodstock-financial people to his small town as part of Bethel, New York, and helped also to give (politely putting it) a boost to his parents' motel business.
We see some of the ups and downs, the downs being things like gangsters trying to muscle their way into the earnings of the thousands of people flocking upstate to frequent the motel (and the up of getting 'security' with transvestite Liev Schreiber in an awesome performance), or just with Elliot's parents and how their attitudes stay mostly the same- what's with these damn kids and their hair and sex and drugs anyway- until towards the end of the three days of peace/love/music.It's a funny movie for at least a good amount of its run-time.
Lee's film certainly captures the beauty of White Lake, and generally recreates the groove and vibe of a specific time and place, but the narrative seemed somehow disjointed (unintentional pun) There seemed to be too many empty moments substituting for poignancy, and undeveloped stories that might have added a bit more depth to Lee's tale.Demetri Martin as Eliot Teber, was adorable but I was frustrated by his poker face (something that makes his stage comedy hilarious).
It was like watching a high-school drama student act out a stereotype on Saturday Night Live or something.Henry Goodman overacted, although not quite as badly as did Staunton, in a mediocre performance as the father.And Emile Hirsch was preposterous and irritating as a trouble Vietnam vet.An unnecessary side plot involving a theater troupe who - this is getting redundant - also overacted dragged down the film further.So basically, Lee was just making the classic mistake of poor comedy directors, confusing silliness and excess with humor.
It's entertaining enough to warrant 2 bucks but not much more.========ALTERNATE RECOMMENDATIONS========If you want to see a funny hippy movie, check out "Grand Theft Parsons", a dramatized "true story" of what happened to singer Gram Parson's body after he died.If you want to see an entertaining movie about an unsung hero behind the scenes of a famous event, look for the obscure Australian comedy "The Dish" about the lonely radio outpost that broadcast the moon landing in 1969.If you want a movie with some cool 60s music, see "Fear & Loathing in Las Vegas" or "Pirate Radio".And lastly, if you want to see a movie about a guy who wrote a book claiming to be something he's not, check out "The Hoax" about the man who claimed to have interviewed the mysterious Howard Hughes."Taking Woodstock" doesn't fit into any of the above categories, despite what the DVD cover promises.
While dealing with permits, hippies, war vets, and angry locals, he meets various weird characters, the most interesting being a drag queen played by Liev Shreiber.What hurts this film is it's insistence on following a boring character around instead of focusing on more interesting people, and clocking in at two hours, it takes too long to tell its story.
Also, the usually great Imelda Staunton plays the grossest, most stereotypical Jewish person I've seen on film, who literally cannot control herself around money.The 'Woodstock' documentary remains the best window into this historic concert..
In spite of a few incidents, nearly half a million people showed that quality music, the freedom of the spirit, and a feeling of harmony can lead to a successful event.If you are looking for an authentic experience of Woodstock, however, you will not find it in Ang Lee's Taking Woodstock, a film that recycles all the grossest stereotypes of the sixties perpetrated over the last forty years.
It follows the true story of Elliot Teichberg, (Demetri Martin), an interior designer who lives in Greenwich Village and spends his weekends trying to help his elderly parents Sonia and Jack (Imelda Staunton and Henry Goodman) run an 80-room Hotel in Bethel, N.Y.Teichberg is also the head of Bethel's Chamber of Commerce and has issued an "Arts and Festival" permit to himself for what he has planned as a small chamber music festival.
The closest Teichberg actually comes to the Festival is a hill overlooking the very distant stage where he can see the mass of people and hear faint sounds in the background that sound suspiciously like music.Newcomer Martin's bland personality is sufficiently laid back to play the uncharismatic Teichberg, but little in the way of human interest is created, in spite of the fact that the supporting cast that includes transvestite security guard Vilma (Liev Schreiber) and disturbed Vietnam vet Emile Hirsch are strong, although Hirsch's role is little more than a caricature.
The film gets some nice support from Emile Hirsch as Billy,a Vietnam war veteran,who's freaked out by everything around him (PTSD,anyone?),Eugene Levy has some brief,but solid screen time as dairy farmer,Max Yasgur,who was the one to give the green light to use his land for the festival,and if you don't blink,you'll spot Richard Thomas (The Waltons),in a brief cameo as Reverend Don. Danny Elfman wrote the original music score (but the film does have a few original songs that were featured in the Woodstock festival:Freedom,by Richie Havens,Volunteers,by the Jefferson Airplane,and others heard mostly in the background).
the title has many possibilities for interpretation; not so the film...As a forty year tribute to the original summer of love this kind of works - it plays out too many hippy cliché and the straight folk are kind of cutout too....but what it really fails to evoke, to find, is the true spirit of the piece - the Love explosion - that weren't caused solely by the LSD and dope, and for us the movie couldn't make it happen: it is just a weird attempt at both pastiche and tribute that really has little magic.
There are a couple of doctored faked as 60s 8mm film moments and they actually do work better and suit the piece better than the modern filming does.Perhaps it's biggest problem lies with focusing on one small player, which is OK as an idea, but it's Woodstock, it's the ultimate everyman journey, and we don't really get that journey, we just get the hippy American college experience - it's tough to analyze why it doesn't all gel - all we knew was that is doesn't have real moments and so its all rather washed out rather than tie dyed.All in all, brilliant costuming and hair and make-up, it all adds up to though a rather too busy attempt to explain the extraordinary: some cool happenings and a lot of sexual shenanigorgasms but not enough love and peace, man.....
I think most fans of Woodstock are grateful to Max Yasgur for the use of his dairy farm for that wonderful event - but the film shows us a rather boring Elliot for the most part and misses the whole point.The movie is not completely awful - but it's not that good.
And then we realize that the movie isn't about events as much as it's about change - both the cultural change of a very strange time in American history and the personal change that we all go through.The best scene happens late in the movie, as Elliot (Martin) finally makes his way to the concert and encounters a young hippie couple.
Without giving anything away, I can say it's one of the best - and most accurate - scenes of its kind (it's both beautiful and creepy in more ways that one), and it's the true climax of "Taking Woodstock." Elliot has spent his young life trying to create moments for other people, and he finally is allowed to let go and experience transcendence for himself.
Yet it retains the wonder of the young people, for whom freedom was truly "another word for nothing left to lose." Eliot Teichberg (Demetri Martin) is as laid back as actor Elliot Gould of that era, helping his parents navigate the daunting sea of troubles for a concert on their Catskills farm that will host hundreds of thousands of hippies and hoodlums, all dedicated to profiting spiritually or financially from what looked like a small event until it became a part of the lexicon and imagination of the modern American rebellious age.
You'll find the usual elements, and a panoply of special stuff, like split screen and extended tracking shots.One thing that feels really good is the sense that an important element of the Woodstock experience is being promoted through this flick, that one rarely got from the traditional media of the time; the idea that a lot of these massive be-in affaires were simply agglomerations of people who really just wanted to enjoy something together.
The hero, one Elliot Tiler (Demetri Martin), gay president of Bethel's chamber of commerce, obtains a concert permit for $1 and on news that organisers of the Woodstock Festival have been driven from the initially planned location, invites organiser Michael Lang (Jonathan Groff) to move the event to his backyard, a rundown El Monaco Motel belonging to his parents, Jake (Henry Goodman) and Sonia (Imelda Staunton), which is on the verge of foreclosure.
First of all, I have to make the warning that, despite its title and colorful poster, Taking Woodstock is not a modern recreation of the epic festival celebrated in August from 1969.In fact, the film does not include even an original song from Woodstock, neither bands nor scenes of the concert (well, it includes one of them, but it is not focused on the concert itself).The purpose from Taking Woodstock is much more modest, because it puts the attention on the experiences of Elliot Tiber, a Jewish young man who made the concert possible when he contacted the organizer from the event with the owner from the farm where the concert would eventually be made.That sounds trivial, and it in fact is like that; but for two hours we can see details about the organization from the festival; the effect the "hippie" spirit had on Tiber and his family...and the terror from the community when they realized that the event would be much...MUCH bigger than they had ever imagined.The people who always wanted to know about those details may enjoy this film.But I am not one of them, and I found Taking Woodstock to be a horribly tedious experience.I suppose screenwriter James Schamus thought that the story of this film seemed as a good idea...a story about the Woodstock festival, but told from behind the stage...or, better said, behind the farm, where we could supposedly appreciate the personal and human angle from the event, and maybe making us to be witnesses of the efforts made by hundreds of people to make something iconic and memorable, which truly changed the world.But the horrible result from the movie is very far away from that, and it is reduced to a simplistic melodrama saturated of clichés, hollow characters and apathetic performances which do not bring too much energy or credibility.Besides, as many antiquated expressions Schamus included in the screenplay ("Far Out!", "Groovy!"), that is not enough to evoke the "hippie" ideology from that time, or the exuberant freedom (some may say "anarchy") which woke the festival up.I think that this movie needed a more focused and much less diffuse screenplay, which had a concrete purpose instead of simply showing disjointed scenes with poor narrative sense and unfunny "humor".What is more, the cast is absolutely lacking of motivation, with one exception.To start with, we have the bland Demetri Martin on the leading role.I have to say I could never swallow this comedian very much, at the same time he aspires to the niche of "likeable loser" which is perfectly exploited by Jesse Eisenberg and Michael Cera.However, Martin absolutely lacks of any presence, credibility...and congeniality.Emile Hirsch is absolutely lost with his character, and even the usually brilliant Imelda Staunton feels bland and forced on her character.The only exception I previously mentioned is Liev Schreiber, who is the only member of the cast who shows personality and conviction on his character.In summary, Taking Woodstock is a tedious and terribly uninteresting film experience which I do not recommend by any means.I suppose there are hundreds of interesting stories related to Woodstock; unfortunately, this is definitely not one of them..
The Festival was documented in the epic 1970 documentary Woodstock, but Lee's film concentrates on the creation of the Festival, the resistance the creators were faced with by the townspeople, and the dedication that the protagonist Elliot Teichberg had in what he saw as putting money into his poor parents pockets and back into the town's economy.Teichberg (played with ease by stand-up comic Demetri Martin) is a successful interior designer and President of the Chamber of Commerce who spends most of his time handing his parents money so they can keep running their s**t-hole motel, in which his miser mother tries to saves money by turning the bed sheets over rather than actually washing them. |
tt0900357 | Boogeyman 2 | 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 put 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, murder | train | wikipedia | The setting of the movie is somewhat your typical horror film (a hospital/clinic), but doesn't take back anything.
However, I liked the idea behind it and I'm a big fan of supernatural horror movies so, when I heard there was a "Boogeyman 2" I thought I'd check it out.This is not the movie I expected.
As well as finding herself in the worst staffed hospital of all time, one of Laura's doctors is none other than Jigsaw himself (the wonderful Tobin Bell, who is as creepy here as in the "Saw" movies).
Things aren't looking good for her.Once each of her fellow patients has revealed their fears in various non-too-subtle ways ("I'm not changing the light in your closet because I'M SCARED OF THE DARK!" "I'm not shaking your hand because I'M SCARED OF GERMS!" etc), they all begin to be killed by the evil Boogeyman who (surprise...surprise) uses their fears against them.
I actually quite liked some of the deaths here which were suitably graphic and disturbing - I'm sure a lot of ketchup must have been used in the making of this movie.However, I ultimately felt deceived by "Boogeyman 2".
The makers actually trick you in a very naughty way - kinda like going to watch a "Nightmare On Elm Street" sequel only to discover that Freddie is no longer the evil spirit of a child murderer but is now an evil robot from the future.
I can't say I was particularly scared by any of it but it was nicely acted and had some cool death scenes (some of which reminded me a little bit of "Saw" if truth be told - no wonder Tobin Bell turned up!).
If you like watching teens running around dark corridors before losing their vital organs (and your DVD collection consists of movies such as "Halloween: Resurrection" and "Jason X"), then it's probably worth a rental.
However, if you really enjoyed the first movie and want more of the same (or, like me, you're just looking for a good supernatural horror movie), I'm willing to bet that you'll be disappointed with "Boogeyman 2"..
BOOGEYMAN 2 BOOGEYMAN 2: Sony/Ghost House 2007 color 93m Horror/Thriller Tobin Bell Daniell Savre, Matthew Cohen, David Gallagher, Mae Whitman and Renee 'O' Connor Written by Brain Sieve Directed by Jeff Betancourt N/R contains graphic violence, language, gore, sexuality, nudity and drug use.The wonderful thing I love about S2DVD sequels of craptacular movies is that you are always so surprised.
The acting was good, as were the effects, cool imagination on the kill scenes, I even enjoyed the ending which can let down most halfway decent movies.
This movie is nothing like the first and everyone knows that a good thing.They did what they need to do after the failure of Boogeyman in 2005!
The story is about a young Woman named Laura Porter with a life-long phobia of a supernatural boogeyman, in this case a demon that lives in her closet and springs out at night to attack her.Trying to face up to her terror and get some help, she voluntarily checks herself into a mental health facility under the care of Dr.Jessica Ryan (Renée O'Connor) with the hope of conquering her overwhelming fears.Then she soon find out that everyone in the a mental health facility as see the bogeyman!
Soon they are being killed off one by one by the boogeyman The deaths scene is this movie are really creative also they are a bit like Saw deaths scene.They have added some Nudity scene, here and there wss Some really good Twist and Turns in this movie,Acting was really good for a sequel!
This is the "hot young stars of the WB" version.It stars Danielle Savre of such shows as "Grounded for Life" and "Summerland." She did her first real movie the same time as this where she was "Teenage Girl #2." She did a good job here and I was really impressed with her potential in the genre.The other characters come from such shows as "South of Nowhere," "State of Grace," "American Dragon: Jake Long", or "Xena: Warrior Princess" I only mention all these shows as I have not seen one of them.
Just been watching this movie Boogeyman 2 and for me it was not anything I will watch again.Alltough I must say the good looking cast was OK and some of the gore scenes fine.Much more gore than I expected as the first Boogeyman from 2005 is pretty dry.Plot is OK..but nothing more.Starts with two children watching the Boogeyman killing their parents and then go forwards 10 years and they both at a clinic to overcome their fears for the Boogeyman.Some scenes really bloody and not for the sensitive ones.Maybe worth a rental but not a film I will buy to my DVD collection.If you like your film bloody and a movie not any different than many other horror films coming out these days maybe this is a film for you.I give this film 3/10..
well guys, i don't want to spoil anything for you - so i'm just saying this after watching the movie - if you like a nice thrill and or likethe saw movies - give this movie a chance.this movie has nothing to do with the original one nor the remake of 2005...watch this movie as a "Saw the Boogeyman" - kind of movie...this is really way better than you'd expect by a straight to DVD release- watch the movie and you should know what i am talking about!
I just don't understand why so many people criticize this movie.I loved this movie,I thought it was interesting and so well made but a bit disturbing.The first thing i have to say is that i completely loved Dnielle savre she is so good at horror movies.She should act in another horror flick.Well OK..OK it could have stolen ideas from jeepers creepers and nightmare on elm street 3 but very few.I thought this movie is one of the best horror movies ever made but really...don't connect it with boogeyman 1 and 3 those are awful.Well i say that this movie is bloody good.The deaths are awesome,the characters are believable and the chase scenes are suspenseful.I loved when Nicky exploded and all the blood sprayed on Laura(Danielle Savre).My rating:10\10.If you are a sensitive viewer or under 17 don't watch this film.It is very bloody and gory..
When I started watching this movie I expected another crappy PG-13 movie with stupid CGI, like the first Boogeyman.
So if you want a good gore slasher with a twist in the end, you should check this out.
The first Boogeyman film was pretty awful, but it must have made enough money to warrant a direct-to-video sequel.
Overall, the story isn't that good and it's not all that scary, but for a low budget horror film, it does boast some excellent gory (PRACTICAL) special effects, which was enough to hold my interest..
this movie has nothing to do with the first one.it's gorier than the first,though it's not the goriest movie i have seen,by a long shot.i liked it as much for the most part.gore hounds should be satisfied enough to keep watching.it certainly borrows from other movies,but i didn't mind that much.the acting was OK,though nothing spectacular.the movies hums right along,and it's not boring.but the one thing that drags this movie down is the ending,which i thought was stupid and illogical and almost a blatant rip off form another horror movie.normally,i would have rated this movie higher,but,because of the ending,i would give it a 6/10.
The first one was deep and twisted and really made you think about the world and colliding realities, it was such an inspiring film and it still gives me a cold shiver thinking about that little girl saying 'you can't save me, you can only save yourself'..But this one is just cheap and boring, a steaming pile of wannabe 'slasher' movie with no plot that makes any sense, no surprises, just really dull.
As young children Laura and Henry Porter witness the bloody murder of their parents at the hands of a faceless,hooded psychopath.Years later they remain highly disturbed,but Henry has recovered far more than his sister due to a stint in a mental hospital under the care of a respected psychiatric doctor named Dr Mitchell Allen.When Henry gets the opportunity to work thousands of miles away,his sister Laura decides that she too must finally confront her demons and voluntarily commits herself into the same facility.Soon her fellow patients begin to die..."Boogeyman 2" is the sequel that is almost entirely better than its laughably tame predecessor.There is a decent amount of blood and gore and the acting is not bad with "Saw" star Tobin Bell having a relatively small role.The film relies on slasher clichés,there are some huge lapses in logic and the ending is hysterically stupid.Still I rather enjoyed this suitably gory teen slasher.6 out of 10..
The blood & gore make up effects was pretty good especially for a low budget slasher flick.
Now I really didn't like Boogeyman (2005), found it very disappointing, so I was relieved to find that this was by far a much better film.
Years after a horrible accident, a woman still terrified of the Boogeyman checks into a mental facility to get over it, but when someone starts killing off the residents she realizes it's here to prey on her fears and tries to overcome them in hopes of dealing with the demon.This was a highly enjoyable and entertaining slasher.
To sum up, if you enjoy good quality horror and are looking for a film that surpasses most of the releases out there at the moment then check this out.
Boogeyman 2 is the sequel to one of the worst horror films I have seen during the last 10 years.This sequel is better than the first part...but it also is a pathetic crap.Besides of the adequate performances from Tobin Bell and Reneé O' Connor,there is nothing to recommend in Boogeyman 2.The screenplay is horribly bad,the characters are completely generic and the movie is tremendously tedious from its first scene to its last one.Jeff Betancourt,who was the editor of some very competent movies (like The Good Girl or The Ruins),made his first work as a director in this movie,and it would be better if he goes back to editing movies,because the direction from Boogeyman 2 is pathetic for many reasons,but mainly,because it never finds a good tone and it is very chaotic.Boogeyman 2 belongs to the worst kind of horror cinema and I suggest you to avoid this big piece of crap.As I said,it's better (or,more properly,less bad) than the first part,but it's still unbearable and painful to watch..
I absolutely hated the original BOOGEYMAN, which I still consider to be one of the very worst movies I've ever sat through, so it was with some reluctance that I sat down to watch this sequel when I saw it was on television.
Sure, the cast are a bunch of unknowns and their acting is only moderately effective, but it could be a lot worse.Director Jeff Betancourt cut his teeth as an editor on the likes of THE EXORCISM OF EMILY ROSE, so he knows his stuff and does a good job.
So there are a few nice bits and pieces here and there (make-up is good too, for a small budget movie like that.
Horror movies that are releasing now is only with gore, violence, sex & bloody scenes.
It seems that this was one of those movie of which the script had been lying around for years until someone picked it up and decided to put "Boogeyman 2" on it because horror sequels sell.It's funny how this movie is being different from the first one but is still suffering from some of the same weaknesses.
The movie centers on a young woman with a long-term phobia of the Boogeyman, who voluntarily checks herself into a mental health facility with the hope of conquering her overwhelming fears.
Might as well make a generic serial killer movie not related to the first film.One could wonder why this isn't a sequel to the "Saw" movies, especially since it resembles much with them, including Tobin Bell (no wonder he decided to be in the movie!).
Renee O'Connor and Tobin Bell play therapists at the hospital where individuals mysteriously start dying one night."Boogeyman 2" isn't bad and it's highlighted by curvy Danielle Savre, but it's a decidedly average slasher pic.
the 1st movie was "interesting" to say the least but this sequel i just don't know what to say about except maybe the title and thats predictable.so basically 2 siblings went to a asylum to get help from their fear of the boogeyman OK understandable, but you'd think that the so-called boogeyman himself would be an actual entity rather than laura's own brother who actually went deranged after his visit from the hospital but no they decided to stick with a slasher esque type of movie not supernatural.but the one thing i can't quite understand was that if the boogeyman was laura's brother (henry) all along then who (or what) killed their parents when they were 8 and 11 was it just coincidence or was there something in this movie that we overlooked all along?.
but instead all we got is another Scream type clone.The actors and directing is OK i suppose but whats the point of watching a sequel to a horror when its basically a completely different film and genre.
In my eyes it should've just been named something completely different or Called Boogeyman, without the 2 on the end.If you want a thriller, 'who's doing it' type of film then sure this might be for you, if you want a horror though i would wait and see if Boogeyman 3 has anything decent to offer..
1 for Tobin Bell whom I thought had a good character (And the only reason I watched it in the first place).2 for some of the death scenes which were quite grisly.Other than that...this movie appears to have stolen ideas from other movies such as Nightmare on Elmstreet, scream (or any other slasher picture), and lastly jeepers creepers.I say Jeepers Creepers because the "Boogyman" looked a lot like he could have been the Creepers' brother in this movie.
Jump forward 10 years later & Henry (Matt Cohen) has been a resident in the Hillridge psychiatric hospital, the day he gets out his sister Laura (Danielle Savre) checks in to try & overcome her phobia about the boogeyman just like her brother Henry has.
While officially it goes down as an accident Laura believes the boogeyman might have done it & as the bodies pile up it seems like she might be right...Edited & directed by Jeff Betancourt I went into the rather generic & uninspiring sounding Boogeyman 2 not expecting that much so I was pleasantly surprised to find a mildly effective Scream (1996) type teen slasher with a twist, now I have never seen the original Boogeyman (2005) but by all accounts it's terrible & this sequel has no connection to it other than in title alone.
Anyway, the script here by Brian Sieve takes itself very seriously & feels like a cross between A Nightmare on Elm Street 3: Dream Warriors (1987) & Bad Dreams (1988) with it's mental hospital setting, it's string of set-piece gory murders & the basic story of some supernatural boogeyman stalking the patients used by someone else as cover for other motives.
All the usual horror tricks & clichés are used, lights not working, people jumping out of shadow's & a final fifteen minutes as the killer stalks the one remaining survivor through dark corridors.Technically the film is very good, it's much better than most straight-to-DVD horror.
The acting is alright & probably better than the average straight-to-DVD film, Tobin Bell is better know as Jigsaw from the Saw franchise while Renee O'Connor is perhaps better known as Gabrielle from over 130 episodes of Xena: Warrior Princess (1995 - 2001).Boogeyman 2 turned out much, much better than I had expected.
Worth a watch especially if you like horror films.
However, much to her horror, she discovers that some things are terrifying on purpose, and confronting her demons was not the best course of action.Boogeyman 2 is a film I've seen twice now, and have managed to enjoy each time, just as much.
Overall a good little movie with a decent looking Boogeyman and with some creative gory kills.
Low budget sequel to the worst-ever horror movie.
The 'boogeyman' preys on their fears and uses them against them in gory, creative ways.Throw in a plot twist & you have a solid, entertaining horror film!.
This is a sequel to the 2005 film "Boogeyman," where a young woman with a phobia of the Boogeyman checks herself into a mental hospital in hopes of conquering her fears, but only finding herself and her co-patients coming face-to-face with a masked perpetrator.Loosely connected to its prequel, I thought this film was actually going to feature a ghostly figure playing on the fears of its victims.
However, I thought the first film was more original and captivating than this one, as the first emphasizes the horror of a real Boogeyman that lives in closets, while this one ***spoiler ahead*** is just a twisted man with a knife taking on Boogeyman's name to stalk the patients.The story does leave much plot holes and unanswered questions; therefore by the end of the movie, you'll be left hanging.
Really good horror movie!.
Its few and far between these days that a horror movie comes along that is actually quite suspenseful and enjoyable and thankfully Boogeyman 2 fits the bill.I should start by saying that this movie has no connection whatsoever to the first Boogeyman but thats actually a good thing because the first one was pretty poor.We start out with a Brother and Sister witnessing the murder of their parents and then jump 10 years forward to where the Brother appears to be moving on with his life but the Sister still very traumatised and unable to move on. |
tt0108275 | (Sökarna) | The story is about three friends growing up in Stockholm in the early 1990s. The youths are rebellious with a passion for money and crime. They dream about having money and living the life of superstars. To achieve this lifestyle they commit certain misdemeanors, property crimes, and various violent crimes; especially against Nazi skinheads, a subculture whose movement had a renaissance in Sweden in the early 1990s.
After participating in a raid of a clothing warehouse, Joakim Wahlåås (Liam Norberg) gets arrested and sentenced to a few years in a Swedish penitentiary. While in jail, Joakim gets exposed to inmate brutality, and associates with the heavily criminal Tony (Thorsten Flinck), who introduces Joakim (also called Jocke, or Jocke-pojken) to cocaine.
Shortly after being released from Jail Joakim and Tony team up with Joakim's old friends and begin to commit more violent crimes: bank robberies, and drug distribution. The friends quickly become rich, and spend thousands of dollars on Versace clothes, champagne, drugs, and women.
A few years, many women, and plenty of free-base pipes later, their lavish lifestyle begins to take its toll. The friends become dependent on cocaine and heroin. They also begin to distrust each other, and subsequent to an argument about the division of profit from a drug trade, Tony kidnaps Joakim's longtime girlfriend Helen. As Joakim becomes aware of the kidnapping, he begins searching for Tony.
The film ends in a deadly confrontation, between Tony and Joakim. Joakim survives the confrontation with Tony, but a few minutes later Joakim is arrested by the police. | violence, romantic | train | wikipedia | Memorable.
Undoubtedly "Sökarna" is a Swedish classic.
For all it's awful quality it influenced a whole genre of Swedish film.
Loads of movies like this one were made, with actors who try hard and fail miserably and with enthusiastic film-makers that have no grasp of the art of film-making but won't let that stop them."Sökarna" tells the story of a troubled young man named Jon who keeps getting into fights and slips further and further into a life of crime.
Since this is a Swedish movie, all ends in the darkest tragedy.
But if you have seen Swedish social-realism before you already knew that.The acting is generally awful.
The only actor really getting away with it is the underestimated Torsten Flinck, who was actually a good actor before all the coke and alcohol burned his brain away.
Here he's truly disgusting as the man who fosters Jon in prison to become a real hardcore criminal.
If Flinck is the top when it comes to acting, P-G Hylén most certainly is the bottom.
Why it would be "cool" to dress up in Lederhosen and grind yourself with raw meat, just to show what a bad-ass you are, is beyond me.
Although i must admit it makes for one of the most memorable scenes in a Swedish movie yet, on par with Max Von Sydow playing chess against Death in "The Seventh Seal".When all is said and done "Sökarna" is highly entertaining.
It's just so awful that you can't help liking it at least a little bit.
The lack of real actors, the lack of funding (represented nicely by the fact that the police cars in this movie are just black cars with a "P" painted on the side) and the complete lack of directorial talent from Daniel Fridell.
It's sort of an Ed Wood of Swedish teenage films.
Awful but endearing.I rate it 5/10 for originality, 1/10 for quality and 10/10 for early 90's nostalgia..
"Nice" movie with lots of classic quotes.
The first thing we should realize here is that I have judged this movie not by how professional the actors are or how good the filming is, but for the general feeling this movie gives you.If you grew up in Sweden in the eighties or nineties you WILL recognize a lot of details in this movie.
The script may not be to good written, but the movie has a very clear message to send to the viewers.This movie is really fun to watch everytime just because of the funny quotes that are made in the movie.
Really stereotype characters and extremely violent, but in some way interesting to see how this young director want to display the life in the suburbs of a swedish major city.Love it or Hate it.
Compare it with "Boyz in the Hood" if you'd like.
The directors of this film has just taken an easy story and made the best out of it and i must surely say that they succeeded.
They have taken parts of their one experiences as teen hoodlums and let an old friend of theirs (Liam Norberg) play the main character Jocke.
Jocke is a young man with a hard childhood who has grown as a young criminal.
He and his friends are stealing, beating up peoples and do drugs.
After a failed atempt to burglary Jocke gets thrown in jail where e meets Tony an invereate gangster.
As they get togheter heavier crimes and drugs enter Jockes life.
This is a fun film to watch looking all the celebrities and humoristic charachters and comments.
One more thing thats quite intresting is that a few weeks before the film entered the big screen Liam Norberg was framed for Swedens biggest bankrobbery.
But if the directors got help with the script of Liam i don´t know.
I do suggest everyone to see it eventhough it was made a few years ago it´s still going strong!.
Comedy or thriller?
It's hard to tell....
Wow. This really is a lousy movie.
There is not one single instance in this film where it doesn't feel like a comedy trying to pull itself off as a thriller.
And we know what happens then, don't we?
Complete with 2D-characters and single-minded acting, some grotesque details and stupid dialogue, "Sökarna" slithers at the bottom of the heap of bad Swedish movies.
Looking back at this film feels like looking back towards the end of a very long tunnel - even though it was made as late as '92.Well...I hear of a sequel.
And unless the guy with the skinned fox on his shoulder (yes, you heard me) is in it, I won't go see it..
this is a exellent film to watch a rainy night with your friends..
their old Stockholm ghetto talk is really something!
their old Stockholm ghetto talk is really something!
I really recomend this film too all the swedish IMDB members out there!ghetto talk: "kom igen vi shappar""biga pengar""vi slaggar här ikväll""va fan vill du??....fitta!.
A Clockwork orange (the Swedish version).
The director has managed to get a precise picture of the hard knock Stockholm suburban life.
The script, which is based on an Astrid Lindgren classic, is catchy, funny and mind blowing.
The most familiar and loved actors of Sweden have been brought together in this modern classic, in a Ocean Eleven fashion.
The movie starts us of in a high speed chase on foot, and straight away we want to know more about this ruffian.
the following scenes really have some pretty and heart breaking moments that leaves no human being untouched.
I had to stop the movie and dry my tears from time to time.This movie is not appropriate for kids(23 and under), I still have nightmares and must visit a shrink to keep me calm.
I specially remember one scene that gives me the chills........I can only say one thing.
A man....and a dead fox!!Stockholm has a major problem with drugs.
And everybody is invited.
2 grams of heroin cost less than a pack of Marlboro.
So of course every kid run around with chemicals in their veins.
In 1993 we had movies like the very sad Schindler's List, the funny Groundhog Day and if we combine these modern classics we get......you know what......Sökarna!!
See it, to believe it!!!.
a Dope movie.
This movie is really cool even though there are to much early 90's reminders in it.
I just love the scenery and the acting.
you want to watch a real swedish gansgta movie rent this one.
Liam was the kind of gangster he played in this movie ( he has changed to the better now..
he found god).
I really hope they will show his upcoming movies on cinemas. |
tt0046202 | Powder River | In 1875, ex-lawman Chino Bull puts away his guns and heads for the Powder River with old pal Johnny Slater to pan for gold. Ambushed by outlaws Loney Logan and Will Horn, he gets away safely thanks to Johnny and rides to town for supplies.
At a saloon run by beautiful Frenchie Dumont, he meets Loney's brother, Harvey, a card dealer. A drunken Sam Harris begins shooting up the place, killing the sheriff with a stray bullet. Chino knocks him cold. Frenchie's beau, gunslinger Mitch Hardin, intervenes, but after being stricken with a headache so painful it incapacitates him, Chino saves his life.
Chino rejects an offer to become the town's new sheriff, but back at the river finds Johnny dead and their gold stolen. In town, a stagecoach delivers the sophisticated Debbie Allen, who has come from Connecticut to find her former sweetheart, Mitch, who it turns out was once a doctor there. She realizes that Mitch is now involved with Frenchie and also that he is suffering from a brain tumor, causing the severe headaches. Debbie decides to go back East on the next stage.
Chino sets a trap. Accompanied by Mitch, who owes Chino for saving his life, and Debbie, leaving town, they let word leak of a $300,000 gold shipment being aboard. Loney's men come to rob it and are defeated, but Debbie is shot. In town, Mitch is the only one with the surgical skill to save Debbie's life, and he does so. But when all seems well, Chino discovers that it was Mitch who murdered Johnny and stole the gold. As they begin to shoot it out, Mitch collapses in agony and dies. | revenge, murder | train | wikipedia | A great oater.
Rory Calhoun was a staple hero in all kinds of films during the 50s.
His performances were always great, abetted by his handsome, rugged looks and the ease into which he fit into a number of hero roles.
In this one, a kind of standard western, he plays an ex-lawman who returns to the trade when his partner is killed.
During the time he cleans up the town, defeats bad guys played by veteran character actors Carl Betz and John Dehner, gets his semi-revenge, on the antihero, played by Cameron Mitchell, wows the French bombshell, Corinne Calvert and, of course, gets the girl.
It's great 50s entertainment with a total lack of CGI action, extensive blood and gore and good honest villains and good guys.
(*sigh) They just don't make movies like this any more.
Watch for it on the late show.
There's no DVD or video listed.
Calhoun was always worth the price of admission..
Meaty western tale.
I'm not really a fan of Rory Calhoun, but I enjoyed his character in this picture.
It tells a story with a bit more depth and a few surprises, while still providing action, romance and some terrific western scenery.
While Calhoun's character, Chino Bull, is still country-suave and in control, he doesn't convey the snide quality that was an undercurrent in his later television work.
The story line carries some standard western baggage, but at the same time it veers away with unexpected plot developments that were a bit more sophisticated than the type of that era, presaging the so-called "adult westerns" that became the standard in the 1950s and '60s.
The female characters, unfortunately, are given the usual supportive roles.
Still, it's an interesting story against some beautiful backgrounds..
a very good variation of "My Darling Clementine".
I saw this film when I was twelve, 1955, and remember not having liked it.
I saw it again recently and thought it was quite good.
I guess, when twelve I was too impressed with Mitch Hardin, the character played by Cameron Mitchell, who suffers from a brain tumor, and that got me kind of depressed.
But really, this western is basically another variation of "Frontier Marshall", "My Darling Clementine" etc.
Mitch Hardin has his roots in Doc Holliday, same way Frenchie Dumont (Corinne Calvet) can be compared to Chihuahua (Linda Darnell) and Pennie Edwards is another Clementine.
But there are a lot of interesting changes made to the basic story which provides this western with many action scenes, and a sort of unpredictability not present in the usual western.
There are some great moments like when the stagecoach is going adrift in the river, and when Calhoun grabs the gun of the bad guy.
Calhoun is excellent in his role, of course based on Wyatt Earp..
Yet another Wyatt Earp adaption.
If you're thinking that you might have seen Powder River before you would be right.
If you saw Frontier Marshal or My Darling Clementine and noted in Powder River's credits that it's derived from a book by Stuart Lake than you'll know the source.
Rory Calhoun plays a Wyatt Earp like marshal who has quit law enforcement for prospecting.
But when his partner Frank Ferguson is bushwhacked and robbed of the gold they've panned, Calhoun takes on the marshal's job.
He also makes the acquaintance of a pair of outlaw brothers Carl Betz and John Dehner.
And a terminally ill and alcoholic doctor Cameron Mitchell who is lightning fast with a six gun.There's also a bit of Destry Rides Again added to the mix with French speaking saloon owner Corinne Calvet.
The good girl from back east who wants to bring Mitchell home to save his life is former Roy Rogers leading lady Penny Edwards.The best part of Powder River is a nice action gunfight in a foiled stagecoach robbery with Calhoun and Mitchell joining forces.
The guys and the stagecoach are on a river ferry with the outlaws firing on them from shore and the ferry cut loose is heading for the rapids.
All nicely staged.
If you've seen My Darling Clementine or Frontier Marshal you know how this one comes out.
Calhoun made several good westerns in the Fifties and Sixties.
But it's Mitchell who has the best role, the Doc Holiday part is always the best one every time this story is retold..
Entertaining Duster with plenty of Gunplay.
POWDER RIVER – 1953A brisk 20 Century Fox B-western production that is better than one would expect.
Rory Calhoun plays the hero lead here while Carl Betz and John Dehner ably handle the villain parts.
Also in the mix are Cameron Mitchell, Penny Edwards and the rather stunning looking, Corinne Calvet.The story has Calhoun as an ex-lawman who has hung up the guns.
He is now doing some gold prospecting with Frank Ferguson.
The two are doing quite well and are building up a good sized stake of gold.
They need to be on guard since the woods are full of claim jumpers and the like.
Calhoun heads in to the nearby town of Powder River to cash in some gold and pick up supplies.
Powder River is more or less run by saloon keeper, Corinne Calvet.
Cahoun returns to his camp after the supply run into town.
He finds his partner, Ferguson, dead and their gold gone.
He returns to town to look for anyone with a bit too much gold dust.
No luck there, but he does break up a bunch of yahoos causing trouble.
Calhoun finds himself being offered the job of town Sheriff, which he accepts.
What better way to discover who killed his partner.Saloon and gambling house owner, Calvet takes a shine to Calhoun.
This, he is told might not be all that wise a move on his part.
It seems that Calvet has a beau already.
The man, Cameron Mitchell, is really handy with a gun and is known for violent mood swings.
These are caused by a tumor in his brain.
Mitchell is a former doctor from out east.
Mitchell had accidentally killed a man during surgery when he suffered one of his attacks.Now popping up is Penny Edwards.
Edwards is the former fiancé of Mitchell.
She wants Mitchell to come back east and get an operation.
This plan is put on hold, as Mitchell ends up helping Calhoun take on the villain types, Carl Betz and John Dehner.
There are several shootouts, a jailbreak and several more shootouts.Miss Edwards catches a bullet and Mitchell ends up having to do surgery to save her life.
After all this, we discover that it had been Mitchell who had shot Calhoun's partner, Ferguson.
Mitchell then drops dead from a brain aneurysm saving Calhoun from shooting him in revenge for Ferguson.
As silly as this might sound, it plays out rather well on screen.This rather lively duster is a step above what was normally delivered by veteran b-film helmsman, Louis King.
King dwelled for years on westerns with Buck Jones before moving up the ladder a bit with the odd Charlie Chan and Bulldog Drummond feature.
The writing of this film is quite good with Sam Hellman, Stuart Lake and Daniel Mainwaring.
Lake wrote the stories for several excellent westerns.
These include FRONTIER MARSHAL, WELLS FARGO, THE WESTERNER, MY DARLING CLEMINTINE and WINCHESTER 73.
Mainwaring, better known as Geoffrey Homes, wrote the story or screenplay for ROUGHSHOD, THE BIG STEAL, THE LAWLESS, THE LAST OUTPOST, ROADBLOCK, INVASION OF THE BODY SNATCHERS, THE EAGLE AND THE HAWK, THIS WOMAN IS DANGEROUS and the noir classic, OUT OF THE PAST.
Cinematographer Ernest Cronjager supplies some nice Technicolor work on this one..
Revenge Western with Earp/Holiday Overtones.
"Powder River" is a Technicolor revenge western reminiscent of the Wyatt Earp/ Doc Holiday relationship depicted in the earlier "My Darling Clementine" (1946).Rory Calhoun plays ex-marshal Chino Bull(ock) who has hung up his guns to prospect for gold with his partner Johnny Slater (Frank Ferguson).
Two saddle tramps Loney Hogan (Carl Betz) and his com padre (Bob Wilke) try to steal Chino and Johnny's horses but are driven off by Chino.
Later after returning from town, Chino finds Johnny murdered and their gold stolen.
Chino assumes that Hogan was to blame and takes on the town marshal's job in order to bring Logan to justice.In the local saloon Chino meets proprietor "Frenchie" Dumont (Corrine Calvet) and learns that she is "associated" with gunman Mitch Hardin (Cameron Mitchell).
Chino and Hardin strike up a friendship.
Debbie Allen (Penny Edwards) the girl Hardin left behind shows up to complicate matters.
We learn along the way that Hardin is a doctor who is suffering from a brain tumor and that he has a death wish.Chino entices Loney and Harvey Logan (John Dehner) to try to rob a gold shipment in order to force a showdown until..............Calhoun was always a pleasant enough hero whose career in westerns extended well into the 60s.
Calvet with her thick French accent makes a poor man's Marlene Deitrich.
Mitchell never quite made it to the A list but was a dependable second lead during this period.
Carl Betz is best remembered as the father in "The Donna Reed Show".
Penny Edwards appeared in a number of Roy Rogers oaters while Dale Evans was having a baby in 1950..
Very entertaining remake of "Frontier Marshal", in another location.
I don't believe this short western is officially regarded as a remake of the equally short 1939 "Frontier Marshal".
But, after checking my notes on F.M., I found it amazing how many details they have in common, so many that I clearly would label it as a remake.
Of course, there are plenty of differences, as well, one being that this was shot in color vs.
Another is that the supposed location for F.M. is Tombstone A.Z., vs.
Powder River, for the present film.
Well, it turns out there are two famous Powder Rivers in the NW quadrant of the US.
One is famous today as having the richest, cheapest, coal mines in the US, and is located in NE Wyoming and SE Montana.
The other is located in the Blue Mountains of NE Oregon, and is well known since the Civil War for it's placer gold.
In contrast, I'm not aware of any important gold deposits in the Wyoming Powder River area, although the Black Hills are not far to the east.
Thus, I would favor Oregon, although it's mentioned that the Homestead Mine is nearby.
Well, THE Homestead mine is located in the Black Hills.
Typical Hollywood confusion of that era!
At least parts of the action were filmed in Glacier National Park, in NW Montana.
Instead of Wyatt Earp and Doc Halliday of F.M., we have facsimiles in Chino Bull(Wyatt-like)and Mitch(Doc Holliday-like).
In this film, they have trouble deciding whether they want to be friends or enemies.
We see some of each throughout the film, like reluctant buddies.
Both films have the Doc-like character suffering from a chronic health problem: TB in F.M. and a brain tumor, causing periodic blackouts, in the present film.
In both films, the Doc-like character is scripted as a gunslinger/medical doctor combo, whereas the real Doc was a doctor of dentistry.
In both films, the Doc-like character uses his medical knowledge to save a life.Roy Calhoun plays Chino, while a flamboyant Cameron Mitchell plays Mitch.
An equally flamboyant Corinne Calvet plays Frenchie: the sometimes owner of one of the saloons.
Penny Edwards plays the prim blond "good" girl arriving from the East, come to take Mitch back East.
However, she appears to end up with Chino.
Gold is mostly what the fighting is all about: both Chino's stolen gleanings and a $300,000.gold shipment on the stage.
Chino's mining buddy, Johnny, is killed(by whom?) and the gold stolen while Chino is away.
This murder and robbery induced Chino to give up mining to become the new town marshal.One gripe I have is that the stage gold shipment segment is underplayed.
When the stage is on a flatboat ferry, crossing a river, the bad guys cut the towline attached to a horse that pulls the boat across.
They also shoot the horse driver.
The stage then is swept downstream toward a rapids.
Chino finds a spare rope and swims to shore attaching it to a flimsy-looking long dead small tree.
Even supposing it held the raft against the current, it's unclear how they got it to shore, unless they found the horse and attached the rope to it.
One horse hardly seemed enough.
Also, why did the bad guys decide to abandon their very lucrative quest when the rope was attached to that tree??I regard this film as even more interesting than "Frontier Marshal" In fact, it's one of my favorite westerns, despite its clear B status.
I won't give away the unusual climactic ending.Available at YouTube and an expensive DVD..
Entertaining Horse Opera with Calhoun as a Wyatt Earp Type.
Rory Calhoun plays a seasoned lawman fed up with gunplay in "Green Grass of Wyoming" director Louis King's "Powder River," a sturdy but derivative little horse opera loosely based on Wyatt Earp biographer Stuart N.
Lake's book.
Cameron Mitchell co-stars as a swift-shooting hellion who wears his gun slung low on his right knee in this Technicolor oater from Twentieth Century Fox. Basically, Calhoun is cast as Chino Bullock, a Wyatt Earp type, while Mitchell plays a variation on Doc Holliday named Mitch Hardin.
Instead of being ravaged by tuberculosis, Hardin suffers from a brain tumor.
He has left the East to roam the West.
Mitch has a suicidal streak running through his psyche as a result of his tragic affliction.
He romances the hell cat saloon owner Frenchie Dumont (Corinne Calvet of "Apache Uprising")who smokes cigarettes in public while Mitch's good girl from back East, Debbie Allen (Penny Edwards of "Pony Soldier"), struggles without success to convince him to return home with her.
The catch here is that Calhoun prefers to shun a six-gun while carrying out his duties as the marshal of Powder River.
Except for the marred ending, western fans won't be disappointed with this shoot'em up horse opera.
Six time Oscar winning lenser Edward Cronjager's full frame cinematography looks dazzling with vivid colors and scenic settings.
The cast is solid, and the production design is terrific.
There is a cool showdown between a hardcase who thrusts a six-shooter into Bullock's belly at one point in a saloon and is surprised to see the marshal clench the cylinder of his six-gun so that he cannot cock the gun.
Calhoun and Cameron make a charismatic pair, but their relationship is a combustible one. |
tt0115644 | Bed of Roses | Lisa Walker (Mary Stuart Masterson) is a business executive who has gotten used to being alone but doesn't like it very much. She was abandoned by her birth parents and then spent most of her childhood being raised by Stanley (S.A. Griffin), a foster father who never really loves Lisa after her adopted mother died.
One day, Lisa gets word that Stanley has died; alone in her apartment, after attempting to feed her now dead pet fish, she breaks down and cries uncontrollably. The next day at work, Lisa gets an unexpected delivery of flowers from a secret admirer. Puzzled, she presses the delivery man for information on who might have sent her the flowers. He says the sender wants to remain anonymous. Lisa asks her friends for names and visits the flower shop to no avail.
After getting to know each other better, he confesses that he sent them. Lewis (Christian Slater) runs a flower shop and often takes long walks through the neighborhood at night, trying to lose memories of his deceased wife and child. He saw Lisa crying in her window and hoped the roses would cheer her up. Before long, Lisa and Lewis begin dating but each has emotional issues to resolve before their story can have a happy ending. | romantic, fantasy | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0457802 | The Blue Umbrella | A city scene is brought to life by a rainstorm. Many objects along the street – signs, lights, awnings, mailboxes, buildings, drains, drain pipes, rain gutters, windows, doors – appear to come to life and develop faces and expressions of their own, enjoying the shower. People pass on the street under their umbrellas, all of which are seemly black, except for a singular blue umbrella. As his owner stops at a street corner, the blue umbrella sees a pretty red umbrella next to him. The two exchange nervous glances, and soon become smitten with each other, but their owners' paths diverge.
Seeing this, the objects along the street begin to work with each other to bring the owners together. As the blue umbrella is about to be taken into the subway, a sign allows the wind to blow the umbrella from his owner's hands. The umbrella is floating through the air toward his destination when a sudden gust of wind caused by a passing bus veers him off course and he lands in the street. With the umbrella in danger from the traffic, the objects attempt to protect him from oncoming cars: a construction sign lights up to redirect an oncoming vehicle, a gurgling drain pipe spews water to push him out of the way, another construction sign falls on him to fling him away from another car, and a drain blasts him into the air, but he is hit by a truck, visibly upsetting the objects that have tried to help him.
Battered and bruised, the umbrella is found by his owner who straightens him out just as the owner of the red umbrella approaches, reuniting the two of them. The objects of the city silently celebrate their reunion as the umbrellas' owners sit down together at a local cafe, allowing the two umbrellas to be together after all. | satire, storytelling | train | wikipedia | A Brilliant Blue Umbrella.
Who could have thought that an umbrella would turn out to be one of the most compelling characters seen on the cinema screen in 2007?
The music director turned filmmaker is a force to reckon with- one of the finest directors seen in a long time- churning out masterpieces with alarming versatility and consistency.
This man simply does not cease to amaze, and The Blue Umbrella is yet another stunning film from him- and personally, my favorite Vishal Bhardwaj film so far.Words do not suffice to describe the amazing beauty, simplicity and purity of this movie, based on the popular novella of the same name by Ruskin Bond.
But Vishal Bhardwaj expectedly goes much, much beyond the source material and takes the story to an altogether different level.
The umbrella comes to life in this charming fable, symbolizing so much- from love and beauty to desire and materialistic evil.The Blue Umbrella is a charming story, but it is also a powerful film exploring multiple themes of greed, innocence, ostracism and loss.
Stunningly shot by Sachin K Krishn in the locales of Himachal Pradesh, the film is also breathtaking lovely, and the umbrella in all its splendor, set in contrast against the mountain scenery- green in summer and stark white is winter- is a sight to behold.The writing and dialogues are trademark Bhardwaj- witty, sharp and humorous, with even a cheeky reference to Quentin Tarantino playfully thrown in- Bhardwaj, of course, is a huge fan of the Pulp Fiction director.
And the songs in the film hark back to the days of Lakdi Ki Kaathi- as Vishal shows yet again how brilliant he is with children's songs, with Gulzar's joyful lyrics perfectly complimenting his tunes.But what's really incredible about the film is the sheer spirit of humanity that pervades and shines through the entire film.
It is indeed ironical that the film that has been named the 'best children's film' at the recently announced National awards is actually not a kiddie flick at all.
But The Blue Umbrella can make you feel like being a child all over again- rather like Nand Kishore in the film, who despite all his vices, still retains the child in him.Vishal Bhardwaj has an amazing knack for extracting great work from child actors, and débutante actress Shreya is yet another awesome find after Makdee's Shweta Prasad.
The role of Biniya does not demand histrionics, but Shreya shows remarkable resilience and maturity, playing Biniya confidently and holding her own even before the veteran actor alongside her in the film.The actor I talk of is of course, Pankaj Kapur- a horribly underrated actor, and a favorite with Bhardwaj- who has been giving powerhouse performances one after the other of late- whether it be in Maqbool or the more recent Dharm.
Pankaj Kapur plays Nand Kishore with such obvious delight, watching him in this film is pleasure beyond words.
One of the most riveting and memorable characters he has played, this undoubtedly is the finest performance I have seen in the movies this year.In fact, Pankaj Kapur is so good in this film, he almost brought tears to my eyes.
Watch it- because performances like these don't come once too often.
And because films like these do not happen every other Friday....unless you want to wait for Vishal Bhardwaj's next film.
Like all other Vishal movies this one also has all the above qualities, but this movie has one thing which takes it ahead form all his earlier flicks and that is the way it treats humans and their emotions.
Vishal turns the very simple story to the story of humanity and simplicity remains as it is.How an Blue Umbrella becomes center of two lives and how the two dealt with this.
These two characters are Binya and Nand Kishore, played by introducing child artist Shreya and heavily experienced Pankaj Kapur.
Pankaj Kapur lived the character of Nand Kishore in the movie.
His dialog delivery , accent , body language all was so real.I think Blue Umbrella is not only meant for children but for everyone who want to see great movies.
Vishal has created the movies which are truly across boundaries and across ages.surely a 10/10..
a film which can be seen with the family.a film which is made from the heart by director.the direction,cinematography,screenplay n acting are simply superb.Indian cinema should promote such films which are truly world class.a clean,simple story telling is the beauty of the film.the brilliant photography of the film enhances the story.music of the film is fresh n soothing to the ears.the child artist is wonderful.the legendary actor,has once again out beaten himself.
it is an adaption of one of ruskin bond's short stories.the director has been able to do full justice to this story.fabulously casted,enacted,directed n shot.
Bharadwaj comes up with another interesting piece of cinema that's somewhat different from his other works.
'Omkara' was the last Bharadwaj film I'd seen and 'The Blue Umbrella' clearly excels that.
Compared to 'Maqbool' and 'Omkara', 'The Blue Umrella' is a much more abstract and symbolic piece and yes, one of the main characters is played by an umbrella.Based on Ruskin Bond's novella, it is a very simple storytelling but uses a lot of symbolic elements and makes minimum but brilliant use of technical props.
The cinematography welcomes us to the beautiful location and to the character's lives and minds.
Each frame of the simplistic setting of North Himalaya is a treat to watch The use of colours is very effective and adds to the abstract nature e.g. what does the blue umbrella symbolize?
In my opinion the film symbolizes beauty, greed, love, pride, desire and forgiveness.
I had last seen him in films like 'Maqbool', 'Dharm' etc, but here he was mind blowing.
I can understand why he's referred to as one of the best actors as he seemed to quite naturally pull off Nand Kishore.This is one of the purest films to emerge from India in recent times.
Though it's categorized as a children's film, it's not.
It has a powerful message, is a visual treat and film-making at its simplest but most efficient..
I must say after seeing omkara(vishals earlier movie), i knew that he had skill in the field of direction, but blue umbrella is a milestone in his career personifying his art.
based on the Ruskin bond novel, this movie is a work of art, all packed with children singing "tesu" songs, depicting the rural India.
The story although seems timid, but bhardwaj shows how small problems go big in the rural world.
I would Have to go so far to say that the Indian audiences may not be as ready for the movie as bhardwaj thought they were.hence declaring it a flop for the masses.
and to top it all we receive a mind numbling performance by theatre actor Pankaj Kapur.
who literally plays with your mind throughout the film.
On an over all basis this movie marks the change of Indian cinema, or you can say the return of the parallel cinema once started by men like satyajit ray....
Vishal Bharadwaj's Blue Umbrella does just that and in my opinion does a bit more!It takes a simple village tale woven by Ruskin Bond and makes it to an amazing movie.
Pankaj Kapoor gives another performance worth remembering.
Bhardwaj knows close-ups with such powerful actors work well and we see lot of closeups in the movie.
The filmmaker also gets the best of the child actors and the screenplay, the gait all seem add to the rhythm of the cinema.
And more than all these it is a movie about humans, their desires, their failings and emotions.All in all wonderful cinema!!!
I disagree with the comment 'The film blends the extremely colorful and gaudy images with Bollywood-style song and dance!' Where does Michelle Sohn find 'GAUDINESS' in the movie?
As an avid watcher of Hindi movies, I really do not approve of such words in a fine example of cinema!
I had the misfortune of watching stupid and senseless movies like transformers, Premonition, The wedding singer etc.
A final word to Michelle Sohn- I think Indian movies far outshine American movies so please don't write reviews if you are not really interested in our movies!!!!!!!!.
Precious Little Gem. The Blue Umbrella is an instant classic.
Bond's story captures the mood and the uncomplicated lifestyle of a small hill town spot-on and Vishal Bharadwaj renders it on the screen flawlessly.A little girl (Shreya Sharma) trades her lucky charm for an umbrella with a Japanese tourist.
The beauty of the umbrella takes over the whole of the town.
What Khatri finds and looses in his quest for the umbrella is the rest of the story.This film is a reminder of the fact that Pankaj Kapoor never got the recognition he deserves.
He single-handedly turns 'The Blue Umbrella' from an ordinary film into extra ordinary achievement.
The nuances he brings to his role - a twitch of his face, a gait to his walk, everything - works to etch the character in the minds of the viewer.
We are as heart broken as she is when she looses her umbrella; and we rejoice with her when she dances with it.The biggest credit of all, however, goes to Vishal Bharadwaj.
It takes courage and commitment to make the kind of films he has made so far.
one of the best Hindi movie....go watch it...
This movie is basically based on a novel written by famous writer Ruskin Bond.
The movie is about a little girl Bindiya residing in a hilly state Himachal Pradesh...
.....she gets a blue umbrella from some foreigners and then drama starts.
The acting of Pankaj (khatri in movie) is superb.
I truly recommend all of you this movie....go watch it.
I watched this movie 2 years back and believe me that i decided never to delete it from my hard disk.
Movie is good from starting till end.
Acting by all the actors is good..
Blue Umbrella is beautiful.
The umbrella, the concept of the story, the background of the movie, the people, the symbolic values – they're all beautifully presented.
Pankaj Kapoor says in the movie that one shouldn't measure the profit loss behind watching a sunrise.
In the same way, there's really no evaluation of this movie because of its intangible beauty.
Pankaj Kapoor and the director have both done a great job!.
Writing this review while listening to "Barfaan" in background.Perfect movie to start your Saturday morning.
This movie confirms that old age people and kids behave in a similar manner and need to be handled with same care.The story, Vishal's direction,Cinematography capturing colours and beautiful North India, Music, Lyrics (Gulzar), Pankaj Kapoor, Biniya and last but surely not the least "The Umbrella" adds up to make an awesome movie.This is the type of Bollywood I crave for..
I've only just recently discovered "Bollywood" movies..
I am enjoying the weekly films shown on IFC, but I'm not sure that this film fits into what most people think of as a "Bollywood" movie-- love stories or gangsters with out-of-place song and dance numbers tacked on.
Although I *do* enjoy those types of movies once in a while...Instead, I think that "The Blue Umbrella" is simply an extraordinary example of Hindi film-making.The cinematography is STUNNING.
I was struck by the rural setting- which I've never seen in a typical Bollywood movie (mountains and snow?!?)- and since I live in an area in the US that looks very much like the location in the film, it made it seem much more "real" to me.
I got a real feel for the village and for the people who live there.
At times, I thought I was watching a beautiful documentary about village life.The story is captivating.
Pankaj Kapur = amazing.I truly hope that more films such as this receive a much larger audience.
Some of the comments here describe this as a "children's film", but I would call it just a great film.A joy to watch from start to finish..
Indian film Industry is very strange.
On one hand it churns out movies like 'Ram Gopal Varma ki Aag' and 'Tashan' and one hand it comes out with great movies like 'The Blue Umbrella'.
A very very good movie.
Pankaj Kapoor proves once again that he is one of the best actors that the film industry has ever produced.
Having a good story is one thing and that was what Ruskin Bond provided.
But adapting a good movie and making an even better movie is what Vishal Bhardwaj did.
She ranks right up along with other child actors that came to the industry in recent times.
Set up in the scenic Himachal Pradesh Vishal Bhardwaj gave us a classic.
A must watch for an ardent fan of Indian movies.
The language used in the movie, the scenic locations, the acting of the main characters....
there is nothing about the film that is not good.
There is only one thing that I did not quite liked about the movies...
A movie like this should not have songs..
But anyway a great movie and everyone should see it..
But anyway a great movie and everyone should see it..
Brilliant performances and great story.
one of the finest actors is almost every kind of role and this movie is no different his expressions his voice modulations are all awesome...
the girl Shreya Sharma also deserves mention ...she does a great joband the story is extremely subtle which can only be conceived either by R.k. narayan or in this case Mr. Ruskin Bond....Vishal does all justice to the story in this great movie...
Very matured children movie.
Director Vishal Bhardwaj is by now an expert in making the movies suitable for children genre.
The movie "Blue Umbrella" is much more similar to his previous creation Makdee, gives a lot to watch for adults than the children.
I think these movies are two amongst the best in this category.The story of 'Blue Umbrella' takes place at a some cold Himalayan village.
It takes just one song and a couple of scenes to get into the movie before the real story begun.The music and the acting are great points, which goes in favor of movie.
Pankaj Kapur who leads the screen is a natural actor and as in his other characters you wont find any misbehavior in Nandkishor character.
The child actor Shriya has also done a great job.
It is in between these two extremes and very much different than other movie.
It's a real cool piece of cinema which is a great pleasure for the eyes and the mind.
I am regretting for not watching the movie in theater.
But certainly from next time, I will wait impatiently for children movies from Vishal Bhardwaj..
A girl in a remote village with an attractive blue umbrella, is suddenly grieved by the loss of it and she suspects all those in the village who had an eye on it, especially the 'Kathri', the tea shop owner, amazingly portrayed on screen by Pankaj Kapur.Never before, have I seen Himachal so beautifully captured on screen, with all the green and the snow white during the last part of the movie.
The other main character of the movie is the music.
The songs and the BGM do add to the feel and look of the film.It's a treat to watch this one.
Though categorized as a children's film, it is for all ages..
Blue Umbrella.
Vishal Bharadwaj has evolved in such a wonderful Director with poetic sensibilities and characteristics of becoming world's great directors.Blue Umbrella is a screen version of Ruskin Bond's short story Blue Umbrella.
It is about a young girl Binya (Shriya) who trades her superstitious lucky charm of bear nails in return of a Japanese Blue Umbrella with tourists.
A small trader Nandakishore (Pankaj Kapoor) eyes of the Blue Umbrella and tries all ways of get the umbrella.
When Binya's umbrella is stolen the police raid Nandakishore's shop.
Once the Red Umbrella comes, he gains back popularity and respect from everyone in the village.
During a wrestling bout where he is the chief guest, it rains and the Red Umbrella starts loosing out color and shows that it was the Blue Umbrella.
But Binya shows grace and generosity by saying that the Blue Umbrella does not belong to her.
The movie ends there
I applaud this movie onlybecause of the intention of good directors to make pure and beautiful cinema.
Can you ever think and imagine Quentin Tarantino, Martin Scorsese or Frank Miller making a children's movie?
That is why hats off to Vishal to have guts to venture into new medium and showcase that irrespective of whatever themes; he remains a good director.Vishal selects one of the most evolved and brilliant actors in recent times Pankaj Kapoor who pours such a life in the character of Nandakishore that it is hard to believe this is a role depicted by an actor.
Third time great Maqbool, Dharm and Blue Umbrella.
The girl Binya is good but only to the director's lessons; and does not leave a lasting impression as the Makdee girl Swehta Prasad.The music is good, cinematography brilliant, locale of North Indian Himalayan ranges superb.
All in all a great children's movie.
It has the purity of cinema and showcases the goodness of human spirit.
Thanks to Ronnie Screenwala for producing, Vishal Bhardwaj for directing this well made movie for all families.
Just shows that one does not need big stars, loud music, violence or sex to make movies that's entertaining and will always stick in your memories forever.
Well acted both by the main stars Shreya Sharma and Pankaj Kapur (wish the his son Shahid Kapur would take a leaf from his dad from this movie).
Hope more Bollywood Producers and Directors would take risks to make such movies. |
tt0078241 | Shalimar | On the run from the police, S.S. Kumar, a thief, comes across a private invitation to the island of Sir John Locksley addressed to Raja Bahadur Singh. When the Raja is shot, Kumar takes him to a nearby hospital, dons a Sikh's turban, poses as the Raja's son and goes to the private island of Sir John. Also attending are K.P.W. Iyengar aka Romeo, Dr. Dubari, Colonel Columbus, and Countess Sylvia Rasmussen. A stunned Kumar finds out that all of these invitees are master criminals and thieves. Kumar's guise does not fool anyone, including his former sweetheart, Sheila Enders (Zeenat Aman), nevertheless Sir John permits him to stay on, as he feels that Kumar's career, though an amateur, is consistent with those already present. The reason why John has invited them is to find a successor to take his place as he is dying of cancer. He feels that one of his invitees can be trusted to take his place and for this he has arranged for them to steal a ruby (Shalimar) worth 135 crores of rupees. This gem is placed in a secure room within his palace, which is alarmed, and guarded by armed men 24 hours a day. The ruby itself is located within a display case of bulletproof glass and surrounded by a minefield. He challenges one of them to steal the shalimar - but if anyone fails then they are killed by the security system. Pitted against such veterans, it looks like Kumar has got himself into a bind that he may not come out of alive. | cult | train | wikipedia | I would start saying, it was a film too ahead of it's times, when released in India.
For the fact it flopped in India, is because the majority of the audience saw it go over the top and there was no connectivity with this film.Caper films have never been a forte in 'bollywood', so shah's western influenced ideas did not really go well with the native masses who were more interested in revenge melodramatic dramas, 'dakus','mujras', and 'angry young men'.
Looking back, it's definitely a cult film and the Gen today would appreciate shah's efforts more than the Generation of '78..
But its charm (as one commenter puts: "..It's a bad movie but I can't help liking it...") lies somewhere else.I must say I was surprised to find out that it didn't do well in India when it hit the theaters but that flopping may happen to any "big budget" movie anywhere anytime..
I also agree that Dharmendra and especially Zeenat Aman could have been performing much better or the Holly-Bolly partnership could be taken to a more qualified level.
But this movie is like a showcase of what could be done within limits of a status-quotic cheesy-commercial cinema and utilising what's at hand in high quality.
Despite its flaws, each and every moment is fun and as with all "bad but great" movies, technical or artistic flaws actually add rather than deduct from the film's value!
It's one of my faves from 70s Bollywood and from many points, it really has its great moments.
THE ORIGINAL Indian CULT film!.
Here it is, India's first and greatest cult film!
It's a great film no doubt but it has some really bizarre stuff that has to be seen to be believed!!
The roles of John Saxon and Sylvia Miles are unforgettable.
The film itself suffered badly at the box office when it first came out due to over-hype and the fact that the main theme of the film didn't connect with the masses - lack of nativity.
It is unlike any Bollywood film you'll ever see..
i think that this film is a entertainer.It makes you cry.laugh and makes you think what will happen next.The great Mr Dharmendra was the best but i don't understand is that why did this film do so bad at the box office?
and why Mr Dharmendra never signed for a western film again.The songs were also good like 'Hum Bewafaa' was good, the film was also made in English to but voices were dumbed over and the film opens with a good scene.I didn't not know that this film was produced by Hollywood and Bollywood and after this film they never did that again because it was a disaster at the box office but some people still think that they should make more films like this.The main credit for this film goes to both Dharamendra and Rex Harrison who both did a great so BRAVO!!!.
Director Krishna Shah demonstrates a great deal of visual flair (particularly during the final jewel-theft sequence, which I can't describe more fully for fear of giving it away).
The entire cast is appealing, especially Rex Harrison as the suave, manipulative host, and John Saxon as a mute master thief.
The movie's weak point, in terms of plausibility, is the miscasting of the gifted but ungainly Sylvia Miles as a tightrope walker/acrobat.
(The cuts to her stunt double during the action sequences are among the most obvious, unconvincing substitutions I've ever seen.) However, the vivacious Miles has such fun with the role that this flaw can be overlooked..
A movie which was ahead of its time and did not make sense to most of those who saw it.
In comparison the latest technology the film might seem shoddy but in the end you cannot help but admire the whole team for giving it a shot.The Indian actors have done a a good job.
At times the fact that the foreign actors dialogs are not in sync (because they are actually speaking in English) is a minor irritant.The music by RD Burman is classic and can be played and hummed today and for years to come.
The action is also good but not typical Hindi film action which is nice change.
The sheer awfulness of the acting and the script fade into the background as one is dragged, almost against one's will, into the film's Dungeons-and-Dragons-like storyline.Camp, curious, captivating.
One of the best films ever made in India.
that this is one of the great films made in India.
It has been made with combined great performances by both Hollywood and Bollywood stars, making the film one of a kind.If you haven't watched this film I wholeheartedly recommend you to.
This is an absolutely splendid film!!!Not only because this is a Hollywood and Bollywood joint venture film but also because the acting of all the star cast is great.I especially liked Rex Harrison, Dharmendra, John Saxon, and Zeenat Aman's performances.
This is very uncommon for me.The song: "Mera pyar Shalimar" also has a very good soundtrack and is great to listen.If you are doing nothing on the weekend, I suggest you visit a nearby video store to rent this video.
Anything with Rex Harrison is always worth a look, even teamed with a few C-List semi-stars of yesteryear (John Saxon is still soldiering on today!), but this co-production with major Bollywood names (in India Dharmendra, Zeenat Aman were billed above Harrison) is particularly interesting as a not-half-bad attempt to blend the Indian and U.S. film industries in an only slightly schlock caper film (the copy-cat "American" title, "RAIDERS OF THE SACRED STONE," pretty well telegraphs the schlock part - the original "SHALIMAR" is more honest if slightly less illuminating) about a Master Thief who claims to be dying and brings together his chief rivals in a lethal contest to see who deserves the title of "World's Greatest...".
The goal and "reward" (in additional to the title) is a super gem (it looks like an enormous sugar candy faux jewel) guarded by impossible technology and disposable but murderously dedicated mute guards, every one of whom owe their lives to Harrison.
As far as actually cracking the commercial U.S. film market, the effort was not markedly successful (the film apparently tanked in India and the IMDb doesn't even show a U.S. release date!
...the American title pretty much assured that even if the quality of the script didn't) but if you're in the mood for one of those films all about how the director/script writer can kill off the next Indian S.A.G. member in new and imaginative ways (a sort of 10 LITTLE INDIANS with real Indians) and finding out if the sort-of-cute possible romantic lead will value the girl more than the race or get away in the end (the film tries for as many twists as Agatha Christie engineered into her real masterpiece, WITNESS FOR THE PROSECUTION so it isn't over when it looks like it might be) this might fit the bill on a rainy Saturday or even Sunday afternoon.
Dharmendra Rules Rex Harrison.
The Entire movie there seemed to be only 1 actor with proper emotions & that happens to be of Dharmendra.
Rex Harrison who is a Hollywood big wig was no where near Dharmendra's ability, even a "C" grade villain of Bollywood would have acted better, Deepak Shirke would have acted better.
Poor Shammi Kapoor was wasted, Zeenat had not much role, John acted as a dumb man so his ability to express was cut off.
When Bollywood actors act in Hollywood movies they easily overshadow the famed Hollywood actors because the facial expressions are lot more & the ability to give dialogues is also better.
Dharmendra has not won any filmfare award in India is because he is himself a 2nd grade hero, had it been the Mighty Amitabh Bachchan or Rajesh Khanna this movie would have been even more watchable & it would have been a big hit too.
The entire movie would have been even one sided against the Hollywood stars..
The reason being, I read somewhere that the movie flopped because it was ahead of its time.
But I can guarantee it that if this movie was made today with special effects and all it would still be a disaster.
The reason being that it was an amateurish attempt by an NRI (Krishna Shah) who thought he would ape a Hollywood movie for the Indian public.
Shammi Kapoor, O.P. Ralhan, a has been Hollywood actor like Rex Harrison, and a one movie wonder ("Enter the Dragon")John Saxon and some old hag Slyvia Miles who nobody's heard of.
The dubbing of Rex Harrison by Kader Khan was poor because Rex's expression while delivering the dialogues are cardboard like and detached.
Zeenat Aman's acting at best could be described as erratic.
This colorful but ill-fated Hollywood meets Bollywood heist caper flopped miserably at the box office.
"Raiders of the Sacred Stone," as it came to be called, undoubtedly taking advantage of "Raiders of the Lost Ark," was initially known as "Shalimar." Stanford Sherman co-wrote the story that Shad based his screenplay on, and Sherman boasts writing credits such as the 1966 "Batman," "The Ice Pirates," "Krull," and "Any Which Way You Can." Rex Harrison, John Saxon and Indian star Dharmendra bolster this film with strong performances.
The film never wears out its welcome and contains some interesting twists.
Basically, this 90-minute epic amounts to a variation on "The Most Dangerous Game," the classic where a big game safari hunter trapped unfortunate humans on his own island and then turned them loose so he could enjoy the thrill of hunting them to see if they could escape him.The world's wealthiest jewel thief, Sir John Locksley (a sinister looking Rex Harrison of "My Fair Lady"), is dying from cancer.
He invites four of the best thieves in the world to his palatial residence on St. Dismas, a remote, tiny Indian Ocean island where he lives alone with his servants.
The thieves include Kumar (Dharmendra), Romeo (O.P. Ralhan), the religious Dr. Bukhari (Shammi Kapoor), nimble German trapeze artist/tightrope walker Countess Rasmussen (Sylvia Miles of "Midnight Cowboy") and Colonel Columbus (John Saxon of "Enter the Dragon").
Sir John has chosen them because of their notorious reputations as criminals.
Believe me, he puts on a good act trying to convince them that he is an amateur, especially when he steals cuff links.
Indeed, Kumar turns out to be an impostor with an interesting background.
Sir John lives like a sultan on the island and commands his own loyal army of armed guards.
Sir John's beautiful nurse Sheila Enders (Zeenat Aman) and he escort their guests on a guided tour of his lavish estate and show them his elaborate security system that he has designed to safeguard the jewel.
Afterward, Sir John challenges them to see who can steal the legendary Shalimar ruby.
"It would be sacrilege to allow the ruby to pass into undeserving hands," Sir John explains.
"The title of the greatest thief will belong to one of you." The Shalimar Ruby has a history similar to The Maltese Falcon, having exchanged hands over the centuries.
Its first owner was none other than Alexander the Great who found it when he invaded India in 300 B.C. Briefly; Sir John explains that the Shalimar ruby is the largest single gem in the world.
The gem consists of 1, 214 karats and is valued at $135 million.The mute, crippled Colonel Columbus who communicates with sign language takes the first crack at the ruby, but he is shot in the back by a guard as he enters the room where the ruby is housed.
Kumar swears that he heard him scream when he was shot and killed.
"Do dead men scream?" Countess Rasmussen fares a little better.
Romeo, who tried to rob Sir John initially, dies next, and Dr. Bukhari is the last to bite the bullet.
Surprisingly, Kumar is the thief who manages to steal the ruby.
Although Sir John warned the quintet about the rule against collaborators, it seems that Sheila and Kumar were romantically engaged in a previous relationship.
Sir John, like all criminals, suffers his fate because he forced some many of his guards--approximately 18--to die in an effort to thwart the thieves.
The ruby is housed in a clear, see-through, cylinder constructed of bulletproof glass and Sir John has surveillance cameras stationed everywhere in his mansion."Raiders of the Sacred Stone" qualifies as an interesting potboiler that is done with a modicum of polish.
One of those 'what were they thinking' films that is almost so bad that it becomes oddly watchable.
The storyline isn't that bad but the production is mostly very shoddy.
There is one soft romantic song worth humming though.See it if you have nothing better to do.4/10.
Indo-Hollywood film.
This was the first joint production of Hollywood and Bollywood with mix of both actors and the film flopped badly when released.
The movie however is remembered today for it's 2 superhit songs Hum Bewafa and One 2 Cha Cha Cha. The film is also considered ahead of it's times.
The film is decent though it has Dharmendra play A CBI Inspector who acts like a thief to catch a diamond Shalimar which is owned by Rex Harrison who calls 4 criminals to his island and gives them a bet to rob the diamond.
Yet several scenes are fabolously executed.Direction is decent Music by RD Burman is superb,Hum Bewafa is still remembered, the song was perfectly rendered by Kishore Kumar, while One 2 Cha Cha Cha is superb too, rest are okayDharmendra is good in his role and plays it with ease,Zeenat Aman is alright, Shammi Kapoor gets a miniscule role and he is okay, Rex Harisson(voice dubbed by Kader Khan) is okay,Aruna Irani has one scene, rest are okay.
Sure this initially has a special character for a thriller / heist movie.
It's like a dark version of (It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad World – 1963), where the race is about big ruby, the racers are top thieves, and the loser gets simply killed.
It's clear that director / writer Krishna Shah wanted to allure both the American and Indian viewers by mixing a Hollywood heist plot (which Bollywood didn't use to), with some Bollywood songs and dances (which Hollywood didn't use to), casting actors from both sides, to lose – eventually – the viewers of both sides !
Actually the movie bombed at the box office; maybe because it seemed exotic for the 2 teams of viewers, maybe for artistic faults, or maybe for both matters !As for the artistic faults; Rex Harrison, while smartly cast as the elegant mysterious billionaire Sir John Locksley, presented his worst performance ever.
And to give you a perfect nervous breakdown; while she looked like a circus freak, everybody in the movie referred to her as ravishing and sexy (even Harrison's character raved at one moment about how "Death should've killed itself before touching a beauty like that." ???!!!).
Shah made a big mistake when he wrote the movie beside directing it.
Review with me : What was the point out of Sir John's fake paralysis ?!
What was the point out of Col. Columbus (John Saxon) fake limp and muteness ?
What was the point when the island people turn Columbus into a god ?!!
In brief, what a superfluous, unsolved, points !!Moreover, the awkward third act : The way how Kumar (Dharmendra) stole the ruby is super naive.
The thing is, he passed all the deadly advanced barriers without any high tech, using some idiot means (the black and white suit was incredibly obvious to a degree makes Sir John blind for not seeing it !).
Then, right in the middle of Kumar's escaping with the ruby, the movie inserts such a long song about life and death, and after it ends we return to follow Kumar's escaping !
Now this is completely wrong and badly provocative, producing one of the most unnecessary songs in movie history !!
The ending wasn't less awkward : Sir John is killed by sudden local revolution (!!!!), Kumar reveals that he's a police officer (HOW ??), and his reason to steal the ruby is because "It gave us so much troubles." (another HOW ??).
And while the revolutionists are chasing Kumar for the ruby, he doesn't care and gets married, then the movie ends, to make me laugh like a drain !
So, all in all, I can't say that Shah's writing isn't as good as his directing.
No. It rather destroyed his directing !On the contrary, Shah as a director was very good.
It's just weird that it got to repeat the shot of the naked blond girl, who was sleeping with the lead, on and on (maybe it's not weird, only proud; putting in mind how in 1978 many of the Indian cinema's conservative values were being broken !).
Dharmendra and Zeenat Aman are icons more than stars, their charisma and credibility are divine.
And by the way, their little kiss at the final shot was kind of bold back then, being one of the earliest kisses filmed in Bollywood movies after breaking the taboo of "kissing".
FYI, the Indian censorship used to consider kissing on screen "indecent" since 1947, before things got changed in the early 1970s with movies like (Bobby – 1972).But that kiss isn't the only thing to remember (Shalimar) with.
However, part of the performance and the casting, along with the movie's mind, namely its script, stood in front of this very movie's quality.
By rephrasing a line from the movie : "Absurdity should've killed itself before touching a beauty like that."It needs a remake.
Whether comes from Bollywood or Hollywood, it needs a remake.
Funny P.S : On the movie's international poster, you'll find no one but the British and American stars. |
tt0092534 | Allan Quatermain and the Lost City of Gold | After surviving their expedition to King Solomon's Mines, Allan and Jesse have settled down in colonial Africa. They are engaged to be married and Jesse plans that they will travel to America for the wedding. But Allan is restless.
A man chased by two strange masked men emerges from the jungle, and is recognised as one of Quatermain's friends. He is delirious and is cared for by Jesse and Allan, but at night, his pursuers return and kill him.
Before he dies, he tells Allan that his brother, supposedly lost, is alive, and that they have found the legendary 'Lost City of Gold'. Quatermain immediately starts preparing for an expedition to find his lost brother. Jesse is furious and stalks off, but then realises how important this is to Allan.
Allan and Jesse are assisted by Umslopogaas, a fearless warrior and old friend of Allan's, to put together an expedition. Swarma, a spiritual guru, and five Askari warriors, accompany them. The group crosses the Sahara desert; two Askari are lost when Swarma trips a trap that opens a pit under the road to the city. Another member of the party is lost when savage Esbowe warriors attack the group. Many spears get thrown at Quatermain and his friends, but Umslopogaas deflects most of them by with his giant axe.
Quatermain and his friends indeed discover the city. The inhabitants, both black and white, are friendly, and Allan meets his brother Robeson, seemingly in good health and at peace in the society. The city boasts two queens—the noble and beloved, Nyleptha and her power-hungry sister, Sorais. But the real leader is the evil High Priest, Agon, feared by all.
Allan raises the population against Agon and Sorais, who musters an army to recover the city by force. Allan realizes that they can make all the weapons they need out of gold, which is mined by the population. The final battle ends when, atop the temple, during a lightning storm, Allan uses Umslopogaas' axe to channel the lightning and melt the gold (into liquid form) causing it to flow off the side of the structure and pour over the attacking horde, turning Agon and his army into gold statues. | romantic | train | wikipedia | Richard Chamberlain and Sharon Stone reprise their roles as Alan Quatermain and Jesse Huston in "KING SOLOMON'S MINES".This time around, the quest is on to seek out a 'Utopian' society that has only been talked about, but never seen, hidden within a 'lost city of gold'.
The 'lost city' is in fact just a small white-stucco duplex with three floors and a 'staircase' that is supposed to resemble that of a Mayan or Aztec temple and the 'gold' is nothing more than a big vat of brown water and tormented slaves dragging around pallets of gold Styrofoam blocks.The good 'inhabitants' of this city are mainly fair-haired white folk with a handful of Africans wearing white robes, held under the tyranny of Henry Silva who is absolutely hilarious portraying a gold-infatuated crackpot who goes by the name of 'Agon' while donning ridiculous ceremonial robes and laughable KISS wigs.Most hilarious are Cassandra Peterson (a.k.a. Elvira) as Silva's evil hench-woman and Aileen Marson who spends what little time she has on-screen wearing outfits and hair-styles suitable for an episode of 'DYNASTY'.Chamberlain and Stone both know how ridiculous the script is, but make the most out of it with their antics and C-Grade acting methods.
He has one good scene where he 'destroys' a sacrificial table with his axe, and that is about it.Some other hilarious scenes to look out for would include Chamberlain blowing up a stone bench with a stick of dynamite and Silva being 'covered' in gold.
Actually, it looks like he gets a bowl of gold porridge dumped on his head, and the next scene he is a gold statue (LMAO!).Yes, "THE LOST CITY OF GOLD" is a turkey, but it IS darn hilarious!
While this movie is not as good as "KING SOLOMON'S MINES", I still enjoyed it all the same.
If it weren't for its dismal performance at the box office, I am sure a third 'adventure' would have been created to complete this trilogy, a C-Grade homage to Indiana Jones.So to all you serious movie buffs out there - this movie is silly and makes no excuses for its actions.
I think Richard Chamberlain, Sharon Stone and Henry Silva did it for the paycheck too.
"Allan Quatermain And the Lost City Of Gold" falls under that category; this is far beyond the most awful film I have in my collection.
Maybe that's why I can still be entertained by it."Allan Quatermain And the Lost City Of Gold" is the adventure genre's "Plan 9 From Outer Space" (though the special effects are slightly better), and I can still enjoy watching this delightly dreadful disaster of an adventure film..
And "Allan Quatermain and the Lost City of Gold" fits in the B-movie criteria!
Richard Chamberlin and Sharon Stone, before she was even a well-known actress play the protagonist explorers in Africa trying to look for Allan's lost brother and some treasure.
Even Richard Chamberlin and Sharon Stone looked embarrased to be in this movie!
A boring, so-called "adventure" with unintentional laughs.After creating the passable, but at least good-looking, "King Solomon's Mines (1985), the guys from Cannon Group/Golan-Globus production rushed this low-budget sequel (filmed back-to-back with the original) with the same lead cast, Richard Chamberlain and Sharon Stone.
The sets are low-budget (the Lost City of Gold wasn't even that much made of gold), the action sequences are badly staged and the script is pale.But the film is still really funny (mostly unintentional, of course)so I would recommend it to any viewer who is scrunched in a seat with nothing to watch.
But if your looking for an old-fashioned adventure romp, even like those in the same league as its predecessor KING SOLOMON'S MINES, your find yourself yawning after the first "action" scene unfolds.
Allan Quatermain and the Lost City of Gold!.
At this moment Allan Quatermain and the Lost City of Gold is at the IMDb bottom 100: #89 and I really disagree.It has a good cast which includes Richard Chamberlain,Sharon Stone,James Earl Jones,and Henry Silva!
The great white adventurer Quatermain leads a safari in search of an explorer , Allan's brother , who disappeared while searching a lost city.
Rider Haggard adventure follows again Allan Quatermain played by a sympathetic Richard Chamberlain .
This is the adventure of a lifetime starred by a fortune hunter called Allan Quatermain (one of the members of the League of Extraordinary Gentlemen) who teams up with a resourceful woman (Sharon Stone , according to her memoirs Kathleen Turner turned down the role of Jesse) to help her find his missing brother lost in the wilds of 1900s Africa while being pursued by hostile tribes and a rival sorcerer (Henry Silva) .
The search for lost city leads a safari formed by a warrior (James Earl Jones) wielding a deadly ax , a coward man named Swarme (Robert Donner) and five Ascaris through treacherous terrain of the jungle fending off Massai tribes , Lions , beasts , dangerous underground caves filled with monsters and strange bugs .
Allan Quatermain once again teams up with Jesse Huston where the discovery of a mysterious old gold piece sends Quatermain looking for his long-lost brother, missing in the wilds of Africa after seeking a lost white race .
The original film ¨King Salomon's mines¨ and its sequel, ¨Allan Quatermain and the Lost City of Gold¨ , adapted the novel Allan Quatermain (1887), arrive in theaters the year of the 100th anniversary of the first appearance of Allan Quatermain in the novel King Solomon's Mines in 1885 , it was an impressive accomplishment that Quatermain had two films arrive in theaters for his centenary celebrations ..
Furthermore , ¨King Salomon's mines¨ was filmed concurrently with its sequel, "Allan Quatermain and the City of Gold" starred by same duo along with James Earl Jones , Henry Silva and Cassandra Petersen - Elvira- as evil queen .
Gary is an usual TV director as episodes (Disneyland) as long time television movies (Murder in Coweta County , his best film) and occasionally cinema director (Allan Quatermain in the lost city of gold) ; children films (¨Freaky Friday¨ , ¨Get Smart¨ , ¨Jimmy the kid¨) ; Western (¨Molly and Lawless John¨ and ¨Santee¨) his most known and successful film was 'The black hole' ..
I rate this film as about average for the genre at the time of production, although its major failures are from its adherence to the premise of the 1950 Stewart Granger version of King Solomon's Mines.
Elvira is cast as Sorais, and Richard Chamberlain as Allan Quatermain declares on meeting her, "I've seen some amazing things in my life, but never anything to compare with this!" The films are full of the cliché scenes that filled Tarzan and earlier jungle films, clichés that have since become attached to the Indiana Jones films by those unfamiliar with the earlier genre.
Allan Quatermain and the Lost City of Gold is a sequel to the 1985 J.Lee Thompson bomb King Solomon's Mines.
Richard Chamberlain and Sharon Stone are reunited for this abysmal follow-up, which somehow contrives to be even worse than the already-awful original.
I would place this in the worst 50 films of all-time, possibly even within the worst 30!Quatermain (Chamberlain) and his sidekick Jessie (Stone) set off in search of the former's long-lost brother, who vanished while trying to locate a mythical lost city of gold deep in the Amazon.
Quatermain leads a revolt and helps the inhabitants of the lost city to win back their freedom.There's a real cheap 'n' tacky look to the film which reminds one of low-budget TV movies on the same theme (e.g Robbers of the Sacred Mountain).
Sock puppet monsters, awkward comedy relief, Henry Silva, curses, magic, Sharon Stone, and an axe-wielding James Earl Jones.
After King Solomon's Mines, Allan Quatermain (Richard Chamberlain) is in Africa and he's joined by Jesse Huston (Sharon Stone).
Umslopogaas (James Earl Jones) and Swarma (Robert Donner) also join them.This continues the same problem in King Solomon's Mines.
Richard Chamberlain was the reason I watched this movie with my wife and two sons ages 10 and 13.
I've seen a lot of movies in my day, and have a few thousand on DVD, but this really stinks.Feeble script, bad acting, and the worst special effects I've seen in a long time!
The film must have cost a lot, as there are hundreds of extras, and a lot of sets, although very crappy, most of them.The lead actors are well-known, and sometimes superb, but in this movie they stink, like the rest!.
Unbelievably lame and cheap-looking.James Earl Jones in his autobiography said he did this movie for the paycheck, and for the chance to go to Africa.
I completely lost it though when the "bad queen" does a flip and lands on the "bad guys" back, did they just throw their hands up at that point and say - "hell don't hide the wires or anything just leave the damn thing as it is" As I said to my husband as the credits rolled "I think that is possibly the worst movie I have ever seen in my life" it is worth watching for the sheer horror of watching stars like Richard Chamberline, Sharon Stone, and James Earl Jones act in what appears to be a high school production with a budget of $1.75..
Directed by Gary Nelson, Allan Quatermain and the Lost City of Gold re-teams Richard Chamberlain and Sharon Stone from J.
Rider Haggard, the emergence of Allan Quatermain onto the screen again was a desperate attempt to grab the coat tails of one Indiana Jones' success.
You get to see a very youthful and slim James Earl Jones in probably a performance he'd like to forget, plus Sharon Stone once again proves that she can't act and Henry Silva is a raving lunatic, but again, what the heck eh?
If you like movies like - Tomb Raider, Indiana Jones, National Treasure, and say things like, Brendan Frasier, or Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson style adventure movies and the like - You WILL definitely enjoy this, and moreover, this is probably a film that most people have not seen, or heard of.
It's great to find something new, that is old - and considering the genre's limited profile of movies, this film is far more than worth watching, if you really do enjoy them.Is this a Michael Bay, or J.J. Abrams film?
At the plus end of the scale (both entertainment-wise and budget-wise), I really enjoyed "Allan Quatermain and the Lost City of Gold" (1987), despite its bad reviews.
I used to be of the opinion that King Solomon's Mines (1985) was simply a shoddy Indiana Jones rip-off, but, after a recent re-watch, came to the rather generous conclusion that it was in fact a sly parody, which explained its sheer preposterousness.
Likewise, Allan Quatermain and the Lost City of Gold, director Gary Nelson's sequel, wants desperately to be a whole lot of over-the-top, tongue-in-cheek, campy fun, but fails spectacularly, the shoddy script, pitiful performances, poorly mounted action scenes, pathetic attempts at comedy, lousy special effects and overall cheapness making for a thoroughly cringe-worthy experience.Richard Chamberlain and Sharon Stone return as Allan Quatermain and Jesse Huston, who embark on an expedition to find a lost city of gold (lost, despite being clearly visible for miles around and easily seen from the sky).
After a perilous journey (which sees trouble with hostile natives, deadly booby traps, and a white-knuckle canoe trip through a mountain) the group arrive at their destination, where they meet Quatermain's missing brother Robeson (Martin Rabbett), but come to blows with evil high priest Agon (Henry Silva in a really bad wig), who wants to seize control of the city.There are simply too many naff moments for me to mention, but lowlights include an attack by silly-looking rock worms, the laughable high speed boat ride (which features very unconvincing blue screen effects), a hilarious swarm of bats (of the clockwork variety), some truly groan-worthy nonsense involving the wearing of spear-proof vests, Agon speaking in his native tongue, Quatermain melting a gold lion statue by hitting it with an axe (?!!?!), and some awful stunt-work in which the wires are clearly visible.1.5 out of 10, generously rounded up to 2 for the vaguely Spielbergian mouldy corpses and occasional spot of hokey gore, and for buxom Cassandra Petersen (better known as Elvira) as wicked queen Sorais..
and opinions.Martin Rabbett, who played Quatermain's brother in the film, was actually Chamberlain's partner at the time (and for many years after).
I didn't know this while watching the movie, but when the two finally meet up in the third act it's pretty clear Chamberlain has more chemistry with Rebbett than Sharon Stone.The music is essentially cut and pasted from the score Jerry Goldsmith did for the previous film, King Solomon's Mines.
It's pretty obviously so at times, but the music itself is fantastic.It's more than a little painful to watch a dignified actor like James Earl Jones have to slum his way through thankless roles like these.Speaking of JEJ, during one scene his character is being mauled by a lion, and I'm %97.8 sure that his too obvious stunt double is Patti LaBelle.There's actually a character billed as "Toothless Arab".
The story has Alan Quartermane and his new wife (both of which played by the same actors) going in search of Alan's brother who had set out looking for the lost city of gold.
It looks like it is going to be a cheap action movie, but one packed with enough thrills to keep one entertained, and then they make it to the city of gold and the movie just stops being entertaining.
The story and everything about the movie bogs down in the city of gold as does the whole Richard Chamberline as Alan Quartermane series.
Allan Quartermain and the Lost City of Gold.
Is it just me, or does this seem like a bad takeoff of Indiana Jones to anyone else?
This movie makes Plan 9 from Outer Space look like Citizen Kane.
Someone's lame attempt at cashing in on the original classic "King Solomon's Mines" (1950's version) and/or "Indiana Jones" interest.As I said in the title of this post, the only redeeming post is the 3 hot women besides Sharon Stone.One of whom is Cassandra Peterson (Elvira).James Earl Jones' acting talent (voice of Darth Vader) is wasted.
What's not to like, comedy, adventure and Sharon Stone.
Alright, it isn't exactly Oscar winning material, and it cashes in on the Indiana Jones kind of adventures, but this comedy adventure sequel of 1985's King Solomon's mines (filmed concurrently) has a lot going for it.
There is the kind of amusement park thrill ride quality, with excellent performances by Richard Chamberlain, Sharon Stone and James Earl Jones.
A dying explorer/adventurer (there always seems to be one of these in films of this nature) bursts out of the jungle as Quartemain is preparing to leave with his fiancé for their wedding in America, to let him know about a legend of a lost city of gold, populated by a white race in the heart of Africa.
Almost everything about Allan Quatermain and the Lost City of Gold is a complete and total disaster.
In the movie, Quatermain puts a group together to search for his brother in the wilds of Africa.
After facing several dangerous and near-death obstacles, Quatermain finds his brother living in the seemingly idyllic and Utopian Lost City of Gold.
If I were to just make a list of everything that doesn't work in Allan Quatermain and the Lost City of Gold, my list would go on for pages.
I've never thought much of Richard Chamberlain as an actor and this movie does nothing to change that.
But the special effects take Allan Quatermain and the Lost City of Gold to a new low.
The rear projection used in the 1930s is 10X more realistic than the blue haloed actors on a bad looking backgrounds seen in this movie.
Allan Quatermain and the Lost City of Gold is an adventure comedy that is loosely based on the novel written by H.Rider Haggard entitled,Allan Quatermain.It stars Richard Chamberlain in the title role together with Sharon Stone,James Earl Jones and Henry Silva.It is the sequel to King Solomon's Mines.After receiving a mysterious gold piece, Quatermain travels to Africa to find his brother, who is searching for a lost white tribe.
Yoram Globus and Menahem Golan,the same one who made Superman IV, served as the film's producers and it Gary Nelson directed it.The film's biggest achievement is it managed to bring back all the stars of the first film,King Solomon's Mines.But it still manages to capitalize on the popularity of Indiana Jones during the time of its release as it just manages to become its parody and nothing more.But nevertheless,it still managed to be cheesy fun despite of it..
Allan Quatermain and the Lost City of Gold is the sequel to King Solomon's mines which came out and flopped the year before.Richard Chamberlain is back as adventurer Allan Quatermain, this time he along with lover Jesse (Sharon Stone) are back in the wilds of Africa searching for his long lost Brother after he disappears seeking a lost White race.Having seen this I can say there is NO lost City of Gold - It's a building that looks like a Hospital and the 'race' consist of about 50 people in white dressing gowns, and there is no gold to be seen apart from a cauldron of sludge which is presumably Gold, with the villain of the piece played by Henry Silva hamming it up in a pathetic Diana Ross wig.Many people on here have asked how Quatermain manages to melt the Gold at the end through a mixture of axe hitting the roof & some lightning, I have NO idea and nothing is explained. |
tt0022428 | The Squaw Man | James Wynnegate (Dustin Farnum) and his cousin, Henry (Monroe Salisbury), are upper class Englishmen and have been made trustees for an orphans’ fund. Henry loses money in a bet at a derby and embezzles money from “the fund” to pay off his debts. When war office officials are informed of the money missing from “the fund," they pursue James, but he successfully escapes to Wyoming. There, James rescues Nat-U-Ritch (Lillian St. Cyr), daughter to the chief of the Utes tribe, from local outlaw Cash Hawkins (William Elmer). Hawkins plans to exact his revenge on James, but has his plans thwarted by Nat-U-Ritch, who fatally shoots him. Later, James gets into an accident in the mountains and needs to be rescued. Nat-U-Ritch tracks him down and carries him back to safety. As she nurses him back to health, they fall in love and later have a child. Meanwhile, during an exploration of the Alps, Henry falls off a cliff. Before he succumbs to his injuries, Henry signs a letter of confession proclaiming James’ innocence in the embezzlement. Before Henry's widow, Lady Diana (Winifred Kingston), and others arrive in Wyoming to tell James about the news, the Sheriff recovers the murder weapon that was used against Cash Hawkins inside of James and Nat-U-Ritch's home. Realizing their son was not safe, the couple sends him away, leaving them both distraught. Facing the possibilities of losing both her son and her freedom, Nat-U-Ritch decides to take her own life instead. The movie ends with both the chief of the Utes tribe and James embracing her body. | murder | train | wikipedia | As all film buffs know Cecil B.
DeMille's first version of The Squaw Man was the very first film done in what we now call Hollywood.
He did a second silent version and for his third film on his MGM hiatus from Paramount he did it once again.Third time was not the charm.
Although the actors, especially Warner Baxter as the disgraced English Earl who goes to the American west and meets, weds, and beds an Indian maiden, Lupe Velez are competent and sincere the film is terribly dated.
Depression audiences simply were not interested in a Victorian morality tale with a dose of the British stiff upper lip.It all sounds so quaint and ridiculous.
Baxter is accused of embezzlement and he knows who the culprit is, but won't inform because he doesn't want to disgrace the other guy's family.
So with admirable rectitude he heads west and make a new life in America.He also manages to make an enemy of Charles Bickford who was another rancher who covets his land.
But Baxter finds love with Lupe, as did most of Hollywood in real life, and he has a son who will in fact inherit his title.Cecil B.
DeMille was a child of his time.
Melodramas like The Squaw Man was the stuff that the legitimate theater did when he grew up and learned his trade from David Belasco.
But audiences weren't buying it in 1931, people had real issues about where the next meal was coming from and could they find work.
A story about some Victorian honor code just wasn't marketable.It's a sincere film though and it might be worth a look to judge what public tastes were at the turn of the last century and before the Roaring Twenties..
DeMille's Desert Saga.
An English aristocrat becomes 'THE SQUAW MAN' after leaving Britain under mysterious circumstances and marrying an Indian maiden in the American West.At the end of the Silent Era, famed director Cecil B.
DeMille signed a deal with MGM to produce three pictures over three years.
For the first two--DYNAMITE (1929) and MADAM Satan (1930)--he pulled out all the stops to present lavish photoplays of New York high society, with a mine cave-in and a dirigible disaster to liven things up.For his third film at MGM DeMille returned to his favorite story, which he'd already filmed twice before as a silent.
For this talkie version he kept the story simple, without special effects or unnecessary melodrama.
He also made outstanding use of filming on location in Arizona.
The result is a well-made film with a poignant storyline and an emotionally gripping conclusion.While Warner Baxter's American accent makes him rather unbelievable as an Englishman, this can be easily overlooked because of his fine performance.
But acting honors go to Lupe Velez, who strips away all unnecessary technique & mannerisms to deliver an uncomplicated, heartbreaking portrayal of a primitive woman wholly devoted to the man she adores and their son.
Without even trying, she completely dominates the film.The rest of the cast also make their mark in much smaller roles: beautiful Eleanor Boardman as the titled Englishwoman Baxter loves; owlish Roland Young as Baxter's best friend; shifty Paul Cavanagh as the feckless Earl of Kerhill; and Julia Faye as a fox hunting American widow.Out West, the cast includes angry Charles Bickford as a murderous rancher intent on grabbing Buzzards Pass from Baxter; bullying DeWitt Jennings as the corrupt sheriff of Maverick; J.
Farrell MacDonald as Baxter's loyal ranch hand; and little Dickie Moore, one of the OUR GANG kids, as the lively son of Baxter & Velez.
Wizened old Luke Cosgrave gives a few humorous moments as the cantankerous driver of a desert jalopy.DeMille's sojourn at MGM was not a commercial success for the Studio.
His contract wasn't extended and he returned to Paramount, where he would soon commence on some of the most popular films of his career..
DeMille perfects his noble tale.
I really enjoy films from around 1931.
I like the "early talkie" aesthetic, with gritty black & white photography, sparse (if any) musical scoring, and slightly edgy pre-Code content.
DeMille's THE SQUAW MAN (1931) is clearly not one of them.
DeMille was an auteur and THE SQUAW MAN is something special.
A cut above the usual Hollywood fare of the time.This 1931 film is actually DeMille's third adaptation of the story, following his 1914 and 1918 silents.
The third time's the charm for DeMille, who crafts an involving tale with a fine cast and the added dimension of sound.Jim Wyngate nobly leaves England to live in self-exile in America for the sake of his cousin's marriage to the beautiful Lady Diana.
At the same time, he nobly volunteers himself to take the blame for his cousin's embarrassing mishandling of charitable funds.
He settles out West and takes up ranching under an assumed name.
He makes friends and enemies amongst the cowboys and becomes attached to a young Indian woman.
(Native American, that is.) After years of living as a cowboy in Arizona, will Wyngate return to England and resume his past aristocratic lifestyle?
Warner Baxter, three years removed from his Oscar-winning turn as the Cisco Kid (IN OLD ARIZONA - 1928), stars as Jim Wyngate, the selfless hero.
The lovely Eleanor Boardman (THE CROWD - 1928) plays Lady Diana, who loves Wyngate but is married to his cousin (Paul Cavanagh).
Charles Bickford is great as the heavy and DeWitt Jennings does a good job as the villainous sheriff.
Roland Young (TOPPER - 1937), a personal favorite of mine, has a nice supporting role.Sexy Mexican spitfire Lupe Velez is Naturich, the "primitive-minded" Indian girl who is chivalrously defended by Wyngate and repays him by saving his life a couple times.
There's a connection between the two that transcends cultural barriers and, half a world away from Diana and his past life, the white man takes Naturich as his wife.
Velez is heartbreaking in a scene where she fashions a crude toy horse as a birthday gift for her half-breed son (Dickie Moore), who is more interested in his model train.This film is a vast improvement over C.B. DeMille's own landmark 1914 version.
Although the basic plot line is the same, there are several differences in the stories.
I don't know which film is closer to the original "Squaw Man" play, but I found this talkie version more effective.
(In fact, the 1914 film might not have made as much sense if I wasn't already familiar with the story from this later version.)The key to this version is the emotional ties between the characters.
Jim loves Diana, but nothing can come of it.
So he moves thousands of miles away, but we see his face when he sees her picture in the society section.
He learns to move on while living with Naturich, but Diana makes a surprise visit and expects things to be just as they were.
Jim is excited at the prospect of returning to England, but there's no place for Naturich in English society.
And noble Jim wouldn't walk out on poor sweet Naturich.
Half white man, half Indian.
Jim struggles to decide his son's future at a crucial point.
It may sound melodramatic, but viewers are invested in the characters and must know how things turn out.The characterizations in the 1914 silent film lack heart..
Great Performances But Not Quite As Good as the 1914 Version.
The Squaw Man (1931) ** 1/2 (out of 4) This here was Cecil B.
DeMille's third attempt at telling Edwin Milton Royle's play.
This time out it's Warner Baxter who plays Jim Carston, a British man who is ran out of his country so he heads to the United States and out West.
Once there he crosses a rival landowner but things take a turn for the worse when he falls in love with an Indian woman (Lupe Velez), which is a big no-no.
This version from DeMille offers up a terrific cast and I think the racial issues are a lot more out front here but I really can't say that this was any sort of improvement over the 1914 version, which I've seen.
I think the film's biggest problem is the pacing because at times it moves along at a very slow pace.
This includes the early stuff in Britain, which could have been completely left out and I think it would have helped.
I also thought some of the stuff in the West dragged during spots but there's no question that the film is still worth viewing for the performances alone.
Baxter was extremely good and believable in his part and there's certainly no doubt that he fit the tough guy role just fine.
Charles Bickford is excellent as always and we get nice support from Roland Young, Paul Cavanagh and a young Dickie Moore.
Velez easily steals the show as she's terrific in each scene she's in.
Her beauty is on full display and while I'm sure some might be offended by the way the Indian is played, I thought the performance itself was very good.
DeMille delivers a decent picture but at the same time one can't help but wish he had left this alone and attempted something else..
Considering that this film was made in 1931, it sure looks more like a silent film with words rather than a more modern looking film.
In 1931 we had films like "Frankenstein", "Cimarron", "Mata Hari", "City Lights", "Dracula", "M", "Public Enemy", "Dr. Jekyl and Mr. Hyde", and "Monkey Business".
All of these films had better acting, camera work and better use of sound, and they all had a more modern script.
"The Squaw Man" was the third filming of the play, all of them by Cecil B.
DeMille.
The play was written in 1905 and starred future famous silent film cowboy William S.
It ran for nearly a year and was revived several times, then spawned a novel.
But all 3 versions held steady to the Victorian plot, and even by 1931 it seems dated..
Watch For Lupe Velez.
This is the worst film that DeMille ever made ( at least those that I saw).
Perhaps if the scenes in England were cut and more Lupe Velez were shown I would like it better?
Speaking of Lupe although she played an Indian (Naturich), she looks more gypsy then anything else, but she was much better then anyone else.
Especially Warner Baxter who was better as a Mexican ( In Old Arizona) then an Englishman in this movie ( sort off like William Powell in 'The Key' does not work).
Although I am no fan of this movie, it is worth watching because of Lupe Velez and because all three of his ( DeMille) movies at MGM ( Dynamite and Madam Satan are the others) are rarely shown.3 of 10 stars..
Lupe Vélez proves that a Mexican playing a Native American in the United States isn't necessarily any less insulting than a white person taking the part.
Here, Vélez doesn't even dress the part--wearing traditional Mexican-looking clothes.
I would overlook the racism inherit in "The Squaw Man" melodrama--cloaked in the selling point of miscegenation--if there were anything more to the picture.
DeMille was shot at while making the 1914 version of the hackneyed stage soap opera, and this time he lost his job.
If anyone finds the 1918 version, I'll pass.
Why did DeMille bother?
I suppose, then, that it made sense for DeMille to try a talkie remake of his first box-office success.
The acting and dialogue are atrocious.(There's also a scene where Vélez undresses.).
This story is a bit hard to swallow.
A British noble leaves England to save the family name - his cousin, actually - who has embezzled and bankrupted the family fortune, leaving the woman he loves (who is married to the embezzler).
He then turns up as a rancher in Texas (honest, I'm not making this up), takes up with an Indian girl who bears him a son.
Seven years later, the embezzler dies but confesses, freeing the benighted couple to marry, she in England and he in Texas.
Well, I couldn't, but the principals are so in earnest and the mood so solemn that you give it a break - a rating of six, to be exact.I am into acting performances and this picture has many good ones; Warner Baxter (extremely in earnest), Eleanor Boardman and Roland Young (somewhat in earnest) and Lupe Velez, who really doesn't fit and, to my mind, nearly sinks the picture with a catatonic performance.
She got better in the "Mexican Spitfire" series in the 40's.
As I say, the preposterous plot is played with a straight face, so I gave this head-scratcher the benefit of the doubt..
It's amazing how racist this film is considering that DeMille was trying to promote understanding and improve the view of the American Indian--still, it is very enjoyable..
I enjoyed this film far more than I expected--especially since I usually hate DeMille films and the film comes off as very patronizing towards American Indians.
DeMille favored huge spectacular films that featured rather cardboard characters and so for that reason I had little interest in seeing the film.
Second, while it's obvious that DeMille is trying to say something positive about respecting and giving equality to our Indian brothers, the film often comes off as paternalistic and racist.
It's obvious that DeMille is trying to say something profound about American Indians but it just backfires.The film begins in England and oddly Warner Baxter is cast as an upper-class Brit despite his Columbus, Ohio origins.
While he was an amazingly underrated actor and did this role well for an American, it seemed odd that everyone in "Old Blighty" sounded like a local but Baxter.
Despite this, I really liked this portion of the film.
Baxter has fallen in love with his slimy cousin's wife, but being a decent man he's decided to leave the country because if he stays he knows that a romance between them is inevitable.
At about the same time, it turns out that the cousin has embezzled some funds and Baxter tells the cousin to blame this on him!
After all, he reasoned, he's leaving the country and won't come back and blaming Baxter will get the cousin out of a jam.
While it seemed like a very unlikely plot, the writing and execution of it was so good that I managed to suspend disbelief.
And, for once, DeMille seemed to do a decent job with characterizations--at least in this part of the film.
There were no huge scenes and the film was very character-driven.Later, after Baxter leaves England, he inexplicably relocates to the most desolate and godforsaken part of the United States.
The place is all dirt and cacti and the idea of an English lord living there is stretching things a bit!!
However, this also worked thanks to great acting.
The conflict between the evil and land-crazy Charles Bickford and Baxter was interesting as was Baxter's coming to a young Indian girl's defense when Bickford is abusing her.
I though that Baxter's treating the girl like a human being was a very positive statement and having this Indian fall in love with a White man was a great plot element.
After all, Americans (and most others throughout the world) probably would have not approved of this "miscegenation".
DeMille allowing them to slowly fall in love and marry was a great stand against racism--too bad the final portion of the film undid a lot of the positive strides such a plot might have made.
By the way, the lady was played by Lupe Valez--who doesn't exactly look Indian although all the other Indians in the film are authentic.
Plus, her talking and acting like a child through the film made the whole thing seem paternalistic after a while.Out of the blue, the cousin is killed and he admits that it was he and NOT Baxter who embezzled the money.
This allowed the cousin's wife to seek out Baxter and renew their love.
However, when she realizes that in the seven years that have passed that Baxter has married, this plan cannot be.
From this moment on, the film starts to slide downhill...and fast!
First, since the cousin is dead, apparently Baxter is the lord of the family estates and they want him to return to England.
However, he loves Lupe too much to leave Arizona so he proposes to instead send their cute little son (Dickie Moore) instead!!
This made no sense, as you wonder how a man can love his wife yet send away their three year-old son!
Why not try moving the family to the UK or perhaps spend part of the time in America and part of the time at the family estate?!
Second, and this is a bad example of script writing, although it's been seven years since Lupe murdered Bickford (and it was VERY justified), at the exact same moment the folks from England visit, the sheriff has just obtained new evidence to implicate Valez for murder!!
Now, at her death, Baxter would be available to move back to England with his kid and his old flame!!
This is just too much coincidence to seem like anything other than sloppy writing.
Plus, it seemed to say that Baxter's marrying an Indian was more of an inconvenience than anything else.
You would have thought that since the original SQUAW MAN came out in 1914 that DeMille could have done something to fix this plot element.Overall, it's an entertaining film that should have been a very positive statement about interracial love and understanding.
Instead, the Indians seemed rather stereotypical and Valez's character seemed amazingly one-dimensional.
Oddly, after seven years of marriage, she still talked a bit like Charlie Chan and an American Indian rolled into one!
A nice try and this is a film that would be great to remake today--after making the characters more believable. |
tt0094737 | Big | Twelve-year-old Josh Baskin, who lives with his parents and infant sister in Cliffside Park, New Jersey, is told he is too short for a carnival ride called the Ring of Fire, while attempting to impress Cynthia Benson, an older girl. He puts a coin into an unusual antique arcade fortune teller machine called Zoltar Speaks, and makes a wish to be "big". It dispenses a card stating "Your wish is granted", but Josh is spooked to see it was unplugged the entire time.
The next morning, Josh has been transformed into a 30-year-old man. He tries to find the Zoltar machine, only to see an empty plaza, the carnival having moved on. Returning home, he tries to explain his predicament to his mother, who refuses to listen and then threatens him, thinking he is a stranger who kidnapped her son. Fleeing from her, he then finds his best friend, Billy Kopecki, and convinces him of his identity by singing a rap that only they know. With Billy's help, he learns that it will take a long time to find the machine, so Josh rents a flophouse room in New York City and gets a job as a data entry clerk at MacMillan Toy Company.
Josh runs into the company's owner, Mr. MacMillan, at FAO Schwarz, and impresses him with his insight into current toys and his childlike enthusiasm. They play a duet on a foot-operated electronic keyboard, performing "Heart and Soul" and "Chopsticks." This earns Josh a promotion to a dream job: getting paid to test toys as Vice President in Charge of Production. With his promotion, his larger salary enables him to move into a spacious luxury apartment, which he and Billy fill with toys, a rigged Pepsi vending machine dispensing free drinks, and a pinball machine. He soon attracts the attention of Susan Lawrence, a fellow MacMillan executive. A romance begins to develop, to the annoyance of her ruthless former boyfriend and coworker, Paul Davenport. Josh becomes increasingly entwined in his "adult" life by spending time with her, mingling with her friends, and being in a steady relationship. His ideas become valuable assets to MacMillan Toys; however, he begins to forget what it is like to be a child, and he never has time to hang out with his best friend Billy because of his busy schedule.
MacMillan asks Josh to come up with proposals for a new line of toys. He is intimidated by the need to formulate the business aspects of the proposal, but Susan says she will handle the business end while he comes up with ideas. Nonetheless, he feels pressured, and longs for his old life. When he expresses doubts to her and attempts to explain that he is really a child, she interprets this as fear of commitment on his part, and dismisses his explanation.
Josh learns from Billy that the Zoltar machine is now at Sea Point Park. He leaves in the middle of presenting their proposal to MacMillan and other executives. Susan also leaves, and encounters Billy, who tells her where Josh went. At the park, Josh finds the machine, unplugs it and makes a wish to become "a kid again." He is then confronted by Susan, who, seeing the machine and the fortune it gave him, realizes he was telling the truth. She becomes despondent at realizing their relationship is over. He tells her she was the one thing about his adult life he wishes would not end and suggests she use the machine to turn herself into a little girl. She declines, saying that being a child once was enough, and takes him home. After sharing an emotional goodbye with Susan, he becomes a child again. He waves goodbye to Susan one last time before reuniting with his family. The film ends with Josh and Billy hanging out together, with the song "Heart and Soul" playing over the credits. | comedy, romantic | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0083619 | Barbarosa | Young Karl Westover (Gary Busey), a pre-Civil War Texas farm boy, accidentally kills his brother-in-law and must flee to Mexico. Early into his flight he is met by the outlaw Barbarosa (Willie Nelson) who, seconds later, kills a man who was following him. It is apparent that Barbarosa knows him, but doesn't say. Despite his disgust that Karl has nothing worth robbing, is loath to leave the poor rube to die in the desert. Barbarosa shows Karl how to find water, make a fire, and catch an armadillo for his supper before leaving him with the advice to go home to Texas.
Karl makes his way to a small pueblo and finds a grubby cantina. He is enjoying his first good meal in a long time and receiving the attentions of his first working girl ever when Barbarosa bursts in and robs everyone at gunpoint. Filling his sombrero with loot, Barbarosa instructs Karl to gather the rest, and steals away while everyone is bemused by Karl's amateurish performance. Nevertheless, Karl escapes, and he and Barbarosa ride together for the winter while Karl learns the life of an outlaw adventurer.
Karl is being pursued by Floyd and Otto Pahmeyer, the brothers of the man he killed, sent by their vengeful father. They are naive farm boys as Karl once was, and Karl and Barbarosa easily get the drop on them. Again to Barbarosa's disgust, Karl leaves them alive and tells them to go home. They say they can't, being more afraid of their father than the banditos. "You know how Papa gets", they tell Karl, and hike off to replace their guns and resume the chase.
The banditos encounter a poor old couple with a burro, and (yet again to Barbarosa's disgust) Karl refuses to rob them. Barbarosa and Karl are then captured by the outlaw Angel Morales and his gang, and as Angel is debating what to do with them the old couple, Angel's parents, arrive in camp and reveal great gobs of loot hidden in their burro's pack; Barbarosa tells Karl, "Well, I hope you're satisfied!" When the old couple tell their story, the enraged Angel shoots Barbarosa in the belly. He spares Karl's life for restraining Barbarosa from robbing his parents, but sets him to digging Barbarosa's grave. When Karl dumps Barbarosa's body in the shallow grave and starts throwing dirt in his face, he sneezes and whispers fiercely, "Stop that!"; it seems that the bullet was deflected by Barbarosa's big silver belt buckle, and he has been playing dead. Barbarosa scuttles off into the brush when no one is looking, and Karl quickly fills in the empty grave.
Angel's gang capture the hapless Floyd and Otto, and Angel shoots them on a whim, again setting Karl to dig the graves. But in the morning, a stuporous Angel struggles awake to find himself buried to the neck in the desert sand, with the dead heads of Floyd and Otto surrounding him. Terrified, he screams fruitlessly for help and for the author of his demise, "Barbaroooooosaaaaaaa!"
Even outlaws must have someplace to call home, it seems. Barbarosa has an ongoing love-hate relationship with the Zavala family. He brings his accumulated loot every few months when he visits his loyal wife, Josefina de Zavala (Isela Vega), who lives at the hacienda of her father, Don Braulio Zavala (Gilbert Roland, in his final film). Intensely bitter, Don Braulio hates Barbarosa for crippling him and killing his son in a drunken fracas, and every few years he sends another young Zavala son, nephew, or cousin to kill Barbarosa; none has yet succeeded, and most have been themselves killed in the attempt. Don Braulio's tales, stylized and heavy with symbolism, spur the young Zavalas to their best efforts to be worthy of such an adversary, and the Zavalas have become rich and powerful thereby. The songs recounting Barbarosa's exploits become longer and more celebratory each year, and recent verses also recount the adventures of Barbarosa's new sidekick, the "Gringo Child." Yet the chorus between every verse exhorts "all you men of courage to grease up your guns and knives . . . this is the part where they kill Barbarosa."
Barbarosa and Josefina have a nubile daughter, Juanita (Alma Martinez), who decides she likes the Gringo Child and hides Karl from searchers in her bed. Interrupted by her parents, Karl is kicked into the plaza by the enraged Barbarosa; the ruckus raises Don Braulio and the household, who rush to the plaza, guns blazing. Barbarosa twirls his Appaloosa horse in the gate, whooping, displaying his horsemanship and courage, and the banditos escape at the gallop amid a hail of bloodless gunplay. And when Karl too shows some backbone, telling Barbarosa that he liked Juanita and intends to visit her again, Barbarosa smiles and says that's fine with him.
In the spring, Barbarosa and Karl decide to return to Texas. Climbing out of the Rio Grande canyon, Karl attempts to lend Barbarosa a hand up the final ledge. Karl is hampered by the saddlebags he is holding so Barbarosa says "Get rid of that!" To which Karl flings the saddlebags (containing the loot) back over the cliff. Terminally disgusted, Barbarosa yells at him, "I didn't say throw the MONEY down THERE! I've BEEN down THERE!!!". Karl makes the aruous climb back down the cliff. He disturbs a rattlesnake and falls into the river. When Karl struggles back to the canyon rim that evening he finds Barbarosa waiting beside a campfire. He dumps the saddlebags of money at Barbarosa's feet, but Barbarosa is still peeved: "Bet you didn't bring an armadillo for my supper!" But Karl reveals his other hand from behind his back, tossing a dead armadillo into Barbarosa's lap. Both look at each other and laugh; Karl is learning, and starting to give as good as he gets.
Barbarosa and Karl come to the Texas Hill Country and the German immigrant colony where Karl grew up, and ride into a stockmen's rendezvous. While enjoying eating barbecue and watching horse races, Karl mentions that horses are something he knows about and considers buying some broncos to take home to his father's farm. Suddenly a shot rings out—it is old Mr. Pahmeyer (George Voskovec), still seeking to kill Karl for the death of his sons. In his rage, he misses. Karl covers him with his revolver and makes him stop trying to reload. "Go home, Mr. Pahmeyer, just go home!" he orders, and Mr. Pahmeyer has no choice but to obey.
Karl buys his horses, but Barbarosa declines to accompany him back to lawful living. "To tell the truth, I'm worn out keeping you amused," he grumbles. The two part ways as friends.
Karl drives his herd to the farm, finding it very run down, his mother died, himself given up for dead, and his father Emile (Howland Chamberlain) and sister Hilda (Sharon Compton) despondent. He cheers them up, telling them that he "had a little luck down in Mexico -- me and another fellow." Next morning Emile steps outside to inspect "our horses." "OUR horses?" jokes Karl. "You'd best break a few before it's 'OUR horses'!", and Hilda laughs with them. But their laughter turns to screams as Mr. Pahmeyer takes another potshot from the woods, again missing Karl but killing his father.
Karl goes alone to the Pahmeyer farmhouse, calling Mr. Pahmeyer to come out and end the feud. Mr. Pahmeyer calls back that he is sorry about killing Emile, that he never intended to do that. Karl calls back that he knows that, and again offers to end the feud. But despite the cries of his wife, Mr. Pahmeyer calls, "I don't think I can do it!" and charges out the door with his gun. Howling, "NOOOOO!", Karl is forced to kill him.
Karl and Barbarosa reunite after some time (Karl's beard and hair have grown out). During a brief split, Karl aids Barbarosa in evading Eduardo Zavala (Danny de la Paz), the most recent young would-be killer sent out by Don Braulio. Without Barbarosa's knowledge, he disarms Eduardo and strips him of his guns, his horse, and his boots. "WALK home! Git!" he orders Eduardo.
But Eduardo is made of sterner stuff than his predecessors. He hones his silver crucifix down to a dagger point, wraps his feet in rawhide thongs, and stalks Barbarosa on foot. He leaps upon Barbarosa from ambush and stabs him in the belly, then flees to the south.
As Karl sits with his dying friend, they discuss Barbarosa's life and death. "A man couldn't ask for better than what I had with the Zavalas," Barbarosa says. And then, "The little bastard's going back to tell everyone Barbarosa's dead. Barbarosa can't die!" Karl realizes, "He's afoot!" and may be caught before he gets back to the Zavala hacienda.
Karl cremates Barbarosa's body, and pursues Eduardo at the gallop. But Eduardo has learned, and knocks Karl out by hitting him with a branch. Taking Karl's horse, Eduardo makes it back to the hacienda and is greeted as a hero. A fiesta is planned in his honor.
Karl sits beside a campfire, defeated, nursing his headache. There is a rustle in the brush, and out comes Barbarosa's Appaloosa, with Barbarosa's saddle and enormous sombrero. Karl perks up.
The fiesta at the Zavala hacienda is the most funereal party imaginable. Don Braulio Josephina and Jaunita look lost and bereft, the rest of the clan dance while contemplating directionless life without a Barbarosa to fight. Out of the night gallops a red-bearded man in an enormous sombrero on an Appaloosa, whooping and twirling and shooting up the sky. As Eduardo is about to be presented a black wreath of honor, Karl aims and shoots the wreath just before it is placed on his head. The Zavalas shout, "Barbarosa! Barbarosa! Barbarosaaaa!" and scramble for their guns and knives.
(In the unedited original, Eduardo's announcement of Barbarosa's death to Don Braulio is followed by an angry exchange between the two men. The exchange reveals that Don Braulio has been using Barbarosa as a family demon to strengthen the family. Don Braulio is angry that Barbarosa is dead. Eduardo is angry that he, and all men sent out before him, were used by Don Braulio. They agree to continue the facade and plans for a festival are made. Without this normally edited scene the acceptance of Barbarosa's reappearance by Don Braulio and Eduardo makes no sense.) | revenge, comedy, murder | train | wikipedia | From the quirky opening scenes in this film (a photographer, a dead guy propped up in a pine box & various family members posing w/same)you are taken to an intriguing and rather unsettling place.
The cinematography in the film suggests one of those cool(albeit weird) 'spaghetti westerns'.
The director's vision comes through, chillingly well at times all throughout this film.Willie Nelson's performance is, well what can you say except he is his consummate Willie-ness and in this film it works particularly well.
Gary Busey's interpretation of his role as Karl is understated and approaches absolute perfection.
This is another one of those films that you really need to watch several times to "get" the full effect.
The one and only negative I found with this movie is a personal distaste for the (over)use of the expletive 'G.D.' - it's totally unnecessary and my Southern Baptist ears were ringing by the end of the film.
Back when this film came out (1982), a friend told me it was no good, Willie Nelson can't act, blah, blah, blah.
Well, 22 years later, 'Barbarosa' is on cable on American Movie Classics on a hot July afternoon, there isn't nothing' else on, so I say, okay, I'll give it fifteen minutes to get my attention.Well, I gotta say, 'Barbarosa just BLEW ME AWAY!I am Texan born and bred, and have done a fair amount of inquiry into old Texas lore, and this film is just SO RIGHT in so many details.
In recent films like 'Cold Mountain', 'Open Range', and 'The Missing', it is much in vogue to get the 19th century period details exactly right.
Well, 'Barbrosa' knocked that ball out of the park 22 years ago!The basic feel of the old Texas homesteads and the horse race and barbecue, they still existed much like that out in West Texas when I was a kid.The basic plot line is about two converging family blood feuds, one Spanish, the other German American, that is so TOTALLY authentic for this period!
Gary Busey is one of my favorite actors, despite a habit of making tons of low budget el crappo films.
He is at the top of his game in 'Barbarosa'.While the film does have it's quirky moments, it is basically believable, and some of those old-timers were indeed quirky.(Warning!
They CAN carry leprosy.) My only beef is that the musical score didn't always seem to match the dramatic action, the music is wry and whimsical at the wrong time, possibly aping some spaghetti Western, but is fine when it sticks to Spanish guitar.Some have labeled 'Barbarosa' a spaghetti Western.
This was a successful attempt to make an authentically period Texas border film, by folks who knew what they are doing.Some find the gunplay subdued and 'unrealistic', but 'Barbarosa' rightly shows the reality of old west killing where setting up the bushwhack and sniffing the ambush were far more decisive than actually pulling of the trigger.In the old man's tale, you learn that Barbarosa was originally a Texas Ranger, who were often called los diablo's (the devils) by border Mexicans.
This obscure Western was one of my favorite movies as a kid.
While this must mean that a large number of people watched the movie, everyone I know who has seen it saw it on my TV.Willie Nelson, not someone I think of as an actor, is excellent.
Gary Busey, in the height of his coke-head days, turns in another wonderful performance.
The story is different, as the previous reviewer pointed out, from all the other Westerns, and the cinematography is unbelievable.Definitely a movie to rent or buy..
Gary Busey playing a second generation German American farm boy being pursued by Old World family members to avenge a death.
Ironically, he teams up with Willie Nelson to escape his executioners only to find that Willy is being pursued by Mexicans who call him "Barbarosa".Busey is excellent as the farm boy and Nelson just plays himself in this unique Western that appears to utilize great scenery to include authentic 19th century farmhouses and a great plot.
Gilbert Roland, in a classic supporting role, plays the elder of the Mexicans who utilizes his respect in the Mexican community to whip up hatred towards "Barbarosa".This acknowledges that Texas, like the rest of the U.S., was formed and shaped by many ethnic groups.
A Great Western and an Examination of Myth.
Barbarosa is one of the best westerns ever made.
Both men are looking for a place in the world and the role they find is that of outlaw hero, players in a mythic drama that gives them meaning.
The myth is that of the Outlaw Lover ( as in Hughes' The Outlaw or Brando's One-Eyed Jacks ) and both Nelson and Busey play their roles to perfection.
The directing is excellent and the dialogue nigh perfect -- a great western!
I've seen this movie several times over the years, since it first came out on VHS.
Nelson and Roland each have great screen presences, are good throughout, but particularly in their one scene together.
A lot of westerns end up being remakes of previous outings, so when someone comes up with something original, I take notice.
This is one such movie and it is one of my all time favorites.While Willie Nelson will never get an Oscar for acting, he plays himself brilliantly ...
And Gary Busey does a fine job playing a farm boy turned outlaw.
Their relationship grows with each scene and draws you into it until you are emotionally connected with them both.This movie is definitely not for the folks who want non-stop action with guns blazing from the opening scene until the final credits, but if you like a slower paced movie that takes it's time building it's characters and drawing you into their lives, this movie is for you..
First, I have to say, the very first person to review this movie on IMDb apparently is only attracted to violence in movies, and doesn't want to try to actually see the story line.
Odd, how at a later date, every review has an "unhelpful" flag next to it.The story woven in Barbarosa is an excellent one, and no one could've pulled off the title role except Willie.
The eventual transformation of Karl, from naive farm boy on the run into Barbarosa himself, is astonishing, everything from the way he looks to the way he sounds.
Busey is perfect for his role..
A legendary outlaw(Willie Nelson) join forces with a youngest(Gary Busey) who converts his protégé.
One was a legend the other would become one, both are usually on the lam and pursued by vengeful men caused for family blood feud carried out by Don Braulio (Gilbert Roland).This gentle western contains action-Western, adventures, pursuits and brief touch of comedy about the enjoyable relationship between master and pupil.
Most of the action of this modest Western takes place on breathtaking outdoors similarly to marvelous landscapes of the majestic John Ford .Packs a light touch in the wake of ¨Paul Newman- Robert Redford's Butch Cassidy and Sundance Kid¨ adding a little bit of violence.There are some good action scenes that can fit in the previous film.The straightforward screenplay and unglamorous production give a true feeling of the Old West set in Texas.
The performances by outcast, free-spirited Willie Nelson and Gary Busey do bring pleasure.
Nelson shows the many sides of his spirited character.Australian director Fred Schepisi has flavorfully directed a nice and interesting Western.His greatest hits took place in the 80s such as proved in ¨Iceman,Plenty,Roxanne,Cry in the dark¨¨and of course ¨Barbarosa¨.For sheer spirit-lifting entertainment you can't do better that watching this picture..
Willie Nelson and Gary Busey were born to play these parts.
As for Busey, I will forever love him just for having made this film.
I saw Barbarosa during its original release and have been in love with it ever since.
Even though I have Barbarosa on tape, I watch this movie whenever it is on TV.
The title role of Barbarosa is played by Willie Nelson and he's a former Texas Ranger turned outlaw who's on the run from his various crimes and from his in-laws who don't like him very much.
He's lost several other family members in trying to kill Nelson to avenge that.But Nelson picks up Gary Busey a farm kid on the run from a feud himself because he accidentally killed his brother-in-law.
Busey takes up with Nelson and his outlaw ways and the two become an amiable pair.Judging by the other reviewers Barbarosa seems to have a bit of a following.
I wouldn't call it great by any means, still it's certainly entertaining enough for the discriminating western fans.Barbarosa's significance to me is that it is the farewell performance of Gilbert Roland whose career went back six decades into the silent era when he was touted as a would be Valentino successor.
He's an understandably bitter man in this film and it was a good performance to go out on.Western fans won't mind this one and Nelson and Busey have a nice chemistry between them..
Seeing a negative review (one of two posted here out of the 12 so far) at the top of the list for this tremendously moving work of mythical story-telling has moved me to post this.It would be redundant to say anything more than has already been stated in the many insightful and intelligent comments to be found in those ten other reviews, all of which are well worth reading.All I can say in closing has also been stated a thousand times before: there is no accounting for taste and thank goodness that in this case, if only for just once, I may happily throw my hat into the ring with the majority--even if it should first have to be stolen off the head of one of the Zavalas while he is sleeping.
Gary Busey walks away with this one....
This films drifts along through some absolutely gorgeous western scenery.
Willie Nelson (Barbarosa) has some good scenes, along with Gilbert Roland who plays his revengeful father-in-law, but Gary Busey steals the show as Carl, the hard luck "farmboy".
It's not the greatest movie ever made, but I enjoyed watching it......more like a fable than a western.
The story is almost Shakespearean in scope and the pacing isn't as fast as most audiences seem to demand, but there's a lot there for the patient viewer.Barbarosa (played by Willie Nelson) and Karl (played by Gary Busey) have both been involved in killings that have turned families against them.
In the end, it becomes more of a meditation on how these men have lived their lives than any kind of morality play (which seems to be what the western is often used to convey).
Even little things like the way Busey calls, "Hello to the house." in one scene are perfect (my grandmother told stories of her father approaching homes that way back in 'horse and buggy days').
The movie also features Gilbert Roland in his last role.
This is a film that reconciles the legend of the old west with its realities and becomes more powerful as a result.
I notice Netflix has it in stock.If you love westerns, you're sure to enjoy this one..
Gary Busey and Willie Nelson both turned in Oscar winning performances but everyone, no matter how small their bit part; turned in stellar performances.
The mark of a truly great story is that it becomes a legend because as far fetched as it might seem we somehow want to believe that the legend is true - therefore the movie dispels disbelief.
"Barbarosa" stars the great country singer Willie Nelson in the title role: a self-styled outlaw, who makes the acquaintance of bumbling former farmboy Karl (Gary Busey).
Barbarosa isn't particularly looking for a sidekick or a protégé, but he and the eager-to-please Karl forge a strong friendship.
As they go around committing robberies, there is a nemesis from Barbarosas' past, Don Braulio (Gilbert Roland) who is eager to put an end to his days.Australian filmmaker Fred Schepisi made his American debut with this thoughtful and likable film, a very nicely shot combination of character study and Western drama.
Wittliff has some good lines, and gives us a story and characters worth caring about.
Busey's rarely been more appealing, and he and Nelson get some fine chemistry going as their personalities clash.
There are also some first rate actors in other supporting roles: Danny De La Paz, George Voskovec as the vengeful Herman Pahmeyer, Howland Chamberlain, Harry Caesar, Kai Wulff, and father and son character actors Roberto and Luis Contreras.Best of all, this film manages to make its points and explore its themes while also wrapping up in a reasonable amount of time (90 minutes all told).
It's all gorgeously shot (by Ian Baker) and wonderfully scored (by Bruce Smeaton).Buseys' son Jake has a tiny role as a "cook boy".Eight out of 10..
Barbarosa is a terrific western, very under-rated, and easily deserving a higher place in the pantheon of oaters.Many posters correctly point out the film's theme of legend-building, how the myth of the Barbarosa started and grows.But there's another key and tragic element to this fine film - the cost young men must pay to fuel their fathers' hatred and rivalries.
As a western, this movie was so dull and tedious.
Willie Nelson looked too old and too tired for his role.
He looked nothing like the supposed "menacing and bloodthirsty" Barbarosa.
Karl Westover (Gary Busey) is a runaway Texas farm boy.
His brothers want to bring him back but he follows bandit Barbarosa (Willie Nelson) instead.
A Mexican bandit kills his brothers and shoots Barbarosa.
However Karl and Barbarosa are both hunted men.Willie Nelson lacks the acting power to be a feared bandit and Gary Busey's character is way too stupid.
There is something genuinely sweet and innocent about Willie Nelson even though he wasn't even fifty yet while filming Barbarosa he already has the worn, tough, aged face of a man twenty years older than he, and yet he has the eyes of a puppy dog.
He is the perfect man to play the legendary thief Barbarosa, a man who is feared by many but whom the audience must like immediately.
Gary Busey playing the farm boy Carl seems a little too old for this role (he was pushing late 30's) but is terrific as well.Barbarosa is a light, easy-going film, with some occasional moments of violence.
It's obvious where the film is headed once the two protagonists meet up; every step of the movie has been mapped out.
The Spaniards all know of the the legend that they whisper his name with eyes wide as he rides by
and yet nobody in Carl's town mentions Barbarosa once.
Barbarosa gets shot by a group of Spaniards who are out looking for him and Carl is the one who has to bury him.
Instead of a 'Wow, you really are invincible!' reaction, we get a 'Oh that's good, you're OK.' Maybe that's the point that Carl accepts Barbarosa as a person, not a fable or a legend.
They're only a few days away apparently does Barbarosa not like that part of the country do his people never leave town?
Barbarosa is a lot of back-story and not enough of a friendship tale.
The scenes with Barbarosa teaching Carl are trite and unbelievable.
Carl seems to know too much too soon about being out in the wild.Barbarosa is never exciting enough to be an adventure film and there aren't enough calmer moments for the film to develop the friendship between these characters.
It's not until the very last bit of the film that we learn why Barbarosa became who he was, and it's no big surprise.The very end of Barbarosa should have worked it's a obvious gimmick that's tried and true, but the friendship hasn't been solidified like it should and so the ending falls flat.
Barbarosa isn't a bad movie, it's that so much of the movie is like the ending - it's a nice try, but it never hits the bullseye.**1/2 out of ****.
Where is the original cut of this movie?.
The first time I saw this movie it had a scene in it where Don Brajilo berates the returning Eduardo for killing Barbarosa and explains that the feud with Barbarosa was his way of deliberately pumping up the family to make something of itself, and asks Eduardo what he will do to keep the family going when it is his turn to be patrone.
Has anyone but my wife and myself seen this film with at least one or more extra scenes.
By the way, in my opinion this is not only one of the finest westerns that I have ever seen, but one of the best movies of all time.
Naïve, but eager farmhand Karl Westover (a fine and amiable performance by Gary Busey) goes on the lam after he accidentally kills his brother-in-law.
Karl befriends shrewd and resourceful outlaw Barbarosa (wonderfully played with tremendous rascally charm by Willie Nelson), who teaches Karl how to survive in the wild.Director Fred Schepisi offers a flavorsome and meticulous evocation of a past time and place, relates the story at a measured pace, makes the most out of the dusty and desolate Tex-Mex prairie frontier setting, and puts a welcome and refreshing emphasis on people over action.
Moreover, the natural and engaging chemistry between Nelson and Busey gives this picture a winning surplus of pure heart and appeal; they receive sturdy support from Isela Vega as Barbarosa's lusty estranged wife Josephina, Gilbert Roland as the vengeful Don Braulio, Danny De La Paz as the angry and relentless Eduardo, George Voskovec as the vindictive Herman Pahmeyer, Alma Martinez as the sweet Juanita, and Luis Contreras as slimy bandito Angel. |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.