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
⌀ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
tt0030775 | Spawn of the North | Jim Kimmerlee owns a salmon cannery. He is pleased to see old friend Tyler Dawson, who has been away hunting seal. Also glad to see Tyler is his sweetheart, hotel owner Nicky Duval.
Thieves have been stealing from fishing traps. Jim is determined to put a stop to it, engaging in a feud with Red Skain, a Russian fisherman who is suspected in the thefts.
Di Turlon comes back to town after several years of big-city life. The adjustment to the fishing community is awkward at first, but Di comes around and becomes interested romantically in Jim.
As he and others go after Red and the thieves, Jim is dismayed to learn that Tyler has become one of Red's accomplices. Planning to catch the fish poachers in the act, Jim tries to spare Tyler by having Nicky sabotage his boat, but Tyler finds another vessel and joins Red at sea. Jim exchanges gunfire with the thieves, killing two and wounding Tyler.
After being found and helped by his friend after Red has abandoned him, Tyler decides there is one more thing he must do. Close to death, he takes a boat back out, confronts Red, then blows a loud boat whistle that causes an avalanche, resulting in both men's death. Jim speaks admiringly of his friend's sacrificial act. | murder | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0109484 | Corrina, Corrina | The film opens and a scene of black-heeled shoes are seen. Voices are discussing food and recipes when the search for Molly (Tina Majorino) ensues. She is located under the serving table, by her grandfather who joins her. It is then understood that Molly's mother, Annie, has suddenly died; this gathering is the post-funerary "pot-luck" at the home of the now-widowed Manny Singer (Ray Liotta). Grandfather Harry (Don Ameche) stays under the table with Molly as they are slowly joined by (and we are introduced to) the other main cast including Manny's mother, the old world Eva (Erica Yohn).
As his friends and family leave after the gathering, it is apparent that this new situation is going to be trying. A newly-widowed man and his seven-year old girl, who will no longer speak, due to her mother's passing, trying to find a way to move forward. There is a need for a housekeeper/nanny so that Manny can return to work (and to also crank out selling jingles for a living lest his job becomes shaky—per his best friend and boss, Sid (Larry Miller).
After a failed trial run with a nanny of sorts, Corrina Washington (Whoopi Goldberg) interviews for the position. Since her mother's death, Molly has not only refused to speak but does not even acknowledge people. She responds to Corrina and Manny hires her as a housekeeper. Very quickly a strong bond is formed between them. Corrina works out a system to "talk" with her without making her speak and also helps her find a pet turtle they name Lois.
Corrina watches the early struggles of life after Annie. She asks about an unfinished grocery list and Manny admits to being unable to erase Annie's handwriting from the board. Late one evening a distraught Manny lies and says Annie is in the bathtub, rather than admit to her sudden passing. Upon hearing this lie, Molly runs to the tub hoping to see her. Corrina sees the lonely Molly sit quietly in the empty tub while Manny buries his head in his hands as he sits in the chair Annie purchased for their home.
As Corrina adjusts to her new role, Manny and Molly adjust to her ways too. Manny, overhearing her discussing Heaven, asks that she avoid the topic. He and Annie were atheists and he does not want Molly to believe in a god he does not believe in. Corrina does not disobey but notes that she too will just have to explain to Molly that her mother is in the bathtub instead of facing reality. Meanwhile, while watching TV, Molly sees a commercial that notes how deadly cigarettes are and watching her father smoke scares her. She begins hiding his cigarettes.
While Corrina is making Manny's bed, Molly speaks for the first time noting the spot where her mother used to sleep. When consoling Molly about Annie, Corrina explains that she is with the angels and perhaps Manny is jealous of the ones who get to spend all day with her. Molly finds comfort in knowing she is somewhere happy. That night, when Manny comes home, Molly tells him about the dinner she has helped make. Hearing the sound of her voice brings joy to him. Corrina stays for dinner upon Molly's insistence and she and Manny discover a common bond in music.
Molly begins to spend time with Corrina's sister, Jevina, her brother-in-law, Frank, her nephew, Percy, and her nieces, Lizzie and Mavis. They take her to church and welcome her into their home. The children welcome her and they become close friends. Meanwhile, Manny is introduced to Jenny (Wendy Crewson), a perky white woman with two unruly sons. Jevina wants Corrina to date a black man, Anthony. Corrina says she is uninterested and, "in the words of Gertrude Stein, girl, there ain't no "there" there."
Manny is still struggling with losing Annie and although Sid feels Jenny is the perfect fit, he is not ready to date. Molly begins talk about Heaven and her mother. A frustrated Manny tells her that Heaven is just something that people make up so they won't feel sad anymore. She replies, "Well, what's wrong with that?" and starts asking about Annie. When he refuses to talk about her she cries, "She's disappearing! She's almost gone!"
A frightened Molly must return to school and to give her some confidence, Corrina tells her to remember she is "Molly Singer and there is no one in the world better than she is." While coloring family pictures, she is mocked for adding Corrina to her picture. She repeats Corrina's message to herself but she is visibly hurt. She runs into Corrina's arms at the end of the day, desperate to go home. Manny and Corrina have an exchange about stealing each other's cigarettes, not knowing how they can go through so many so quickly. That night, Molly awakes from a nightmare where she could not get her mother to turn around. Corrina and Manny run to her side but she is scared and angry. She tells her father, "It's all your fault she's gone! I hate you" and Corrina tells her she is allowed to be mad. Manny admits to her how hurt he is about losing Annie and how much he misses her too. That night Jevina chastises Corrina for pretending to become a part of this new family.
A terrified Molly begs Corrina to let her stay home from school and she secretly agrees. At work, Manny struggles with a new project for Jell-O pudding. Corrina spends more time with them and she and Manny slowly discover they are more compatible with each other than anyone else. He confides in her about Annie and she talks about her long gone former husband. They share a love of music and she even assists him on his new jingle. After a successful advertising campaign, he comes home with flowers for Molly as well as Corrina. Their private celebration is interrupted by a visit from Jenny, which Corrina takes as a cue that she is not meant to stay. Molly starts hiding her father's cigarettes in the sandbox as for revenge of disliking what he has done.
The next day, a flustered Corrina goes to work where Manny apologizes for Jenny's meeting. He admits all he wanted was to celebrate with Molly and Corrina. As they say goodbye, they share a kiss on the cheek. Manny's nosey neighbor sees this embrace. Corrina and Manny begin to fall in love and, in 1950s America, face difficulties as an interracial couple. A night out for dinner leads to racial slurs from fellow patrons that Molly does not understand. She, however, is taken with Corrina and she asks Harry to make sure that Manny marries Corrina one day.
Manny buys Corrina an album one night, after she admits her interest in writing liner notes and Jevina finds the gesture inappropriate. She thinks that Manny and Corrina are wrong for each other. Molly also struggles with tension when she unknowing calls Lizzie a racial slur, not knowing what her words mean. Manny's nosey neighbor tells Eva about the budding romance and she tells Manny that she is concerned for him. He thinks Corrina is the best thing in the world for Molly.
After losing Molly's kite, Manny finds it in the backyard next to dozens and dozens of cigarettes. He confronts her and she says that she doesn't want them to kill him. He promises to be there for her and hugs her. A moving truck delivers more furniture to the house but a couch won't fit in through the door so it remains on the lawn. That night, Corrina and Manny talk about their last words with their spouses and share a moonlight dance. They share a kiss that is witnessed by a glowing Molly.
After weeks of not attending school, Corrina gives Molly a scrapbook with a turtle to keep her school items in, suggesting it's almost time for her to go back. She does not respond to the gesture as she is not yet ready to. After a call from Molly's teacher, Manny finds out that Corrina had been letting her skip school. Corrina felt she wasn’t ready to go back. In a fit of anger, he tells her that she is not Molly's mother and fires her, taking a heartbroken Molly home.
Molly becomes withdrawn again, and soon after, Manny learns that Harry has died. Jenny tries to win over him again but he is not interested. After the funeral, he goes to visit Corrina at her house to tell her of Harry's passing and to properly apologize. After an unsuccessful talk, she overhears his not-so quiet prayers to God to help him out. She gives him the scrapbook for Molly and he hopes she will give it to her in person. She informs him that she quit and he assures her that she was replaced. They embrace and he begins to kiss her. She brings him inside to formally meet her family.
The film ends with Molly singing "This Little Light of Mine" in order to cheer up Eva. Finally, she gives in and joins her in the joyful song. Soon Manny and Corrina show up and Molly joyfully runs to Corrina as the credits role. | home movie | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0292852 | Switchback | The film opens on a quiet suburban home, where a babysitter is tending a young boy at night. A stranger comes to the door and asks to visit the boy, but the babysitter turns him away. While she secures the rest of the house, she is grabbed from behind and an unseen killer slices open her femoral artery. The killer goes upstairs and wraps the young boy in a blanket.
Three months later, a man and a cleaning woman are killed in a motel room in Amarillo, Texas. The man's femoral artery was severed and the woman's throat was cut. Longtime sheriff, Buck Olmstead (R. Lee Ermey), is up for re-election. Both Olmstead and his opponent, city police chief Jack McGinnis (William Fichtner), are eager to be the one to solve such a big murder case before Election Day.
Meanwhile, Lane Dixon (Jared Leto), a hitchhiker, is picked up by Bob (Danny Glover), a drifter driving a white Cadillac Eldorado upholstered with pictures of naked women. Unnerved by the pictures, Dixon asks to be let out of the car at a miners' bar, which Bob warns against. Dixon is in the bar for a few minutes before getting beat up by a group of miners. Bob rescues Dixon and sends him out to retrieve the car. As Dixon drives them away, Bob reveals that he has slashed all the tires in the parking lot.
Back in Amarillo, FBI agent Frank LaCrosse (Dennis Quaid) arrives to inform Olmstead about his investigation of an elusive serial killer, whom he suspects is responsible for the motel murders. They track down the red SUV that was spotted driving away from the motel. LaCrosse confronts the owner, who has barricaded himself in an apartment and taken a family hostage. LaCrosse finds out that the man stole the SUV, and immediately deduces that he does not fit the profile of his killer. But his long criminal history, which includes previous violent crimes, makes McGinnis eager to pin the motel murders on the man. His lawyer reveals to LaCrosse and Olmstead that the man had stolen the SUV from an airport parking lot. Olmstead's men check the surveillance tapes at the lot and find the plates for a white Cadillac Eldorado, which belonged to one of the serial killer's victims. They put out an APB on the car.
Bob and Dixon are now in Colorado and the car is struggling with the elevation. At the next town, Martensburg, they stop at Shorty's Auto Repair. Shorty (Leo Burmester) is an old friend of Bob's, and they reminisce as Shorty fixes the car. Bob goes down the street to a general store to buy some candy corn. The teller gripes about having to mind the store as a storm approaches, making it clear that she is all alone. Bob follows her around the store and toys with a box cutter before propositioning the woman. Just as their interaction turns menacing, Dixon arrives to tell Bob that Shorty has fixed the car. Noticing a police officer leaving Shorty's as they approach the shop, Bob claims to have forgotten something inside. He kills Shorty while Dixon waits in the car.
Dixon drives them away toward the mountains. Bob assures them that they are ahead of the storm. When Bob takes over the wheel, he careens down the other side of the mountains. He tells Dixon about his son, and asks Dixon to look in on his boy as a sort of godfather, should anything happen to him. Bob gives Dixon the boy's address and then loses control of the car. Both men nearly die in the crash, but they escape before the car crashes off a cliff.
In Amarillo, the FBI has ordered Olmstead to keep LaCrosse in town until they arrive. They explain that he is assigned to another case in Philadelphia and that the investigation into the serial killer has been closed for months. LaCrosse reveals to Olmstead that the FBI believes the man who appeared on the porch before the little boy was abducted was the killer, because he committed suicide amid all kinds of evidence that linked him to the murders. LaCrosse believed it was too pat. He reveals to Olmstead that the abducted little boy is LaCrosse's son Andy. He shows Olmstead a picture of Andy that the killer sent him, which has a message on the back that reads, "2-18 To find him, you must kill me. To understand me, you must come to Believe." Olmstead then asks about the "2-18" reference, implying a date. LaCrosse says that it could be a date, or a reference to how many people have been killed. He reveals that the FBI had considered every interpretation without coming to a conclusion regarding the "2-18" reference. It is apparent that, if it referred to February 18, "2-18" is only a few days away.
When word reaches LaCrosse about Shorty's murder in Martensburg, Olmstead arranges for him to take a police helicopter to Colorado, even as he finds out that he has lost the election to McGinnis. Olmstead is placed in custody for violating the FBI's instructions. In Martensburg, LaCrosse is allowed to view the crime scene before being informally detained by the State Police. He surmises that Shorty, who was armed with a pistol, must have known his murderer.
Bob and Dixon manage to walk to a small town, where they crash in a hotel frequented by railroad workers. They all know Bob from the days when he worked on the railroads with Shorty. In Martensburg, LaCrosse realizes that "2-18" refers to a train number, and he frantically pursues the 218 as it heads into the mountains. He crashes a car into a river and barely manages to make it onto the train.
In the morning at Bob and Dixon's hotel, everyone is talking about the fact that the police are looking for a white Cadillac Eldorado upholstered with pictures of naked women driven by a young man who matches Dixon's description. Dixon confronts Bob at gunpoint, who denies any involvement in the murders. Bob explains that he bought the car for $500 cash from a stranger. Dixon calms down and joins Bob on a train, riding in the rear car with the snow scrapers and another friend of Bob's named Tex.
Aboard train 218, LaCrosse confronts a brakeman who boards the train. The brakeman explains that he is just catching a ride home, and he shows LaCrosse a map with a rail marker named "Believe". As LaCrosse sees the map, he is informed by the brakeman that "Understanding" and "Believe" are railroad sightings, thus explaining where the killer is headed by the references on the message. The brakeman explains that the only train headed towards Believe would be on the upper grade of the switchback. LaCrosse climbs the mountain to reach the upper grade, just as the train with Bob and Dixon comes into view.
On board, Tex asks if anyone has a light. Bob absentmindedly hands him a matchbook from the motel in Amarillo where the murders took place. When Tex remarks on the coincidence, Dixon looks at Bob in horror. Bob pulls out his knife and severs Tex's femoral artery, revealing that he has set up Dixon to be another fall guy for his crimes. The two of them fight with each other as LaCrosse boards the train. He arrives in the rear car after Dixon has subdued Bob and is tending to Tex. Believing Dixon to the killer, LaCrosse does not pay enough attention to Bob, who comes to and attacks him.
During the final confrontation, Bob uses Dixon as a human shield and slices his throat before he and LaCrosse end up falling out of the train and onto one of the snowscrapers. LaCrosse grabs Bob before he can fall off the train, demanding to know where his son is. Bob reminds LaCrosse that he has to die first, and wriggles out of LaCrosse's grasp, falling to his death. Dixon writes the address that Bob had given him in the dust on the train floor, but when Olmstead and LaCrosse arrive at the location, it is an abandoned house. Just as LaCrosse is about to give up, he notices Andy playing in the yard next door and reunites with his son. | comedy, non fiction | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0097007 | The Caller | When troubled divorcee Mary Kee sets up home in her new apartment, she stumbles across an old telephone which she quickly falls in love with. Struck by its antique charm, she gives it a place of pride in her home. Before long, Mary begins to receive strange phone calls from a mysterious, unknown caller. Over time, she discovers that the caller is a woman named Rose, and the two strike up an unlikely friendship. However, when Rose claims to be calling from the past, Mary begins to question her new friend's motives.
As Rose's phone calls become ever more disturbing, Mary's sense of terror escalates. Feeling haunted in her own home, she cuts all contact with Rose. Enraged by Mary's betrayal, Rose threatens to exact her terrible revenge. Not on Mary in the present but on Mary as a child in the past. Mary finally realizes that she will have to kill Rose in order to save herself. But how can she kill someone living in the past?
She fails. Rose pours hot grease on the young Mary Kee causing the adult Mary Kee to wretch with her new burn scars. After this Mary Kee tries to kill Rose by inviting her to a birthday party at a bowling alley she knew would catch fire and burn, killing all in it. Rose misses the bus and the plan fails, so Rose has the young Mary talk to the adult Mary on a day that the old Rose attempted to barge in and kill her. Mary coaches the young Mary to break a mirror and use the shards to kill Rose, thus ending the attack and the calls, but Mary's abusive husband, Steven reappears, she asks him to leave or he may be sorry, as he denies to go Mary kills him. | cult, neo noir | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0848587 | Halloween Night | The film follows Chris Vale (Scot Nery), who was admitted into an insane asylum at the age of 12 after witnessing how his mother was raped and killed by two thugs hired by his father(who subsequently committed suicide) and nearly killed by them with a headshot. Now a 22-year-old gross disfigured young man he escapes from the asylum at Halloween after killing two orderlies who mock him wearing masks that are the same as the thugs were wearing.
His old home is now inhabited by the family of David Bexter(Derek Osedach) who hosts a party there with his girlfriend Shannon(Rebekah Kochan), friends and schoolmates. Vale manages to kill Todd(Nicholas Daly Clark) at a gas station, hiding in his costume and stealing his car in which he drives to the party.
At the party Vale is taken for Todd by everyone and starts his killing spree unnoticed. Meanwhile, David fakes a dispute with a friend who kidnaps Vale(who still is taken for Todd) with a gun and another friend disguised as police officer who is forced to hand over the keys of his car. After escaping with the car the kidnapper is murdered my Vale who goes back with it. Because someone at the party has called the real police the angry officer ends the party telling everyone to go home, leaving only David, the now disappointed Shannon and some friends there.
Vale enters the house again, killing several of the remaining people and tying Shannon because she wears the collar of his mother that David found in the house earlier. He breaks up a hole in the wall that was covered with boards where the corpse of his mother was hidden by his father before committing suicide.
As one girl escapes from the house in panic David begins to search for Shannon, finding her captured in the basement. After freeing her Vale knocks out David from behind but Shannon manages to grab a gun that Vale has lost shooting him twice, presuming the killer for dead.
As the police and ambulance arrives later David seems to have disappeared with the police searching for him. Suddenly a hooded person appears behind a police officer who is talking to Shannon. Shannon grabs the officers gun shooting and killing the hooded person, after removing the hood she is shocked to see that she killed David.
In the final scene Vale is seen hitch-hiking and picked up by a car-driver who presumes him to having a long Halloween party night. The film ends while the car leaves. | violence, murder | train | wikipedia | For a low-budget DTV, it certainly isn't terrible...I have seen much worse.The BAD: A weak script, and sub-par acting are this films main faults.
That is probably because NOBODY was good in this movie, even Rebekah Kochon who gave a good performance in "When A Killer Calls." None of the actors seem to be really into the film, which is problematic.
The films looks like it was filmed all in one day, and yes, the killer resembles a zombie much more than he does a burn victim!
There wasn't a big chase scene and really no suspense as to who was gonna live/die.The GOOD: Some pretty decent death scenes are about all this has going for it, and they aren't even THAT great.
But mainly, this entertains because of the old "it's so bad it's good" cliché, and sometimes, like on Halloween eve, that's all I really need out of horror flick--entertainment, no matter what its source.
Still die-hard and picky slasher fans should probably just stick to watching the original "Halloween" for the 30th time.My Grade: D-.
Its so laughable, I guess he was trying to improvise and ad lib, but he kept stumbling, and sounded so ridiclous, one of the worst acting jobs ever, honestly he gives the guy from El Chupacabra, Eric Alegria, a run for his money for the worst performance ever given in one of the worst movies ever made.
That is the halmark of a true b-horror movie - characters so annoying you root for the killer.However, the greatest thing about this movie is the hot girl-on-girl action!
The guy who plays "David" in this movie is one of the worse actors I have ever seen.
Even the killer, Chris Vale, did a better acting job than this David character and he didn't even have any dialog in the movie.
I have noticed that the guy who plays David has directed a few B-movies.
Halloween Night is about the psychotic adventures of a child who grows up in a mental institution after witnessing his mother's death and also getting severely burned and disfigured.
'The Asylum' flat out HATES horror movie fans.
Christopher Vale witnesses his mother brutally raped and killed before being hideously burned and being sent to a mental asylum.
This 'Asylum' outfit has produced 50 some movies, you'd think one of this would be actually watchable, right???
Oh no, the blame can be spread liberally from the director who has yet to make a decent film on down to the atrocious acting and further down to the sloppy editing and mediocre special effects.
So,There are tributes to Psycho,Halloween and Friday the 13th
The Badguy very much resembles JASON© as original boyish self from the lake.I really liked this film from theasylum,It has a look and flavor that will make rentals happen.The make-up is good and use of blades more than guns look fresher.Derek Osedach(see interview) does a different acting style,That we wonder if rest could keep up with.Rebekah Kochan reminded me of REGINA CARROL (Al Adamson's wife who co-starred in most of his films),That Scream Queen who is too well liked to get killed.Scot Nery does a wonderful job as monster,Was hoping it was Eric Spudic inside,Size was right.Erica Roby STEALS the film as The Strong Lesbian,She did a great fight scene with Scot Nery and Saved wardrobe, So Much money .The downside would be all the red herring points and cops that didn't ring true, in character.So,What have we learned
This is a Theasylum flick of a different color,Based On David Michael Latt memories..
Not being a big fan of b movies I almost passed it by(and now wished I did) after reading it's plot summary and thought how similar it sounded to the plot of Halloween.
That being the case most movies should use the caption of based on true events for example sitting down or talking with friends or renting a bad (and I use this term loosely for this "film") horror film to make a film.
Maybe Asylum should go into making lesbian porn flicks which seems to be what they are dare I say good at..
Well, I gotta say that this was the best Asylum movie I've seen so far.
The killing scenes were pretty decent, although the blood seemed fake in a couple of cases.
I think Asylum should stick to making horror films (I believe it's what they first started off doing), which seems to be what they're better at..
A killer returns to town to do some killings on Halloween night.
Not that bad at all for an Asylum flick.Gore 1/5 Nudity 1/5 Effects 2/5 Story 2/5 Comedy 0/5.
For The Asylum Halloween Night is not too bad, they have certainly done much worse.
Even with that taken into account, Halloween Night is still not a good movie.
There are some things that are done reasonably, some of the daylight scenes are shot nicely, the music is a good mix of jaunty and eerie, Scot Nery does bravely as the one character that we come close to rooting for and there are some gory and imaginative slasher death scenes(honourable mention must go to the hanger death which is just hilarious).
There have been worse-looking movies from The Asylum, but the special effects are poorly rendered, the editing is sloppy for much of the movie and some scenes especially the first 10-15 minutes are really amateurishly shot.
The acting is pretty dire from almost everybody, Nery is the best of the lot but then we have Rebekah Kochan overacts her rather shallow character and Derek Osedach mumbles his way through his lines and not much else.
The story is even more of a problem, that it's mind-numbingly ridiculous, painfully predictable and deathly dull is one thing but we also have a complete lack of tension, thrills sense of horror/terror(mainly because of the characters' interactions and expressions being so blank) and suspense, situations and interactions are really contrived and implausible, and there is a heavy reliance on drawn-out done-to-death clichés that are marred even further by being played far too straight.
4/10 Bethany Cox. A film that sharing a similar title to John Carpenter's Halloween and almost clear cut story can scare you yet..
The film takes a small kid who had watched his family be killed right in front of him and is later framed for doing so.
Then years later we see Chris Vane (the kid) grown up in an insane asylum, and for some reason burnt up to a crisp looking like Sam Raimi's Darkman, he soon escapes and heads back to his home to kid a series of kids who are trying to throw a party.
The film on its own is okay, it takes a story that has been done a thousand times (I have been guilty of doing so myself) and just puts in a new killer.
And I could never understand why directors think that the key to a great horror/scary movie is to show as much blood and gore as possible.
Tho I must say the blonde who played Shannon is a pretty good actress...she was great in the Eating Out movies.
What do Slasher films need to be good?
Well no, slasher films don't need it, but the best ones usually have at least one good actor to prove good acting still exists.
Plot twist, well slasher films don't need those, this one has one, but that can't be counted in its favor.
Yes this film is short but you sure won't know it unless you constantly look at your watch, which you will be doing especially if your DVD player is too far away to read those little numbers.
No almost no music here and it's all lousy.To wrap things up if you've seen Asylum movies in the past you probably have a lot of pent up rage at them.
If you watched them all you've seen that about one in 5 is pretty good.
I guess the final element is good direction that you need in a slasher film and this film definitely doesn't have that.
That is too often the approach to movies from THE ASYLUM and it hampers the hell out of a possibly decent by the numbers script by Fangoria's Michael Gingold.
From Michael Gingold, the editor of Fangoria...You would think that Gingold, after viewing thousands of horror films, would know how to make a good movie.
Halloween rip-off from The Asylum, surprisingly not as bad as much of their output....
Halloween Night starts as a young boy named Chris Vale (Sam Stone) witnesses his mum (Jan Anderson) get raped & then murdered before being horribly burnt by a jet of steam from a pipe.
Jump forward 'Ten Years Later' on 'Halloween Night' where Chris (Scot Nery) is now locked up inside a mental asylum with a face that looks like a McDonald's hamburger, he escapes & kills teenager Todd (Nicholas Day Clark) & his girlfriend who were on their way to a Halloween party organised by their friend David (Derek Osedach).
It just so happens that David is organising this Halloween party in the house where Chris used to live & he heads there dressed in Todd's Halloween costume & everyone mistakes Chris for Todd which lets him move about freely killing everyone he meets for no apparent reason...Directed by Mark Atkins I settled down to watch Halloween Night yesterday & I feared the worst, being made by those folk at The Asylum who specialise in ripping-off big budget well known Hollywood blockbusters (affectionately known as Mockbusters) with the vast majority of their product being amongst the worst films you could ever have the misfortune to see but rather surprisingly I though Halloween Night was a fairly reasonably watch & not a too bad little Halloween (1978, 2007) rip-off that does what it sets out to do.
The script by Michael Gringold will feel very familiar who has watched any sort of 70's or 80's teen slasher, although the title is obviously taken from Halloween there are elements of Friday the 13th (1980) with the killers mask resembling Jason's more than Michael's & the basic idea of a horribly burnt maniac killer is taken from The Buring (1981).
To give it some credit at least there's a steady stream of dead bodies & killings, there's a nice amount of sex & nudity including a bit of lesbianism & a deliriously awful double barrelled twist ending that doesn't make any sense.
Then in the final twist David is accidentally killed by his girlfriend after he is mistaken for the killer & placed in a body bag!
It's just a totally insane ending that makes zero sense & that sums up films from The Asylum quite well in that when they go for simple blood, guts & nudity their films are OK in a crappy sort of way but when they try to write twist endings or good scripts & plots then they fall completely on their face & look stupid.As usual for an The Asylum film Halloween Night looks like it was shot on a camcorder although the special effects are better than their usual output.
Out goes the horrible CGI & wisely the makers went with proper on set prosthetic make-up effects, there's various stabbings & impalement's, some effective burn make-up, a slit throat & a ripped out throat, some guts, a rotten corpse, a fair amount of blood splatter & Halloween Night is maybe the only slasher to feature death by clothes hanger!
There's nothing scary here but if all your looking for is some cheap gore effects & naked chicks then I suppose it delivers.This isn't as badly made as many films from The Asylum but that's not saying much as there really isn't anything to it & when a bit of film-making is required when the twist endings come along it all falls apart & becomes hilariously bad & inept.
The acting isn't anything special & I am sure the actors used were cast for their looks rather than their acting ability.Halloween Night is a Halloween rip-off with a bit of Friday the 13th in their as well & a modern Scream (1996) style twist ending which is just plain stupid.
When a friend of mine recently asked me to look round for some fun looking horror films,i,spotted a pretty good looking DVD cover to this film.Though now i have seen the film,i feel that it does not live up to what i was hoping to see from the cover.This is partly due to some of the worst shot slasher/killing scenes that i have seen in a while.The plot:A guy who has been held in a maximum-security prison for ten years,kills two guards and,decides to go back to his old house.Where as a kid,he saw his mum get brutally raped and murdered.But,unknowingly to him,in the ten years that he has been in jail for,the house has been turned into a place for students to have Halloween parties!.For this years party,one of the students is planning to scare everyone at the party,by having him and a few of his friends pretend that there is an insane killer on the loose in the area.When the real killer returns to his old house,the prank starts to go very,very wrong...View on the film:The first thing i have to highlight is the guy that played the troll,who blocks the entrance for the party goers,that injects some really good comedy moments into the film,with a fun performance.To my pleasant surprise,i actually enjoyed seeing the section of the film where the prank is played out.With the gun standoff being pretty entertaining.Sadly,the rest of the film seems to try every thing it can to crush any good horror moments out of the film,by having all the murder scenes,including the two creative ones (one involving a clothes hanger,and another with a seat belt.)being cut in a very badly done way,with the all the killings looking like they were filmed on a budget of 20p.The main thing that i was shocked about with the film,was how badly the story lines had been written,with parts of the plot making no sense at all (such as the "killer" being held in prison,even though everyone knows that he did not kill his mum,and there being no sense at all in the flashbacks of him killing anyone at all!!)Final view on the film:A film with some very badly made slasher scenes,and a poorly written plot..
It's too bad that the makers of "Halloween Night" didn't submit the cover art to their DVD to IMDb. It's awesome: an evil looking jack-o-lantern has a hand gripping a butcher knife coming out of the top of it.
It is far and away the best thing about the movie.But now, if you will, consider the rest of the DVD box.
He is horribly burned in the attack, but ten years later he escapes from an asylum and returns to his home, where a huge Halloween party is going on, steals a costume from a victim, and infiltrates the party.
Because the party involves a huge prank, no one realizes he's actually a killer, even as he goes around murdering partygoers.So...based on a true story, huh?
Apparently one of the producers used to throw Halloween parties involving pranks, and once someone escaped from an asylum while one of his parties was going on.
But the escapee never came it to the party and no one was actually killed, making the 'based on a true story' claim even more meaningless than usual.
It's kind of like me making a movie where I marry Sarah Michelle Gellar and say it's based on a true story because we were both alive at the same time.
Sub-moronic.The cover art also says, "In 1982, Christopher Vail was sent away after his family was brutally murdered...10 years later, on Halloween night, he returned".
Based on the actual events on Halloween night, 1982, an inmate of a maximum security medical facility escapes after brutally murdering two guards.
If the events occurred in 1982 or 1992, that's still years after such films as "Halloween" or "Friday The 13th" used similar story lines, so I doubt it inspired them.
It was filmed pretty well and had a couple of decent effects shots.
But there is zero suspense, the acting is simply atrocious (I'm talking sub-porn level here, which makes sense because I'm guessing most of the actresses came straight from that industry), and the film's tone veers between boring and improbable (my favorite scene has one the lesbians, while naked, kicking the killer's ass).
Asylum Home Entertainment is quickly becoming to go-to company for really bad, cheap rip-offs of better movies, and "Halloween Night" shows why..
Chris Vale (now a man, escaped from an insane asylum) overpowers him, kills him, puts on a leather mask, then goes to the car.
The killer hacks her up.Chris Vale gets to the party alone with a backseat full of steel weapons.What could possibly go wrong?Quite a lot.
The film is high on slasher deaths, splatter, screams, and psychotic behavior.-----Scores-----Cinematography: 8/10 Excellent for daylight exteriors.
A bit jerky on some of the darker interiors.Sound: 6/10 Did not expect the lag of lips versus voice, which makes it look like a bad Eastern European production made by/for the SyFy network.Acting: 4/10 Lots of non-actors in this one.Screenplay: 4/10 The dialog is terrible.
Christopher doesn't kill a girl because she reminds him of his mom, his mask looks similar to Jason's, and the whole mental patient angle is very derivative of a certain film that drops on the same holiday.
Gingold pads the film with plodding characterization, terrible dialogue, especially from the lead actor who performs the worst ad-libbing I've ever seen anywhere, and characters that I could give two shits about.
Boo.In spite of my best attempted enthusiasm, I just couldn't muster the excitement in watching what I can safely consider one of the worst slasher movies ever made. |
tt0080646 | Don't Go in the House | Donald "Donny" Kohler is obsessed with fire and human combustion, an obsession that stems from the severe abuse he suffered at the hands of his mother, who would hold his bare arms over a gas stove in an effort to "burn the evil out of him". When his mother dies, he sets out to avenge himself on every woman who bears a resemblance to her with the aid of steel chains, a flamethrower, and a steel-paneled bedroom crematorium.
Donny's first victim is florist Kathy Jordan (Johanna Brushay). Befriending the harmless-looking man, Kathy escorts Donny back to his mother's house, where he knocks her unconscious, strips her naked, and chains her arms and legs to the ceiling and floor of the steel room. Ignoring Kathy's screaming pleas for mercy, he burns her to death with his flamethrower. Over the next few days, Donny murders two other women by immolating them. Donny also burns his mother's corpse, and dresses it up in her bedroom along with the other three dead women.
During his killing spree, Donny hears voices in his mind which call him "the master of the flame" and urge him to punish "evil". Donny's only friend is Bobby Tuttle (Robert Osth) a co-worker who phones the house one day asking why Donny has been absent from work for nearly a week. Donny lies and claims that his mother is sick and needs attention. When Donny attempts to pick up another victim, he cannot go through with it, and begins to feel remorse for his actions. Donny goes to a church, where he tells Father Gerritty (Ralph D. Bowman) about the abuse his mother inflicted upon him, and about his urges to kill. Father Gerritty persuades Donny to try to move on with his life, and put the past to rest.
In an attempt to stop killing, Donny decides to accept an invitation by Bobby to accompany him on a double-date to a disco club, despite Donny's lack of social skills. After traveling to a men's clothing store and purchasing a new outfit, Donny shows up at the disco as expected, but is shy and awkward with his date. When the woman attempts to take Donny to the dance floor and inadvertently holds his arm over a table's lighted candle, the memories of the childhood abuse come back, and Donny sets her hair on fire.
Fleeing from the disco, Donny runs into two drunken girls on the street, and he invites them back to his house. Bobby attempts to find Donny, and runs into Father Gerritty on his way to Donny's house. When no one answers the front door, Bobby and Father Gerrity break it down and rescue the two women. Donny dons his incinerator outfit and sets Father Gerrity ablaze with his flamethrower, but Bobby manages to smother the flames and rescue the priest.
Donny takes refuge inside his mother's bedroom with the burned corpses. The voices in his head express their disappointment with him. Donny hallucinates the charred corpses coming to life. He tries to fight them with the flamethrower but sets the house on fire. He dies in the fire.
The final scene portrays a young boy being beaten by his mother. The boy hears the same whispering voices that Donny did, and they tell him that they are here to "help" him. | dark, cruelty, murder, cult, violence, flashback, insanity, revenge, sadist | train | wikipedia | "Don't Go in the House" is an obscure early 80's horror film that seems to be forgotten by many horror fans.The film is well-made and slickly directed by Joseph Ellison,a talented musician and a screenwriter.Donny Kohler is a tormented young man.His mother tortured him by holding his bare arms over a gas burning stove.He grows up to be a psycho who delights in burning young women with a flamethrower inside his steel paneled bedroom crematorium.The film is filled with truly sick atmosphere and there is one of the most sadistic burning killings ever captured on screen.The underlying theme of child abuse is also taboo-breaking."Don't Go in the House" is often trashed by some politically correct people-still it beats most of the crap being put out today.Highly recommended..
I mean sure, it has obvious signs of a low budget production, a little bit of a strong focus on a sub-theme layered somewhere in the movie and a bit of ambiguity, but everything else from the mundane spoken lines, the acting (especially with Mr.Grimaldi...hey, every big career has to start small) the synthesized music and disturbing imagery that you could rarely find in horror movies were memorably effective.I can understand how some people just don't think it's scary in general and I'm not worried about that at all, but what confuses me is when people give it a bad grade for being 'sick' and 'perverse'.
All disturbed men who performed terrible acts of cruelty and murder due to the horrors of their personal traumatized lives, and you don't find it horrifying, scary, disturbing and/or unique to witness the fictional account of such a man who let his squelched mind wander too far on a positive gamut at all??If you cannot deal with the aspects talked about in this movie then watch something else and don't complain about how sick a horror movie is.
In the movie, a deranged serial killer Donny was burned as a kid by his dominating mother which made him insane.
So, this means that Donny must go out, lure women back to his house, and....the rest is a spoiler.While Don't Go In The House does have exploitative qualities about it, what sets it aside from typical "graphic" blood-spurting slashers like Maniac and The Prowler is its concentration and attention it gives to the inner turmoil of the lead character rather than focusing on his brutal actions.
Granted, there are certain moments that are a bit hokey, but most of the movie is brilliantly embedded in reality due to solid convincing dialogue, the non-disappearance of daily routine like that pesky thing called "work", and actions that are perfectly in sync with intense situations that the victims find themselves in (especially the first one).Don't Go In The House doesn't have too much fat either - every scene serves a clear purpose and doesn't seem to be drawn out to meet its feature length running time.
A movie highly inspired by "Psycho" tells the story of Donny, a traumatized man that hates women because as a child he was abused by his mother; she burned his hands (scene is shown in a flashback).A grown-up Donny keeps his mother's corpse in the 2nd.
The movie is not a completely rip-off of "Psycho" mainly because of it's slasher elements and late 70's influences in the genre.The actor who played Donny did a good job and the other cast members were OK for a movie of this kind.6/10.
The first time I saw this film I said to myself "Now where have I heard about someone burning fetching young ladies to death in an asbestos insulated room before?" and the answer is Herman Mudgett, aka H.H. Holmes, Chicago's twisted "Torture Doctor" who murdered anywhere between 20 and 200 people in a self-designed townhouse on 63rd Street during the 1890s.
The most famous of which was an asbestos lined room with gas jets where he would confine victims and watch them being burnt to cinders for kicks.It is perhaps from those basic elements that the brain trust responsible for DON'T GO IN THE HOUSE found their inspiration for a story about a steel mill worker who goes on a killing spree after his mother -- who cruelly abused him as a child -- drops dead in her sitting chair.
Character actor Dan Grimaldi is very well cast as Donny Koehler, a mommy obsessed loser and budding psychopath still bearing the scars of his childhood trauma where mom attempted to "burn the evil out" of his soul by holding his bare arms over a lit gas stove, which of course created a Freudian fascination with fire, his relationship with women, his mistrust of authority figures and religion.
By contrast this film is set within dank, claustrophobic interiors, specifically the wonderfully creepy, empty and rapidly dilapidating house that Donny grew up in, which is photographed from an interesting vantage point to make it look all the more isolated from the rest of the world.
And reflects the filmmakers' disdain for the whole disco era subculture.Aside from the young florist no characters in this story are sympathetic, there are no good guys and even the local minister ends up a charred reminder of how the community failed Donny by turning a blind eye to his mother's cruelty.
DON'T GO IN THE HOUSE is a relatively un-talked about film that falls squarely in the slasher genre - though our lead psycho never actually "slashes" anyone...preferring instead to burn 'em up with a military-style flame-thrower.
Comparisons can be drawn to such other mother-obsessed horror films like PSYCHO, PIECES, and MANIAC - as our main-man is all whacked-out due to the treatment he received as a young lad at the hands of his over-bearing momma.Donny (who reminds me of a cross between Mike Damone and a young Dustin Hoffman...) is a quiet kinda guy whose mother just died.
Here Donny has built a special room where victims are stripped naked, doused with gasoline, and set ablaze by the flamethrower that Donny just happens to have."Don't Go in the House" is about on a par with William Lustigs' "Maniac", in its portrayal of an unbalanced person with vivid memories of child abuse, and who has turned to murder as an adult.
Fortunately, for fans of such films, the characters in this kind of fare rarely followed the advice given in the film's title, which is why they invariably ended up meeting horrible demises.The women who choose to go in the house in 'Don't Go In The House' wind up hanging from hooks in a metal lined room where they get toasted by a flamethrower-wielding psycho; bet they wished they had listened now!Obviously inspired by Hitchcock's Psycho, but also resembling William Lustig's Maniac, another mean spirited effort from the same year, this vicious piece of sleaze stars Dan Grimaldi as Donny Kohler, an incinerator worker who lives at home with his loathsome mother, who physically abused him as a child, burning his arms whenever he was naughty.
This sadistic treatment has resulted in Donny being a rather psychologically disturbed individual: the guy hears voices in his head, who give him all kinds of strange advice, and he also suffers from weird hallucinations.When Donny's mother suddenly dies, he neglects to report the death to the authorities, deciding instead to seek some rather overdue revenge by burning her corpse to a crisp.
He then proceeds to prepare his own home-incinerator by lining the walls of a room with sheets of metal, and goes in search of gullible women who he can lure back to his place...'Don't Go In The House' is a genuinely unsettling tale with a mile-wide misogynistic streak running through its centre, making it perfect midnight viewing for those who enjoy their horror exploitative, grim and unrelentingly nasty.
And let's not forget the hilarious scene in which Donny goes clothes shopping for a disco outfit, which will appeal to those who love a bit of camp with their horror.Considered disturbing enough to be included on the official UK DPP 'video nasties' list during the 80s, this is actually one of the better films to be vilified by the British government and press, and is well worth getting your hands on (although make sure you get an uncut copy for maximum effect)..
This is a warped and sick movie about a guy who burns women alive because his mother did this to him when he was bad.
It is a very low budget and grainy pic with Dan Grimaldi starring as Donny Kohler, a guy who was burned by his mother as a kid and so now takes to burning women in a metal room in his house.
If you can get past the weak acting and terrible cinematography (dang thing looks like it was shot by my grandmother and she was color blind and always wore sunglasses), then you're in for a crazy ride as long suffering Donald seeks vengeance against the female race for years of abuse at the hands of his mean old mother.
The scene when Kohler goes out with his friend and ends up attacking his date is well thought out story-wise; however, it could have been acted and directed much better There is a few scene's like this.The director, Joseph Ellison, who co-scripted the story with writer Joe Masefield and Ellen Hammill, does create a good film with a variable pace and flow, which helps to create atmosphere and keep the viewers interested.
****SPOILERS**** The film "Don't go in the House" is more of a statement against child abuse then the slasher or in this case burner horror movie that its comes at first across as.
Now all grown up and crazy as ever Don gets his chance to get even with his mom, who just passed away, and the world for what she as well as it, in his sick mind, did to him.Searching out pretty women who's cars broke down or who need a lift home Don kidnaps them and later hangs then on meat hooks in his house and with a flame thrower, that he bought at the local Army/Navy surplus store, burns them alive.
But in the end it's Don's many victims who untimely end up getting the best of him in what turned out to be a "Bonfire of the Insanities".Newcomer Dan Girlamdi looking like a young Dustin Hoffman does an excellent job as the crazed and as well abused, by his mom, Don Kohler who despite his addiction to murder & violence still invokes sympathy from the audience.
Another film in the horror genre that takes part of it's influence from both Ed Gein and Hitchcock's Psycho (1960), Don't Go in the House, originally titled - more appropriately - The Burning (this was altered due to the release of a slasher-camp film), it focuses on a troubled man who has been perpetually abused by his dominating mother.
After a burning incident in an incinerator that Donny Kohler (Dan Grimaldi) witnesses at work, he returns home to find that his mother has passed away.
The central character goes around killing women for such a transparent reason that I'm either assuming the screenwriter dropped out of school at the age of 14 or the screenwriter assumes the collective movie-going audience has the IQ of an action figure found in the bargain bin at Toys R Us.The movie has sick, twisted hallucination sequences that can only be described as "obscene;" and anyone that knows me will tell you that it's often a cold day in hell before I think something's down right obscene.In short, avoid this movie.
The film's plot concerns incinerator worker Donald Kohler (Dan Grimaldi), who was brutally burned by his mother as punishment as a child.
After his mother unexpectedly dies, Donald begins bringing women back to his home and burning them alive, in a twisted scheme of revenge against his deceased mother.I believe that this film intended to be a grim shocker, showing how the effects of past child abuse have driven a seemingly normal man over the edge.
What makes it of particular interest to me, and one of the reasons it was banned, is that it deals with the effects of child abuse, my vocation for some 11 years.Sopranos fans may enjoy seeing Dan Grimaldi (Pasquale 'Patsy' Parisi) in his first film role.
It was an obsession born from the abuse suffered at the hands of his mother.Donny (Grimaldi) is plagued by voices, nightmares, and paranoia/schizophrenic hallucinations after the death of his mother, and he acts as the punisher of his mother through the women he picks up.Donnie goes deeper and deeper into psychosis until he finally flips.The movie ends with another mother slapping the hell out of her son, and we can only expect similar consequences when he grows up..
"Don't Go in the House" is a rather dull and lifeless exploitation film.**SPOILERS**Returning home from work, Donny Kohler, (Dan Grimaldi) is horrified to learn that his mother has died.
Really spooky movie, director Ellison really shows a grow up man (Dan Grimaldi I think his name is) who is not actually grown up at all, he still has fiendish childlike ideas and this time he has 'his friends' with him (voices in his head folks!) I was amazed, disappointed, and excited all at once.
Nevertheless, this is a good grimy effort from the days when sleazy horror films were the order of the day.The plot basically concerns a social misfit, Donny, who lures a succession of young women back to his house, where he chains them up and sets fire to them.
Mom, do you ever get that burning feeling?Two kinds of movies I love are Slashers and unintentionally hilarious films.
Don't Go in the House (1979)** (out of 4) Donny Kohler (Dan Grimaldi) is a troubled man suffering from various mental issues due to the abuse by his mother when he was a child.
After the mother dies the man's mental state takes a turn for the worse and his obsession with fire leads to him kidnapping various women and burning them.DON'T GO IN THE HOUSE has quite a bit in common with Bill Lustig's MANIAC, although that film was released after this one.
Came out one year after Halloween(1979) with the title like Don't Go in the House you might expect it to be a slasher movie but turned out it a psychological horror movie and a damn good one.The movie follow a disturbed man that very afraid of fire due to a sadistic act of his mother when he was young.After his mother die he start to hear a strange voice encourage him to get revenge on other woman by using the thing he afraid the most.There are some slasher elements in this movie like he always wearing a mask while killing with his weapon of choice is a flamethrower.The violence in this movie hit me hard cause it more easy to kill people with a knife but to torch them to dead it extremely painful and disturbing.There also some creepy moment that make me jump a couple of time by the perfect timing sound effect.I gotta say i enjoy the first half of this movie more but the awesome ending make up for it.
The story goes like this, set during one cold winter in a coastal New Jersey town, twenty-something Donald Koher is a disturbed young man who works at the local incinary factory where he lives in a big house with his mother who severely abused him as a child by roasting his arms over the gas burner stove.
Donny builds a metal-plated flame-proof room in the house, lures a series of women into his home where he ties them up in the fire room, strips them of their clothing, douses them with kerosene, and then blasts them with a flamethrower, then he dresses up their charred corpses like his mother and talks to them, and they (in his disturbed mind) talk back (i.e. Norman Bates with a flamethrower.)Sick as it seems, it's not all that vile as it sounds.
Guy stuff.One of many '80s horror films with the word "Don't" in the title, DGITH looks at things from the loony's point of view, even making you feel a little sorry for Donald when you see what a vile old harridan his mother was.
Of course, when he's onto horribly burning his third victim alive, your sympathy towards him does tend to wobble a bit.Nowhere near as shocking as it would want you to believe, DGITH is actually a very sombre, low key affair with a pretty good central performance from Dan Grimaldi (Patsy Parisi from The Sopranos), and a surprisingly effective first death scene.
Don't Go in the House has one outrageously sick murder scene which makes the film easily to the hall of (sh/f)ame of the all time B level horror films.The story is about a sick man Donny (Dan Grimaldi), who was tormented by his even more sick mother when he was a child.
After the far more superior horror titles "Psycho" and "Deranged" (that are, admittedly, inspired by one and the same real-life killer, namely Ed Gein), "Don't go in the House" is another sick low-budget film that entirely revolves on a mommy's boy with severe mental issues who turns to gruesomely killing women after the death of his mum.
Now, and with his mother's decomposing corpse still around, Donny lures young women to his ominous dark house where he then chains them up and burns them alive with a flamethrower!
I'm sure Don't Go In The House wasn't a very good film back in its time and it certainly isn't one by today's standards, but it is a reminder of how much more interesting and worthwhile horror movies were before they became like pornography.Donny Kohler (Dan Grimaldi) is a sick, sick man.
That's a much more nuanced take on evil than you generally get from any film, let alone a low-budget horror movie from 1979.Don't Go In The House isn't much as entertainment goes. |
tt1396557 | Winnebago Man | The documentary starts with Steinbauer's obsession with a widely circulated viral video featuring outtakes from an RV commercial shoot, centered on a cantankerous pitchman who regularly becomes outraged and flustered, cursing in colorful mannerisms. Steinbauer researches the video, and discovers that it had been circulating on VHS long before it appeared on the Internet.
With the help of a private detective, Steinbauer ultimately tracks down the infamous "Winnebago Man": Jack Rebney. Steinbauer visits Rebney at his home in a remote mountain area in California. Steinbauer is surprised to find Rebney to be calm, congenial, and articulate — in contrast to the angry, profane man on the famous video. Rebney claims to be indifferent about the video and its popularity on the Internet. Steinbauer returns home disappointed.
But soon, Rebney begins contacting Steinbauer, and admits that he had not been candid in their first encounter. He reveals that he has long been angry about the video and its notoriety because he does not want to be remembered that way. Steinbauer learns that Rebney was once a news broadcaster and editor who left the industry embittered by the decline in real news and the rise of opinion-based news and punditry; additionally, Rebney reveals that he now has strong political opinions that he wants to share. Rebney invites Steinbauer for a second visit, but before this takes place, local papers report that Rebney had gone missing for a time while taking a walk. When Steinbauer makes his second visit to Rebney's home, a now openly cantankerous Rebney explains that he is now blind.
Rebney gives a series of often profane, but articulate, interviews to Steinbauer. He refuses to discuss personal matters, but instead wants to make political speeches about subjects that make him angry, such as Dick Cheney and Walmart. Eventually, Steinbauer convinces Rebney to attend the Found Footage Festival in San Francisco. There, fans have lined up for a sold-out screening of the original video featuring Rebney. The fans describe Rebney's positive impact on them. During the screening, the Festival organizers invite Rebney onstage as a special guest, where he wittily engages the audience. After the screening, Rebney meets several fans who request autographs and express to him how viewing the old footage cheers them up after a hard day.
Later that night, Rebney muses to an old friend that his fans are more intelligent than he anticipated. The next day, the filmmakers and Rebney's friend drive him back home. There, Rebney's friend tells him, "You made a lot of people happy this weekend." Rebney replies by acknowledging that he takes some small degree of pride in how, for many people, he represents the human condition in the face of adversity. | depressing | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0274716 | Petualangan Sherina | Sherina is a little girl who is smart, energetic, and loves to sing. She lives in Jakarta with her parents, Mr. and Mrs. Darmawan (Mathias Muchus and Ucy Nurul). However, Sherina has to leave her friends when her father accepts a job as an agronomist, at a plantation in Lembang owned by Ardiwilaga (Didi Petet). In her new environment, she quickly adapts and acquires some new friends. However, she becomes the target of the class bullies, consisting of a boy named Sadam (Derby Romero) and his two friends. They often bother children who are weaker. Sherina cannot accept such treatment and she gathers her classmates in a struggle against Sadam. When she accompanies his father to visit the plantation, she discovers that Sadam is Ardiwilaga's son.
Sherina and Sadam challenge each other to climb the nearby hills and, upon arriving, Sadam attempts to leave Sherina behind. She tries to find her way back to the plantation and stumble across an adult man. Together they go to a car where another man is waiting. As they gesture for Sherina to get into their car, Sherina hears Sadam's muffled voice from inside its boot telling her to get away. She escapes and, when the four kidnappers leave, she follows them. She discovers that they have been tasked with kidnapping Sadam by a cunning businessman named Kertarajasa (Djaduk Ferianto), who wishes to buy the plantation to complete their development project.
When the kidnappers try to call Ardiwilaga, they reach his wife (Ratna Riantiarno) and tell her to prepare a 3 billion rupiah ransom. She agrees to this condition and convinces her husband to sell the land to Natasya (Henidar Amroe), who had offered them 2 billion the day before. Later, at the kidnappers' hideout, Sherina is able to rescue Sadam while the guards are sleeping. They take documentation connecting the thugs to Kertarajasa escape to a nearby observatory, where they spend the night. In Jakarta, Kertarajasa dances with his wife, revealed to be Natasya, and states that he will launch his project the following day once the plantation is legally his.
In the morning Sadam is desperately ill. Sherina tries to leave the observatory through the front door only to discover that it had been locked and the kidnappers were outside. With Sadam's help she rappels down the observatory wall and outruns two of the kidnappers, making her way to a nearby village and catching a ride to Ardiwilaga's home; Sadam, however, is captured. Sherina arrives just as he is preparing to sign the land deed over to Natasya and reveals Kertarajasa's plans. Police quickly arrest Natasya and Kertarajasa, and when the kidnappers try to collect their ransom they too are arrested. When Sherina and Sadam return to school after the holiday they are friends, and Sadam agrees to stop bullying his peers. | prank | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0240900 | Slackers | Dave Goodman (Devon Sawa), Sam Schecter (Jason Segel), and Jeff Davis (Michael Maronna) are best friends who have spent almost four years at Holden University scamming their way through college. During one exam scam in their final semester Dave discovers Angela (Jaime King, credited as James King), and asks her out while writing his phone number on her exam sheet. Ethan Dulles (who calls himself "Cool Ethan") (Jason Schwartzman), a classmate obsessed with Angela to the extent of collecting loose hairs and making a hair doll and having surveillance photos and a shrine to Angela setup in his dorm room, takes her exam question sheet after Angela leaves and uses it to repeatedly confront and then blackmail the guys into setting up a successful date with Angela for him in exchange for his silence on the matter. The guys set Ethan up in multiple situations in an attempt to convince Angela to like him, while Dave tells Sam during their work researching her that Angela is no more important to him as any other scam they've done. Ethan fails to attract her after frequent confrontations based on his delusional behavior, immaturity and ignorance of social norms. Though Ethan seems a lonely harmless nerd, He is at heart scheming, psychotically obsessive and hopelessly socially incompetent.
While trying to convince Angela to go out with Ethan, Dave and Angela grow a mutual attraction to each other. After telling Ethan that he has failed to convince Angela to go out with him, Ethan reveals to Dave that he has been obsessing over Angela for quite some time. He reminds Dave that he still intends to get Dave and his friends expelled if they fail him. Angela and Dave go on an impromptu date after a study session. Ethan finds out and follows and records them. Dave and Angela share a romantic swim and lovemaking session. which causes Ethan to storm around the campus in an obscene and childish tantrum (Thus showing that while Ethan is lonely, he is in no way ready for a relationship). In revenge, He shows the tape of Dave and Angela making love to Sam and Jeff to establish that Dave intends to keep Angela for himself. Sam and Jeff, unhappy with Dave's dishonesty, hand over their research on Angela. Ethan uses that file to prove to Angela that Dave and his friends were actively stalking her. This causes Dave punch Ethan in the face. But as far as Ethan is concerned he has won and Angela is his.
After a falling out with everyone, Dave returns to the dorm and admits to Sam and Jeff that he honestly cares for Angela. After making amends the guys sabotage Ethan's job interview with a law firm and during the final exam, while Dave is telling the truth to Angela in front of the whole class about his entire dishonest college career of cheating, Jeff plants an answer key in Ethan's backpack while tipping off the Teaching Assistant proctoring the exam. In the end the guys get expelled, but Dave and Angela get back together and Sam ends up in a relationship with Angela's roommate, Reanna Cass (Laura Prepon) while Jeff falsifies their diplomas from Holden University after Angela and Reanna graduate. Ethan, now miserable that he lost Angela forever and having also been expelled from college after it was revealed he was stalking her, continues to work at the restaurant. The movie ends with him singing his love of Angela and his hatred for Dave. | pornographic, romantic, prank | train | wikipedia | I found this very entertaining and surprising; quite subversive and original in actual fact, more likely to appeal to a greater intellect than that of a 13 year-old the jokes are more ironic and subtle in general, with a few obvious "gross-out" moments sprinkled in between.
If you like teenage/college humor and dirty jokes, this is your movie.
Slackers is a very funny and enjoyable teen movie.
Anyways, Slackers is about three friends that always cheat their way through tests and always get away with it until the psychopathic school geek ethan(Jason Schwartzman) finds out and starts blackmailing them.
If you want to see a movie that will make you laugh and just plain relax for two hours, watch slackers.
Devon Sawa ("Final Destination") and James King ("Pearl Harbor") make a cute couple being torn apart by the purposely annoying and obsessed Jason Schwartzman ("Rushmore").
The characters are fairly amusing, but it's pretty hard to pull of a comedy that's funny during its entire length, especially when there's not a lot of new ideas to offer.
Slackers is just another teen movie that's not really worth watching.
The comedy in Slackers is either hit or miss but there's no real true funny or original moment in the movie.
Jason Schwartzman plays the freaky Ethan and after appearing in some good comedies he has stoop pretty low.
When compared to other films in the genre there's a lot better out there such as Not Another Teen Movie, American Pie and its sequels , Scary Movie 1 & 2 etc.
I don't know why so many people disliked I found it really entertaining even though it's not the funnest movie in the world it still has a really great story and the acting by both James King and Devon Sawa is great please go out and rent this movie again you will end up liking this movie you will end up liking it..
As a sexy comedy,this movie works.The plot seems a bit too contrived,but the acting is good.Devon Sawa is a former child star and DiCaprio type of teen heartthrob who is doing well with adult roles.
But if you don't mind some raunchy humor, realistic language,and brief nudity, this film works on its own level as a college comedy..
The Slackers as titled in this movie are three college friends Dave, Jeff and Sam(Devon Sawa, Michael Maronna and Jason Segel respectively), who are about to graduate from university without sitting through an honest exam but making it end successfully.
The only problem is when the trio starts to work on it, Dave falls in love with the gorgeous and good hearted Angela(James King) Unfortunately, not a brilliant genre movie.
"Not Another Teen Movie" may not have been a great flick, but at least it had the courage to try and spoof all the other films from its genre - "Slackers" doesn't; it just becomes another teen flick.Here's what we've got: The Three Cool Guys (one of which is an Ugly Cool Guy who should be a Dork) on Campus get blackmailed by The Geek, who wants The Hot Girl, who is interested in The Head Cool Guy, who tries to get The Geek hooked up with her, but ends up falling in love with The Hot Girl.
There always has to be a small band of cool guys breezing past school, there always has to be a geek, there always has to be a pretty girl, and there always has to be the girl everyone thought they wanted but found out they didn't after all."Slackers" is about The Three Cool Guys (including "Night of the Twisters's" Devon Sawa) who are happily cheating their way through college, until The Geek ("Rushmore's" Jason Schwartzman) sees them cheating and blackmails them.
He wants to get hooked up with The Hot Girl in school, but as I said before, The Hot Girl is interested in The Head Cool Guy, and so when The Geek finds out what's going down he gets mad.This film is so basic it hurts, but even when you think it can't get more basic...it does.
The director, Dewey Nicks, has got to be one of the most untalented slackers (har-har) to ever film a movie.
Eh, I never really liked him anyway.I do, however, like Jason Schwartzman, who showed some real talent in "Rushmore," which was a bit of a teen movie but had more originality, flare and humor than this film.
If you enjoy films like American Pie, Road Trip & Van Wilder; avoid this cinematic refuse at all costs.
Ineptly edited and shot, with incredibly annoying performances from Devon Sawa and Jason Schwartzman, the film ended, without the benefit of having made me giggle once.
The characters are easy to enjoy, as the antics of Dave (Devon Sawa), Sam (Jason Segel), and Jeff (Michael Maronna) make them out to be some sort of wild "A-Team", with a variety of special skills.
Ethan's (Jason Schwartzman) obsession over Angela (James King) is more dark than it is comical, and is a fairly good example of a not so rare obsession which is found in young men in everyday life.
What I found to be most unique about the movie were the day-dream/imagination sequences, in which there is a good look into the minds of the characters.
Sure, the whole college-comedy-genre i full of crappy movies, but this one "hits a new low" =) The story is really thin and doesn't come up with anything new(as if anyone expected it to...).
In this "comedy", Jason Schwartzman (who was so excellent in "Rushmore") plays a college geek/stalker who blackmails Devon Sawa into helping him win the hottest babe on campus (model James King).
Predictable stuff as Sawa falls for the girl as well, mildly entertaining at times but full of bad writing and poorly developed characters that seems to have almost a pro-cheating message...
"Slackers" makes "Not Another Teen Movie" look like a classic.
Yet another venture into the realm of the teen-gross-out-comedy, set on a college campus featuring a nerd's quest to coolness, and how he decides to blackmail a trio of popular jocks into making him get the girl.
When I began to watch this film I was thinking typical teen movie, not your average "American Pie" when it comes to the romance, but ...
I have two theories on how the movie SLACKERS got made: 1.) a few years ago, a group of screenwriters made a bet and put in a pool of money to see on who can write a screenplay for the most disgusting and sick film.
There are geeks in the film, take for instance Jason Schwartzman character of Ethan.
When there is a comedy that I like, I'll think of the funny scene in the movie and remember that there are more funny scenes coming up.
This film started off as your average American, MTV-generation, teen-college comedy.
Although I had some hopes for this film, particularly since I enjoy the acting of Jason Segel (Freaks & Geeks, Undeclared) so much, I must say it was one of the worst films I've seen in recent memory (Loser and Dr T and the Women are also on that list).Yes, there were a couple of laugh out loud moments, although the movie could have been so much better.
I wasn't a fan of "Rushmore"--in fact, I pretty much dread the film--but I still saw a great star-making quality in Schwartzman.
I would put this movie alongside "Drive Me Crazy" with Melissa Joan Hart.The real slackers are all the people involved in making this "comedy"!
SLACKERS is not much different than all of the billions of teen films which have come before it (SHE'S ALL THAT, BOYS AND GIRLS, CAN'T HARDLY WAIT and the spoofing parody NOT ANOTHER TEEN MOVIE).
Anyway, the people who made SLACKERS probably felt that they were just making another forgettable teen flick, but towards the middle of filming, it seems like they forgot that.The film turns all 'romantic' and then turns stupid....The cast was not filled with any really big names.
It starts out with simple 'teen movie' humor and throughout the course of the film, it doesn't really change a whole lot.
I did enjoy this movie, but if I'm not working I'll pretty much enjoy anything.Dang, I thought it was very entertaining while I was watching it, but there you go.One last thing, Jason Schwartzman playing Ethan should definately go on to greater things, as should Devon Sawa.
A group of slackers led by Dave (Devon Sawa) have cheated and lied their way through high school and college.
On his final day of exams in college Dave is caught by stalker Ethan (Jason Schwartzman) who forces Dave to help him sit him up with the girl of his dreams (James King).
Dave and his friends are willing to do this, but when Dave and Angela fall head over heels in love, Ethan goes mad, and in crazy and wild mishaps Ethan's antics go extreme.That is basically the story line,and this movie was pretty funny.
Crass, vulgar, immature and inept on all counts for this completely tasteless and unfunny collegiate comedy that defies comprehension as to how the hell this got greenlit: Loser Schwartzman (who better get a new agent pronto ; this is your follow up to "Rushmore"??!!) stalks hottie King and coerces trio of Sawa, Segel and Maronna into getting her to fall for him.
My kids liked the Jason Swartzman characters because he had a lot of physical humor and stole several scenes in general.Anyway, if you can't handle goofy movies, avoid it.
I've Watched Slackers Plenty of times and NEVER Bore of the Slackers Humour, Without Films like "Animal House" Slackers wouldn't of been Born into the Film world of Comedy, Other Films of the Present Day like American Pie and Van Wilder show Praise and Respect and Humour to the College and University World and Tell us NOT to take life too Seriously, If you take life Seriously it will eat you up!
The worlds not meant to be taken Seriously, Just look at Films like "Scary Movie" "Airplane" "Police Academy" "Borat" "Team America:World Police" These Films Teach US the Meaning of the Words "Comedy" and "Humour" and "Funny" and Remind US of the Laughs and Funny Moments of Films, Without the Early Comedy Classics, Slackers wouldn't have its place in the world where the Sub-Genre of College Humoured Comedies Lives now.
Finally, I'd like to commend this movie for how insane it really is once you get passed the boring plot.Unfortunately I can't bring myself to like Devon Sawa, whose great guy that gets the girl is utterly pathetic and too counter crazy to help this movie.
The final problem I have is that although I like Jason Schwartzman, its hard to find his psychotic character all that funny.Final verdict is a 6 of 10.
Maybe you shouldn't buy it on the off chance that the cookie-cut, run-of-the-mill love story doesn't tickle your fancy, but it's an otherwise funny and interesting movie and worth the time..
This is the first movie of this director and i think is a very good comedy, is not the usual flick of college boys and girls...Good movie, not a classic but a good option to laugh a while....
oh, and the pool scene between king and sawa was probably the most sensual scene i have ever watched, i loved how it was filmed and was in very good taste(unlike much of the rest of the movie!) overall i'll give this movie a 6.5/10.
"Cheaters" would have been a more accurate title (though it's already been taken by a similar movie that came out a few years ago) since the characters are anything but "Slackers".
The only memorable performance (funny in a disturbing way) comes from Jason Schwartzman who plays "Cool" Ethan, a psycho blackmailer obsessed with the very pretty James King (yes, James is a girl).
Devon Sawa and James King are charming as the leads, Jason Schwartzman plays a more disturbed and much less likable (although very funny) variation on his old Max Fischer character, and Michael Maronna basically steals the show with his totally demented yet amiable character.
And I really didn't understand the point of having two younger men/older women sex scenes in a row...Slackers is by no means a great film, but the cast puts their best foot forward and there are a few witty moments.
if you're some boring 40 year old living in michigan, its not the movie for you, but if you're under 30 and have a sense of humor, a witty one, and like original movies (unlike American pie etc), rent slackers immediately..
You have the old high school and college movies like 'Risky Business' and 'Ferris Bueller's Day Off' which are funny and pretty innocent.
You have the new high school and college movies like 'American pie' and 'Road Trip' which are pretty funny and not so innocent anymore.
One of the guys Dave (Devon Sawa) makes a mistake by giving his phone number to a girl Angela (James King).
Another guy Ethan (Jason Schwartzman) who is desperately in love with the girl know the truth and blackmails Dave and his friends.
The film is amusing and Devon Sawa plays himself, yet again, in this teen comedy fare that takes place in College.
Funny and something I can see actually happening....singing penis, not so much.I did laugh, mainly because Schwartzman stole the film.
But really this is worth it for those that like a dumb yet funny movie.9/10.
I watched it, and ended up liking a lot because it's a movie where the main characters and villains (if you can call them that way) are unlikely.
Hey, it worked as mindless entertainment at least.Oh, special mention for Jaime King who looks hotter as hell.Watch this movie if you're into the kind of humor that goes on high school..
Jason Schwartzman steals the show as the stalker/nerd "Cool Ethan" in this, dare I say..hilarious movie.
It does what Van Wilder and American Pie did without all that "production value." The humor is pretty low-brow(kinda like Schwartzman's), but if you're in to that then this movie is for you..
If you like a good comedy, and you're a bloke you'll love Slackers..
All okay -- those things can be overcome by making a movie funny, or at least mildly enjoyable.Nope on all fronts.Glorifying kids who are essentially "slackers," who have brains, but put more effort in avoiding using them in the conventional way than they probably would if they just went to class and studied -- stock American characters.
Cool Ethan may be the greatest movie character of all time.
Slackers (2001) Devon Sawa, Jason Segel, Michael Maronna, Jason Schwartzman, James King, Laura Prepon, D: Dewey Nicks.
he is so hilarious and all you people who think otherwise just don't know a good movie when they see it..
Jason Schwartzman is great in the role of Ethan - the wackiest character I have seen in years!
Like anyone who's seen "Rushmore," I know that Schwartzman can do better than this movie.
I may come off sounding like a Schwartzman fangrl, but how can you not laugh when you hear him say, "Fudge!" or sing Ethan's Song at the end of the movie?
but Slackers isn't a film i'd call crap in that respect, on the surface it's just a fun teen movie, but i just loathe it, because of the way it cuts me deep inside.It is funny, there are funny moments, it is fairly well made.
i had extremely low expectations for this movie, but wanted to see it for jason schwartzman.
I have found quite a bit of articles comparing this film to the infamous American Pie movie, but to me, it seemed more like a less-nudity, less-bodily gas humor version of Animal House.
I could go on for some time, but I have to discuss the ultimate pitfalls of this film.Slackers was funny, but it wasn't great.
While I did think that it wrapped up decently well (for a comedy college film), there were increasingly more random moments (one featuring Cameron Diaz) and less actual character development.
Slackers has characters that would be indescribably lucky to serve Jake and Elwood or Wayne and Garth dinner.The plot: Dave (Devon Sawa) has cheated his way through grade school, high school, and now college, with his buds Jeff (Michael Maronna) and Sam (Jason Segel).
Moreover, they get caught cheating by Ethan (Jason Schwartzman), a weird student obsessed with Angela (Jaime King), a beautiful girl who attends the same college.
Think about a film like American Pie - one of the many ribald comedies this one so desperately wants to be - and think about what made it funny and enjoyable.
This movie was trying to fit itself into the 'gross-out' comedies of recent years such as American Pie and Road Trip, but it just failed miserably.
Just when you begin to think that the teen movie genre can't get any worse, along comes a film like `Slackers' to remind us that barrel-bottom scraping has long stood as one of Hollywood's most lucrative and time-honored traditions.`Slackers' features a trio of amoral buddies who spend most of their time devising elaborate schemes to help each other cheat their way through college.
Even the scene where the girl is using a vibrator, even that's not fun to watch in this movie.
Well, this week it's Slackers, the very disjointed, (but still funny), comedy Starring Devon Sawa, James King and Jason Schwartzman.
Especially since it's Dave that she likes and not "Cool Ethan".As with all teen comedies there is conflict.
If you want to see a teen gross out comedy that's actually good, then I suggest "American Pie" and "Animal House", or "Road Trip", just something that's entertaining, and not dreadfully bad like "Slackers".
For many this movie was in the beginning of their careers and we can see now how far they went from it.Jason Schwartzman was absolutely perfect as Cool Ethan. |
tt0039230 | Bury Me Dead | When the remains of a woman's body are found after a fire consumes a barn on the estate of wealthy Barbara Carlin (June Lockhart), it is assumed to be her, especially since she was wearing Barbara's diamond necklace. However, after the funeral, Barbara secretly contacts Michael Dunn (Hugh Beaumont), the family lawyer. He advises her to notify the police immediately, but she suspects someone is trying to murder her and wants to investigate first.
A series of flashbacks reveals the possible motives of several suspects. The prime suspect is her irresponsible, philandering husband, Rod (Mark Daniels), whom she is reluctantly divorcing; he might want her wealth. But there is also Rusty (Cathy O'Donnell), a resentful young woman who had been raised to believe she was Barbara's younger sister. When Barbara's father died, his will revealed that Rusty was just an orphan he had raised, but not legally adopted; Barbara inherited everything. Barbara was quite willing to share everything with her, but Rusty accepted only a small allowance. Rusty, it also turns out, is in love with Rod and (mistakenly) believes he loves her. And who is the woman buried under Barbara's name?
Another flashback reveals that Rusty, a minor, had taken up with a dimwitted boxer named George Mandley. When Barbara went to take her home, Rod had become openly attracted to George's shapely "assistant", Helen Lawrence. Barbara began seeing George to retaliate. Rusty bitterly resented Barbara taking George away from her. Eventually, it is realized that the dead woman is Helen. (Rod had let her try on Barbara's necklace and forgotten to get it back.)
More revelations follow. Helen, George's scheming girlfriend, had gotten him to date Barbara while she herself was seeing Rod. She hinted to Rod that he should kill his wife and marry her. That failed, as Rod actually loved Barbara, leaving Helen to plot to extort money out of Barbara through George. Meanwhile, Rusty, still certain that Rod loves her, boasts to him that her schemes had driven him and Barbara apart.
After the power goes out in her mansion that night, Barbara is attacked by an unknown assailant in the dark. Fortunately, the attacker flees before finishing the job. Rod and Jeffers, their butler, show up shortly afterward, followed by Michael. Rod is taken in by the police for questioning, during which he is asked to telephone Michael for information about any insurance policies on Barbara's life. When Michael's secretary mentions that he has not been in the office all day, Rod remembers that he claimed to have received Rod's message about the latest attack. He insists that the police take him back to the mansion as quickly as possible. Meanwhile, Michael realizes he has blundered, telling Barbara that Helen was murdered with a hammer, something only the killer would know. When Rusty shows up, he decides to stage a murder-suicide, but is gunned down by the police just in time. | murder | train | wikipedia | Surprising B-pic.
B-movie fans are constantly filtering amid the dross in search of hidden gems and eccentric oddities in which verve and creativity peek through the routine cracks of low-budget filmmaking.
Here's one really obscure title that fits the bill.With a great premise reminiscent of DOA, this could have been a stunning noir.
Unfortunately, some skeptic decided to play it mainly for laughs, not unlike many B thrillers of the 30's and 40s.
Nonetheless, below the surface hides the bizarre interlocking relationships of lust among the characters across class lines, with Cathy O'Donnell's scheming nympho teenager a standout (reminiscent of the Martha Vickers character in the Big Sleep).
There's also a more exotic temptress in a smaller role, as well as a muscular deadhead boxer to lure the posh ladies of the cast.Of course, the giveaway is the presence of John Alton, whose luminous expressionist photography is again highly experimental and at times breathtaking.
He combined with director Vorhaus for another hidden gem, The Amazing Dr X (aka the Spiritualist)..
A pretty good premise gets pretty pedestrian treatment.
An inferno against a night sky opens Bury Me Dead, with the whinnying of high-strung horses as they're being led from their burning stable.
Still inside the tinderbox, all those present assume, is a well-to-do young married woman (June Lockhart).
But later, at the burial, a mysterious veiled mourner hitches a ride home with family lawyer Hugh Beaumont and reveals herself to be the presumed contents of the casket.She does her own version of the dance of the seven veils by dramatically appearing to her various survivors, who greet her re-emergence with a multicolored outbursts of consternation, shock and relief.
(Lockhart's such a sweetie she can't bring this off with the panache it demands.) Among the surprised are her husband Mark Daniels, whom she suspects of setting the fire, and her spoiled and wilful kid sister Cathy O'Donnell (who oddly takes top billing).
One by one, they and others relate to the police, in flashback, their own recollections of the night of the fire.
One big question remains: Whose remains were laid to rest?Starting off with a great premise the fantasy of being present at one's own funeral Bury Me Dead soon finds itself running low on ingenuity.
Not completely out, just low.
On the plus side, it boasts expectedly fine cinematography courtesy of John Alton, just before he embarked upon his legendary collaboration with director Anthony Mann.
But here the director was Bernard Vorhaus, nearing the end of his humdrum career if not of his life, which would last almost half a century after his last movie (he fell victim to the Hollywood blacklist and relocated to England).In a style inexplicably popular in crime programmers of the late 30s and early 40s, Vorhaus decides to leaven the homicides with laughs.
Yet Bury Me Dead manages to pull short of the brink of one of those ghastly slapstick mysteries not by much, but still short.
(As a beef-witted prizefighter, Greg McClure shoulders most of the ungainly comedy on his very broad frame.) With its pleasant but low-voltage cast getting little extra juice from Vorhaus, Bury Me Dead doesn't quite count as forgotten treasure, even by the forgiving standards of nostalgia buffs and film-noir freaks.
But it's not a disaster, either, in length and appeal about as comfy and silly as an old episode of Simon & Simon or Matlock padded out for a slot on TV after the late local newscast...
Misconceptions of Psychoanalysis..
Bury Me Dead is directed by Bernard Vorhaus and adapted to screenplay by Dwight V.
Babcock and Karen DeWolf from a radio drama by Irene Winston.
It stars June Lockhart, Cathy O'Donnell, Hugh Beaumont, Mark Daniels, Greg McClure and Milton Parsons.
Music is by Emil Cadkin and cinematography by John Alton.Barbara Carlin (Lockhart) surprises everyone by turning up alive and well shortly after she had been buried at funeral!
This poses two immediate questions: Who was buried in Barbara's coffin?
And who was it who attempted to murder her?
As has been noted by the few writers on line who have written about this film, it's a grand premise that unfortunately isn't exploited to its maximum.
It's material that makes us lament that the likes of Lang, Siodmak or Mann didn't have this written idea land on their desks.
Compact at under 70 minutes, it's a film that, under Bernard Vorhaus' guidance, just doesn't know if to play it as straight or straight out murder mystery comedy.
Something further enhanced by Cadkin's musical score, which, quite frankly, belongs in an Abbott and Costello movie.
However, the film rises above average because the script is actually strong and John Alton weaves some magic with his photographic lenses.Narratively it's a good who done it?
The mystery is strong and the reveal is not easy to guess from the off, though in fairness the comedy moments in the flashbacks kind of distract you from any detective work you want to partake in!
But coupled with some sharp lines given to Lockhart, who delivers them with a scorpion like sting, it's well written stuff.
Yet without doubt it's Alton's work that makes this well worth viewing, whenever the film gets indoors the film takes on another dimension.
Alton creates stark images at every turn, angled shadows everywhere, the whites ghostly and the darks deathly black.
The last 15 minutes of the film are played out on this atmospheric stage and it's everything that a Alton fan could want.
Even if it ultimately is work that deserves a far, far better film.
Undercutting a Possible Sleeper.
The first ten minutes had me thinking 'sleeper' as the narrative moves from a raging inferno to a graveside funeral where the so-called corpse turns up alive and well in a heavy, black veil.
It's a great audience 'hook'.
So now June Lockhart must find out who among her circle tried to kill her.
And, oh yeah, just who did they bury in her place.Trouble is the movie gets pretty ragged from that point on.
Director Vorhaus can't seem to make up his mind whether he's directing noir or pratfall comedy.
The boxer, for example, is straight out of an Abbott & Costello romp.
Add Mark Daniel's really erratic acting, plus Sonia Darrin's shaky turn, and an otherwise interesting mystery gets regrettably undercut.
Credit the rest of the cast for carrying on well despite the handicaps.
Credit too, John Alton's expert noir photography for heightening the mystery part, even as it clashes with the ill- advised pratfalls.
Too bad, as another reviewer points out, that a director like Mann or Losey didn't get the promising material first.
Anyway, it's a good chance to see how well Lassie's mom gets along with Beaver Cleaver's dad away from TV..
A great premise that is totally wasted.
The film begins with a roaring fire and June Lockhart is assumed dead.
However, she shows up at her own funeral and wonders WHO they just buried.
If this sounds like a great beginning to a Film Noir flick, you'd be right.
But, unfortunately, from this wonderful beginning, the entire film just crumbles into a boring mess.
Instead of Noir (which the DVD box claimed it was), the film actually tried to be a bit of a comedy--with some very broad humor involving Lockhart's husband getting punched several times by a dim-witted boxer.
The film just failed at every turn to take a promising beginning and make something exciting out of it.
Certainly placing BAD comedy into the film seemed totally inappropriate and stupid.
In fact, the film also featured (along with an awful script) some pretty poor acting and direction.
While this film isn't bad enough to be enjoyed by bad movie aficionados, it is bad enough not to be enjoyable to anyone...except, perhaps, masochists.
A cheap mess that you probably couldn't pay me enough to see again--take some advice from me and try something, anything, else!.
BURY ME DEAD (Bernard Vorhaus, 1947) **1/2; DEATH BY PROXY **.
Little-known Poverty Row noir which is fairly complex and interesting, but unbalanced by its humor.
The best things about it are the cinematography (courtesy of the legendary John Alton) and the participation of the two female leads: June Lockhart (her role is not too dissimilar from that of SHE-WOLF OF London [1946] she was on the point of being driven mad in the latter film, while here she's the object of murder, and the reason for both is her inheritance) and Cathy O'Donnell (actually top-billed but her role is subsidiary to Lockhart's from what little I've read about it, her character has been played up as a femme fatale but she's really just a mixed-up kid, recalling the Martha Vickers of THE BIG SLEEP [1946]).
Having mentioned THE BIG SLEEP, Sonia Darrin (who played the sharp-tongued bookstore clerk with whom private detective Elisha Cook Jr. was enamored) appears in BURY ME DEAD as an ill-fated schemer.On the other hand, the male lead (Hugh Beaumont) is pretty bland despite being deceived, beaten up and accused of murder, he keeps an incongruous jovial countenance throughout!
Nonetheless, the suspense sequences towards the end are moderately well-handled (though the patronizing, thick-headed police inspector character is decidedly overbearing).With regards to the renamed TV version, it runs a mere 27 minutes against the original 68: whole subplots are omitted, as well as most of the flashback sequences; consequently, it makes little sense and, really, is only worth watching once for the sake of curiosity.
Unfortunately, the print on the VCI DVD left a lot to be desired (the company's output over the years, while undeniably earnest, has also been alarmingly sloppy!): the audio was especially problematic with the presence of excessive pops and crackles (ironically, these didn't plague the Condensed Version as much) and, most bafflingly, a complete audio drop-out for a few seconds of dialogue!!.
Should have stayed buried.
This is a really bad noir film.
It starts out with a terrific story idea: a woman wearing a veil is driven up to a funeral in a cemetery, with everyone standing round the grave.
It is her own funeral!
Someone else is in her coffin, but who?
Who has tried to kill her?
She had better try and stay dead for a while to try to find out.
Naturally, she is glamorous (June Lockhart), as this could not happen to someone who was not, could it?
The script and the film are terrible, and the whole idea is thrown away, is tedious, and is not worth watching.
Even the presence of Cathy O'Donnell in the film cannot save it.
Director Bernard Vorhaus's first film 'The Ghost Camera' (1933) was far better than this.
Maybe making 'Ice-Capades Review' (1942) froze his brain and reduced him to making something as terrible as this.
What a waste..
Suspensefully moody John Alton picture.
I gave this one a poor rating in my book, "Mystery, Suspense, Film Noir and Detective Movies on DVD".
I'd now like to revise that rating from poor to excellent.
This time around, it seemed a little masterpiece of "B" noir, with an intriguing and moderately suspenseful script, fine acting from all the players, particularly sulky Cathy O'Donnell (her role is small, but she makes a vivid impression), and muscle-man Greg McClure (this was his first film after playing the title role in 1945's The Great John L.).
The lead, June Lockhart, and the little-known Mark Daniels, plus the appropriately cast Rev. Hugh Beaumont, also contribute strong performances.
But in addition to the suspenseful script, the intriguing acting and the moody direction, the film makes excellent use of the trend-setting talents of John Alton, one of Hollywood's most admired (by actors, producers, directors and fellow cinematographers) and most reviled (by grips, electricians and other lighting technicians) cameramen.
In this one, Alton's moody black and white photography captures the essence, the excitement, the emotional suspense of film noir to a "T". |
tt0228750 | Proof of Life | Alice Bowman (Meg Ryan) moves to the (fictional) South American country of Tecala because her engineer husband, Peter Bowman (David Morse), has been hired to help build a new dam for oil company Quad Carbon. Though Alice is unhappy at this most recent move, she agrees to stay. While driving one morning through the city, Peter is caught in traffic and then ambushed and abducted by guerrilla rebels of the Liberation Army of Tecala (ELT). Believing that Peter is working on Quad Carbon's oil pipeline, ELT soldiers lead him through the jungle.
Terry Thorne (Russell Crowe), a former member of the British Special Air Service, arrives in Tecala fresh from a successful hostage rescue in Chechnya. As an expert negotiator in kidnapping-and-ransom cases, he is assigned by his company, Luthan Risk, to bargain for Peter's safe return. Unfortunately, it is learned that Quad Carbon is on the verge of bankruptcy and takeover, and therefore has no insurance coverage for kidnapping, so they cannot afford Thorne's services. Despite Alice's pleas to stay, Thorne leaves the country. Alice is then assigned a corrupt local hostage negotiator, who immediately urges her to pay the ELT's first ransom demand: a $50,000 "good faith" payment. Not knowing what to do, Alice agrees, but the transaction is stopped by Thorne who (due to his conscience) has returned to help. He is aided by Dino (David Caruso), a competing negotiator and ex–Green Beret. Over the next few months, Thorne uses a radio to speak with an ELT contact, and the two argue over terms for Peter's release—including a ransom payment that Alice can afford. Thorne and Alice bond through the ordeal, forming an implicit attraction. They eventually negotiate a sum of $650,000.
Meanwhile, Peter has become a prisoner at the ELT's jungle base camp. There, he befriends another hostage named Kessler (Gottfried John)—a missionary and former member of the French Foreign Legion—who has lived in the camp for nineteen months. The two concoct an escape plan, but during their attempt they are quickly tracked by the ELT. Kessler falls into a river after being shot in the shoulder and manages to escape, but Peter steps on a trap and is recaptured. Kessler is found and hospitalized. In the hospital he claims he heard a gunshot at the time Peter was recaptured, and thus believes he is dead. Thorne can not believe this, but his ELT contact refuses to respond to his calls. Luckily, one of Alice's young maids recognized his voice over the radio and reveals he is a government official. Thorne goes to a parade ceremony and confronts the contact; he confirms that Peter is indeed alive, but because of the ELT's escalating war with the government and Peter's knowledge of the terrain, the ELT will no longer negotiate.
At Thorne's urging Alice convinces the Tecala government that the ELT is mounting an attack on the pipeline being built through their territory. This forces the government army to mobilize, thus forcing a bulk of the camp's ELT troops to mobilize for a counter-attack. Thorne, Dino, and several associates are then inserted by helicopter and raid the weakened ELT base. They overcome the camp's soldiers, free Peter and another hostage, and then fly back to the city, where Alice happily reunites with her husband. Thorne and Alice share a final intimate moment before the latter departs with Peter on an immediate flight to the U.S. | murder, flashback | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0364621 | Qayamat: City Under Threat | The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has assigned the case of three terrorists to Akram Sheikh (Sunil Shetty). The three terrorists are two brothers Ali and Abbas Ramani (Sanjay Kapoor and Arbaaz Khan) and their common girlfriend Laila (Isha Koppikar). As a part of a plan hitched by a corrupt Pakistani general, Ali, Abbas and Laila hitch a plan to extort money from the Indian government. They take control of Elphinston Jail, in the city of Mumbai and using the help of a corrupt scientist, Gopal (Chunky Pandey) (a part of a team headed by Rahul (Aashish Chaudhary), investigating the effects of a deadly virus which could kill any living organism within a 3-kilometer radius.), they load three missiles with the virus. They then take a group of 213 tourists hostage in the jail and demand a ransom of 1500 crores from the government within 24 hours, failing which they will release the missile into major water bodies in Mumbai, thus creating an apocalypse (Qayamat).
Akram asks the Chief Minister to allow him to release Rachit (Ajay Devgan), a man who has previous experience of escaping from Elphinston Jail, a feat which has never been accomplished in history, to get help in entering the jail, through the very route which he had used to escape. Rachit is a man who has been silent for a long time now, owing to the fact that the love of his life, Sapna (Neha Dhupia) was killed the night he was arrested. The main point of note here was that Rachit was an associate of Ali and Abbas and had been double crossed by them, leading to his arrest. In turn, they had killed Sapna. However, unknown to Rachit, she was still alive. Akram and his team, which includes Rahul use all the help, they can to enter the jail through, first, an underwater route, and then a maze of tunnels through which Rachit had escaped. they successfully get to the septic tank of the jail but a mole in the CBI gives the news of the team's arrival to Ali and Abbas, whose men kill the whole team in a brutal gunfight, resulting in Akram's death as well. Rahul and Rachit are the only ones that are alive.
Rachit suffers from severe mental trauma, the effects of which can be seen every 12 hours, whereby he starts hallucinating and sees odd shadows everywhere. He has even lost his power of speech due to this. These effects are taken away, when Sapna, who is now at the CBI headquarters, calls him on a walkie-talkie and assures him of her true love and the fact that she is indeed alive. This is enough for Rachit as he gets up and single-handedly takes out all of Ali and Abbas's men, one by one.
Meanwhile, Rahul is also able to disarm the missiles one by one. However, while Rachit is taking out some more of the men, Ali gets to the last missile and tries to release it. Laila captures Rahul on gun point saying she will kill Rahul if Rachit does not leave Abbas. Rahul asks Rachit to let him die, but, Rachit shoots Rahul in the leg. Rahul falls down and Rachit shoots Laila in the head. Laila dies. Rahul disarms the missile and kills Ali after firing the rocket straight at him. Thus, the city is saved in the nick of time. At the end of the film, Rachit reunites with Sapna and reveals that he can talk. | revenge, murder | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0100663 | Sorority House Massacre II | Five women, Linda (Gail Harris), Jessica (Melissa Moore), Kimberly (Stacia Zhivago), Suzanne (Barbii) and Janey (Dana Bentley) buy the old Hokstedter place for their new sorority house. They get it cheap because of the bloody incidents from five years before committed by Hokstedter (Michael Villella). They decide to stay in it for the night so they can meet the movers in the morning, despite the electricity and the phones not working. Janey tells the group of the murders years before, putting the group on edge. As it turns to night, a storm rolls in and the girls are crept out by they neighbor Orville Ketchum (Peter Spellos) who recalls the night of the murders, and how Hokstedter was defeated. He gives them the keys to the basement before returning home. The girls decide to explore the basement, and find Hokstedter's tools and also a ouija board. Meanwhile, Lt. Mike Block (Jürgen Baum) and Sgt. Phyliss Shawlee (Toni Naples) set out in the storm to get to the Hokstedter house after they receive a disturbance call from the house, and also suspect Orville had something to do with the murders, although Mike was unable to pin anything on him at the time.
After taking showers, the group decide to use the ouija board to contact Hokstedter, however after they become too scared decide to go to bed. Suzanne and Janey have an argument, causing Janey to return downstairs to drink the rest of the alcohol. However she is attacked and stabbed to death. Soon after, Suzanne goes downstairs to find Janey, however can not find her. She alerts the others of Janey's disappearance, and the group split up to search. Suzanne goes up to the attic, but is locked in. She accidentally stands on a bear trap before the killer stabs her to death. Meanwhile, Mike and Phyliss travel to a strip club to talk to Candy (Bridget Carney) a survivor of the Hokstedter massacre. However, Candy can not recall if Orville was part of the murders.
Linda, Jessica and Kimberly begin to think Janey and Suzanne are playing a trick on them, and so go down to the basement to find them. Just as they are about to give up, they find their bodies strung up on the ceiling. The girls run upstairs and arm themselves with knives before attempting to leave. However they run into Orville and so retreat back into the house and lock the doors and windows. As the survivors become more panicked, they realize they left the attic window open. They run upstairs and lock the window, however Kimberly realizes that he has already gotten into the house. She panics and runs downstairs. While Linda remains in the attic, Jessica goes after Kimberly. Kimberly bumps into Orville and hides in a bathroom, but the killer gets in and murders her.
While Linda hides in the attic, Orville enters. Linda manages to stab him numerous times before finally choking him. She goes downstairs in search of Kimberly and Jessica, but instead finds Kimberly dying in a bathtub. Linda is attacked by a still alive Orville, but Linda overpowers him and drowns him in the toilet. She goes downstairs to find Jessica, but answers the phone when it rings. A woman asks for her husband, Hokstedter, before warning her he is in the house, before hanging up. Linda is lured into the basement by Jessica, who reveals herself to have been possessed by Hokstedter. Jessica chases Linda upstairs where the two fight, before Orville reveals himself to still be alive. Orville stabs Jessica, however Jessica knocks him out, before Linda manages to defeat Jessica, stabbing her in the neck.
The next morning, Mike arrives with police officers after the movers found the bodies. They find Linda still alive, but now possessed by Hokstedter. Orville wakes up and shoots Linda dead before the police officers shoot Orville. He however, survives and is rushed to hospital and later released after police could not pin the murders on him. | violence, cult, murder, plot twist | train | wikipedia | There are flash backs, but not to the original Sorority House Massacre, but to the original Slumber Party Massacre, I guess even the film makers got confused, but who cares?
I liked and enjoyed "Sorority House Massacre II" because it goes directly to the point since minute 0 of running time.The movie's opening credits are cool enough.
The movie follows the bright tone of the opening credits until the end.For about 90 minutes we have hot, and I mean HOT women in skimpy lingerie running around the house and some bar while escaping from a possessed butcher.
That's all you have to know."Sorority House Massacre" is an entertaining 80's flick but it isn't for everyone who is into the Slasher genre.
It's also true that this movie fits better in the cheesy category because there isn't room for logic or common sense.So I would only recommend this movie for a teenager male audience who will be cheering our hot heroines anytime they run or scream.This is sexy material in the Slasher genre.
Five sorority sisters move into a big new mansion (Isn't this the same place Fred Olen Ray usually films his movies?) and are menaced by the fat, crater-faced, zombie-like next door neighbor "Orville Ketchum" (i.e. Peter Spellos).
For your money you get two shower scenes, three clothes-changing scenes, a bathtub full of blood, a foot in a bear trap, a OUIJA board, a possession, a knife stuck in a neck, a "spank" room, a man eating a sandwich made of raw meat, flashbacks featuring footage from SLUMBER PARTY MASSACRE, the slasher scene from Hollywood BOULEVARD seen on a TV set, a trip to a strip club where deceased porn star Savannah dances and much more.
It's quite the little B-movie package we got going on here.Sure, the acting's not Oscar caliber (though the roles ARE played with enthusiasm, especially by Gail Harris *love her accent, by the way*) and it's totally clichéd, but it's actually a pretty fun and extremely entertaining little B slasher if you like these kind of things.
Robyn Harris who played the lead 'Linda' was great with her sexy British accent (didn't expect it!) while Peter Spellos was funny as Orville Ketchum.It is definitely one for a late rainy night or to watch with friends for a fun time.7/10.
I also rented "Hard to Die," which is a sequel to this and is almost as fun....makes a good double-feature with "Hollywood Boulevard" or "The Great Texas Dynamite Chase" or one of those Claudia Jennings flicks of the 70's....
I mean the film has nothing to do with Sorority House Massacre 1, yet uses footage from Slumber Party Massacre.
"Sorority House Massacre II" is actually one of my favourite low-budget slasher flicks.It is extremely dumb,but it offers plenty of gore and nudity,so I wasn't disappointed.Five pretty girls buy a creepy old house which was the scene of brutal massacre some years earlier and decide to turn it into their sorority house.Soon they encounter their weird neighbour,Orville Ketchum,who tells them that he was the one who found the bodies.They also mess with a ouija board and the slaughter begins..."Sorority House Massacre II" is a much better film than the dreary original.The gore is plentiful and the girls look incredibly hot in their sexy nighties.Gail Harris is pretty memorable as the leader of the sorority house and Peter Spellos is wonderful as the fat,creepy neighbour from hell.Overall,I enjoyed this film and you should too if you like sleazy slasher films.Give it a look.8 out of 10..
This was released the same year as Wynorski's Hard To Die, and both movies have some of the same actors and use flashbacks from the original Slumber Party Massacre rather than the first SHM (don't ask me why.) The plots are also nearly identical, right down to the ho-hum demon posession that's thrown in for laughs.
I'm with Joe Bob on this one.****SPOILERS AHEAD****What other movie shamelessly borrows lengthy scenes from another totally unrelated movie ("Slumber Party Massacre") and uses them as flashback sequences, but with completely different back story and character names?
Well, wait a minute...I guess a lot of more mainstream movies do that, too.But you have to admit that this movie confirms what we males have always suspected: When women get together for a sleepover or slumber party, they spend half their time running around the house naked and the other half wearing the lingerie that even Victoria's Secret refuses to sell.****END OF SPOILERS****But above all, this movie is watchable.
Anyway, if you want to see a slasher film where the victims are pretty and buxom, and spend most of the movie in skimpy underthings, this is the one.
B-movie legend Jim Wynorski's name only sequel to the fairly dire "Sorority House Massacre" has almost everything you want from a straight-to-video slasher flick.
It's missing only the creative and violent "kills" these movies sometimes have.Wynorski is the guy who is quoted as saying that "breasts are the cheapest special effect in our business", and from that quote you can divine two things: he is a guy who doesn't take his work very seriously, and he is someone who knows his audience and what they want to see.
As a result his movies are goofy, harmless fun.You already know what this one is "about" - all slashers are pretty much about the same thing - but I'll tell you anyway.
They waste little time stripping off for a series of shower scenes, and then spend the rest of the movie in only their underwear.See, I told you Wynorski knows what you want to see.Anyway, the girls hold a seance with a ouija board and are immediately successful in contacting the ghost of the killer who once lived in their knew home.
Coming up with excuses to get generic pin up girls out of their clothes and into their underwear is basically his forte.The movie has a completely unnecessary sub-plot (more of a sub-sub-plot) about a detective trying to find out what happened to the house's previous occupants...
I'm pretty sure all cop movies from the '80s featured stirp club scenes as a way to shoe-horn in some nudity.
Well back in 1990 "Sorority House Massacre II" was to view, yet I just viewed it as part of my catching up on B list horror flicks, and once again this was a little treat of blood, gore, breasts, and stalking.
Yet again it seemed real despite being low budget with mostly no name actors when you don't use a lot of special effects and plus when you add a little story it makes for a good movie.
Set in California the beautiful girls of Sigma Pi will soon find that life is not forever as with playing around with a Ouija board and a past curse of their hangout house will lead these sexy colored bra wearing ladies down a blood soaked path of gore!
Overall good little suspense horror film of blood, nudity and thrills one to watch and enjoy it's a view that's better than many of today's big budget overblown graphic CGI pictures..
When a Satanic serial killer in plaid rears his bloated, flabby face near the house on a rainy night, the girls strip to their undies and consult a Ouija board for help.Lightning flashes are lifted from the title scene from Gilligan's Island!
The film's pacing is as slow as the killer's walk, because it takes forever for anything to happen.Linda (played by short little Robyn/ Gail Harris) is my favourite of the lot, but there are no decent nude scenes or sex scenes.
It seems more like a PG-rated lingerie shoot than a slasher flick for the first 30 minutes, then some mostly mild violence is brought into the mix, as the girls are stalked (very slowly) by Captain Happy in his plaid overalls, throughout this old mansion.This one-act story stretched out to 77 minutes basically climaxes about 60 minutes in, and then it falls back on the undying killer cliché, before resorting to the demonic possession cliché, in a surprisingly blood-drenched ending.
Every single girl in the "sorority" house decides to take a shower or change into lingerie for no real reason and of course some type of killing spree follows.
The killings in my opinion were great, but overall, this movie takes after the Slumber Party Massacre series..
Proving yet again that you don't need a budget for atmosophere, laughs, and that enjoyable drive-in-esque feel, director Jim Wynorski tells us the tale of a group of five silicon-enhanced coeds who've just purchased a new house for their sorority.
Once they arrive they're informed of the house's morbid past (Described as a flashback with unrelated scenes from "The Slumber Party Massacre) by creepy overweight neighbor, Orville Ketchum.
The movie plays pretty much as you'd expect it to, so if your the kind of guy that likes T&A mixed with fake blood and freaked out teenagers, then this film is for you.
This is a good, funny and very sexy slasher flick, but it has nothing to do with the original Sorority Massacre.
Well this is your typical standard fare, you know: bad acting, writing, dialogue, the whole shabang and the only way to save a movie like that fro total disaster is have lots of hot women and and plenty of cheesy laughs.
Another interesting note is the character Orville Ketchum, brilliantly under-played by Peter Spellos, who is featured in both this movie and 'Hard to Die'.
I do, however, know it was the movie where they hire a lot of women and require them all to take their clothes off.I recall a shower scene in there somewhere.And then I remember the women running around screaming in undies that are really only worn in the bedroom.Was there a plot?
This film from director Jim Wynorski (Big Bad Mama 2, Chopping Mall) has everything a good horror film should have from big breasted women, non-stop nudity, strip clubs, girls in their underwear, a good maniac, bad special effects and of course, more nudity.
That type of thing is usually saved for your viewing pleasure - not for our girls to see.2.) The footage stolen from "Slumber Party Massacre" and used as a back story.
We know where that footage is from - and not everyone sees it as an homage - more as a blatant rip off.The acting was terrible as expected, but this movie is the epitome of the horror film cliché.
Why does it take the same plot and Scenes from the 1984 classic film "The Slumber Party Massacre"?
A group of young women (played by five untalented, but big-breasted B-movie actresses who are obviously too old for their roles) move into their recently acquired sorority house.
After slipping into their smallest items of lingerie, the girls unwisely decide to spend their first night in their new home dabbling with a Ouija board, calling up the spirit of a murderer who massacred his family in the very same house several years before.
Sometimes, people in horror films just deserve to get killed...Director Jim Wynorski, a man not exactly renowned for his high-brow movie making, ladles on the cheese in this deliberately campy sequel to Sorority House Massacre, which forgoes genuine scares in favour of a tongue-in-cheek approach.
Cheap, cheerful, and totally devoid of logic, Wynorski's film is never intended to be anything other than trashy fun, and, in that, I suppose it succeeds: viewers are offered a couple of prolonged shower scenes, a creepy weirdo who may or may not also be a killer, two useless detectives whose only purpose is to make possible a scene in a pole dancing joint (which briefly features deceased porn star Savannah as a stripper), flashbacks to a totally unconnected movie (The Slumber Party Massacre), and several unconvincing death scenes complete with hokey gore.Lacking any decent acting and direction, or any semblance of originality, Sorority House Massacre 2 is the kind of film best watched after a few beers have numbed the senses slightly and one's tolerance for puerile garbage is slightly higher than usual..
This is Bad. A bunch of girls move into a house where as the neighbor says murders took place 5 years ago.The main problem being that the flashbacks they use are from Slumber Party Massacre 1 and they change the story to fit this film.
More or less a sequel to SLUMBER PARTY MASSACRE instead of SORORITY HOUSE MASSACRE, this laughable sequel has five sorority girls buying a house for cheap, where gruesome murders took place five years earlier.
What story there is, is about some sorority girls restoring an old broken down house, but falling prey to a killer after messing around with a Ouiji board.
Steer Clear Unless The Movie Poster Grabs You. Five college girls (including Robyn Harris and 90s B-Queen Michelle Moore) are going to turn a mega dump into their new sorority house.
Super creep next-door neighbour Orville Ketchum (Peter Spellos) comes over and tells the story of Clive Hokstedter's murders that happened in that very house.
They actually use footage from the much better SLUMBER PARTY MASSACRE (which this is not a sequel to) to tell the story.
The five girls find a Ouija board and use it to call Hokstedter from the grave.If your idea of scary is watching women run around a house in their underwear than have at it.
With a formulaic, predictable script, a tantalizing female cast who do show us their goods, and some decent atmosphere, he makes "Sorority House Massacre II" into an engaging bit of nonsense.Working in footage from "The Slumber Party Massacre", he spins a yarn about five sorority babes who move into an old house that (wouldn't you know it) was the site of a mass murder perpetrated by vile Clive Hochstatter long ago.
Later that night, the nasty things start happening, while suspicion falls on the head of the intimidating (and eternally tired looking) next door neighbour, Orville Ketchum (Peter Spellos), a character also seen in Wynorskis' "Hard to Die".You get what you expect in this thing.
The movie co-stars Playboy Playmate Melissa Moore, Toni Naples (one of the villains from Wynorskis' "Deathstalker II") as Blocks' partner, and Bridget Carney as foxy stripper Candy, but the show is stolen by the deadpan Spellos, who's as indestructible as any horror movie psycho.Those who like their slashers on the sleazy side should have a pretty good time with this one.
The original "Sorority" is entertaining with good death scenes, but is too much of a rip-off of "Slumber Party Massacre" and "Halloween", but this sequel is even more entertaining and more of a rip-off.!!!SOME SPOILERS!!!A group of girls move into the house from the first film and are stalked by a mad slasher.
One main problem with the film is the fact that they use scenes from "Slumber Party Massacre" as flashbacks of the murders in the first "Sorority."(?)Good death scenes, some suspense(Yep u heard right, some suspense), and an o.k. plot, but terrible acting, and a little slow in the middle.
(I haven't seen The Slumber Party Massacre all the way through yet, but I'm pretty sure they used a clip from that movie to explain the killer's past in this one.
If you love campy B-movies, you might enjoy SORORITY HOUSE MASSACRE 2!!!.
"Sorority House Massacre II" is a thoroughly fun and enjoyable cheesy slasher.**SPOILERS**Finding an abandoned house, Linda, (Gail Harris) Jessica, (Melissa Moore) Kimberly, (Stacia Zhivago) Suzanne, (Michelle Verran) and Janey, (Dana Bentley) decide to use it as the home for their new sorority.
Well Wynorski understood what any good slasher must have in order to be a smashing suc(k)cess:bimbos, boobs, blood, and board..the Ouji Board, than is.Five sorority sisters spend the night in a recently purchased house, a cob-webbed, old dump in need of renovation, notorious for being the very place a series of murders were committed by a nutcase who lived there.
Wynorski shamelessly includes footage from SLUMBER PARTY MASSACRE, injecting it into the plot representing the murders spoken about by the girls and Orville.
As the girls explore their new sorority house they discover an Ouija board & Jessica has the bright idea to hold a séance because it might be good for a laugh, these people deserve to die!
Having said that if your looking for a slasher then you could do worse than Sorority House Massacre II as it moves along at a fair pace, there are no real sub-plots to bog things down & it delivers what one would expect from a slasher.Hack director Wynorski has over 60 low budget horror/sex films to his name & Sorority House Massacre II was one of his first.
There is a fair amount of nudity though, if that's your thing.Technically Sorority House Massacre II was obviously made on the cheap & it shows.
The acting is poor by everyone involved especially Spellos as the weird fat neighbour, there are a few porn stars in here as well if that sort of thing interests you...Sorority House Massacre II is an OK slasher, it does what one would want but it's not that well made, the gore is tame & the story is a bit to basic.
Sorority House Massacre 2 is an excellent example of how you can recycle the scenes from another film, in the hope that others haven't seen that other film, and use them to create a mythology that your story centers itself upon.
In this case, several scenes are pilfered from the much superior "Slumber Party Massacre," except the teacher becomes the driller killer's wife, the girls that survive are his daughters, and the driller killer isn't "Russ Thorn," but is named something else completely.A sorority purchases a abandoned home, and while setting themselves up in it, they find a Ouija board and decide to invoke the sinister spirit of the maniac. |
tt0229260 | Book of Shadows: Blair Witch 2 | The film begins with Jeff Patterson, a patient at a mental hospital in Maryland, receiving drugs through a feeding tube. Moments later, he is in a padded room with a straitjacket on, throwing his body against the padded walls.
The film cuts to November 1999, when a group of young tourists—Stephen and his pregnant wife, Tristen, who are researching the Blair Witch for a book they are writing; Erica, a Wiccan; and Kim, a goth psychic—arrive in Burkittsville, Maryland, after seeing The Blair Witch Project. Jeff, a local man, is their tour guide and a paranormal investigator who says his equipment will capture any supernatural events that happen while they visit the Blair Witch site.
They camp for the night in the ruins of Rustin Parr's house, and Jeff places cameras around to capture anything supernatural. As the group gets drunk around a campfire, another tour group arrives and claims to have jurisdiction over the ruins. Jeff and his group convince the others that they saw something horrifying at Coffin Rock earlier, and the other group leaves to investigate. Jeff and his group wake the next morning with no memory of the previous night. Tristen and Stephen's research documents are shredded and strewn about, and Jeff's cameras are destroyed. However, Jeff's tapes are found unharmed in the same spot the Blair Witch Project footage was discovered. Tristen notices that she is bleeding and has miscarried.
The group goes to the Burkittsville hospital, where Tristen's miscarriage is confirmed. As she is about to be discharged, Tristen sees a ghostly young girl walking away backwards. Jeff takes the group back to his home, an abandoned broom factory against a steep hill in the woods. It has an elaborate security system, surveillance cameras, and a front door alarm. That evening, the group reviews Jeff's tapes and find hours of footage to be missing. Only one scene remains, which depicts a naked Erica holding onto a tree and swinging around it backward. Erica remembers no such event and runs off to pray, weeping as she does so. Each of the members of the group now begins to have hallucinations of horrible things (like eating a dead owl, murdering someone, or being locked in an asylum). Kim borrows Jeff's van to drive in to town to pick up food and alcohol, and has a heated argument with the convenience store cashier. The van she drives is attacked by locals as she leaves, and she crashes the vehicle into a telephone pole after swerving to avoid ghostly children walking along the road. Back at Jeff's, she reaches into her shopping bag and pricks herself on a small, bloody nail file stuck among the bottles of beer she purchased.
The three tourists decide to leave the next morning, but Erica mysteriously disappears and no one heard the front door "barking dog" alarm sound to indicate she'd left. Kim discovers Erica's clothes, surrounded by a circle of lit candles. They attempt to call Erica's father at his office, but are told by his secretary that he has no children. Jeff discovers his van is wrecked, but Kim says she had only dented the fender. The county sheriff calls to say that the other tour group was found disemboweled on Coffin Rock. He demands that Jeff reveal what he knows about the crime, but Jeff denies any involvement and hangs up. Kim decides to call for help, but while looking for a telephone directory discovers dossiers on each of the tourists in Jeff's desk. Tristen (whose mental health is rapidly deteriorating) suddenly claims she can see Erica through a window, naked and swinging around a tree. Stephen runs outside to confront Erica, but the walkway connecting the building to the hill collapses under him when he does so. As he climbs to safety, Stephen sees the same girl Tristen did in the hospital. The sheriff calls again and says he is at Jeff's front door. The security monitor shows the bridge is now intact. Jeff hears the sheriff shouting at the door, goes downstairs, grabs a shotgun from a closet, and opens the door—but the bridge has returned to its damaged state and the sheriff is nowhere. Stephen, Kim, and Tristen arrive as Jeff opens the closet to put the gun away, and all three discover Erica's corpse in the closet.
Tristen, in a hallucinatory state, chants about "reversing the evil," leading Kim to suggest they play Jeff's damaged tapes in reverse. The footage now shows Tristen leading the group in satanic worship and a drunken orgy, followed by a subsequent ritual murder of the other tour group. Jeff begins taping Tristen as Stephen demands that she confess to killing Erica. Tristen alternately sneers at the others and asks them for help, luring them to the second floor. Stephen accuses Tristen of deliberately killing their baby. Tristen ties a rope around her own neck, threatening to kill herself. Stephen pushes her over the second-floor banister in a moment of rage, and causes her to hang herself.
After a jump cut, the audience sees that Jeff, Stephen, and Kim have been arrested. Each is interrogated separately, with the police showing each person footage of their crimes. Security camera footage shows Kim stabbing the cashier in the neck with the cashier's nail file, killing the latter. Surveillance camera footage shows a naked Jeff killing Erica, arranging her clothes, and putting her dead body in the closet. Jeff's video shows Stephen assaulting Tristen, accusing her of being a witch and pushing her over the banister (but not Tristen putting the rope around her own neck). All three, close to a nervous breakdown, protest they never did any of those things. | violence, murder | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0061834 | Jag är nyfiken - en film i gult | Director Vilgot Sjöman plans to make a social film starring his lover Lena Nyman, a young theater student who has a strong interest in social issues.
Nyman's character, also named Lena, lives with her father in a small apartment in Stockholm and is driven by a burning passion for social justice and a need to understand the world, people and relationships. Her little room is filled with books, papers, and boxes full of clippings on topics such as "religion" and "men", and files on each of the 23 men with whom she has had sex. The walls are covered with pictures of concentration camps and a portrait of Francisco Franco, reminders of the crimes being perpetrated against humanity. She walks around Stockholm and interviews people about social classes in society, conscientious objection, gender equality, and the morality of vacationing in Franco's Spain. She and her friends also picket embassies and travel agencies. Lena's relationship with her father, who briefly went to Spain to fight Franco, is problematic, and she is distressed by the fact that he returned from Spain for unknown reasons after only a short period.
Through her father Lena meets the slick Bill (Börje in the original Swedish), who works at a menswear shop and voted for the Rightist Party. They begin a love affair, but Lena soon finds out from her father that Bill has another woman, Marie, and a young daughter. Lena is furious that Bill has not been open with her, and goes to the country on a bicycle holiday. Alone in a cabin in the woods, she attempts an ascetic lifestyle, meditating, studying nonviolence and practicing yoga. Bill soon comes looking for her in his new car. She greets him with a shotgun, but they soon start to make love. Lena confronts Bill about Marie, and finds out about another of his lovers, Madeleine. They begin to fight and Bill leaves. Lena has strange dreams, in which she ties two teams of soccer players – she notes that they number 23 – to a tree, shoots Bill and cuts his penis off. She also dreams of being taunted by passing drivers as she cycles down a road, until finally Martin Luther King Jr. drives up. She apologizes to him for not being strong enough to practice nonviolence.
Lena returns home, destroys her room, and goes to the car showroom where Bill works to tell him she has scabies. They are treated at a clinic, and then go their separate ways. As the embedded story of Lena and Bill begins to resolve, the film crew and director Sjöman are featured more. The relationship between Lena the actress and Bill the actor has become intimate during the production of Vilgot's film, and Vilgot is jealous and clashes with Bill. The film concludes with Lena returning Vilgot's keys as he meets with another young female theater student.
The movie also includes an interview with Martin Luther King Jr., who happened to be visiting Stockholm when the film was being made. In addition to the footage of King, the film also includes an interview with Minister of Transportation Olof Palme, who talks about the existence of class structure in Swedish society (he was told it was for a documentary film), and footage of Russian poet Yevgeny Yevtushenko. | anti war, violence, avant garde, murder | train | wikipedia | At times Yellow appears to be an earnest social-political documentary, with Lena, the main character, and others interviewing both common people and politicians (e.g. Olaf Palme at home).
All the while, Yellow acts as a personal documentary exploring Lena's life - her home life, her loves, her political views, her view of herself.
In the sixties, the Swedish films were known to be the most sexually graphic, but this is the one that really rocked the world
It was shocking in its uninhibited portrayal of sex and in its fulminating piece of social democracy
It was a significant step forward in getting the adult film shown in the theaters
The film comes in two editions, blue and yellow
The blue version focuses more on the political issues and the yellow concentrates on the emergence of sexual liberation
The lead character is a young Swedish girl who attempts to hold fast to her philosophy of nonviolence, free love, and democratic socialism...
"I Am Curious (Yellow)" was the first "mainstream" movie in the United States to show sexual intercourse.
Although the film was made in Sweden, the controversy that it ignited here reveals a lot about how we Americans think and act about sex.The film itself is no masterpiece, but is mildly entertaining.
Gee, that sounds more like an American movie of today.The other dimension of the plot is kind of a documentary about the Swedish policy of not waging overt war against any country who occupies them.
The "Yellow" in the title comes from the Swedish flag, along with its sequel "I am Curious (Blue)."It was very hip for young people to see this movie.
But then again, you really couldn't think of this surrealistic story in a linear way.The movie did offer some very entertaining diversions, including the opening scene where Lena and her wealthy sponsor attend a reading of "Babi Yar" by Yevtushenko.
This film has little to do with documentary and is more interesting in playing with our ideas of advertising and its relationship to reality.
Lines of real and not real are crossed in ways familiar with films discussing documentary, but this time we do it for the sake of consuming and marketing, not for describing the real..
This is a great film - esp when compared with the sometimes wearisome earnestness of today's politically-minded filmmakers.
A film that can so easily combine sex, gender relations, politics and art is a rarity these days.
This film, once sensational for its forward-thinking politics and depictions of free love and sexual liberation, has been reduced by time to a mere curiosity.
I am Curious (Yellow) (a film, in near Seussical rhyme, is said right at the start to be available in two versions, Yellow and Blue) was one of those big art-house hits that first was a major sensation in Sweden then a big scandal/cause-celebre in the United States when the one print was held by customs and it went all the way to the Supreme Court.
What's potent in the picture today is not so much what might offend by way of what's revealed in the sex or nudity- the director/"actor" Vilgot Sjoman films the various scenes in such a way that there is an abundance of flesh and genitalia and the occasional graphic bit but it's always more-so an intellectual expression than very lust-like- but the daring of the attempt at a pure 'metafilm' while at the same time making a true statement on the state of affairs in Sweden.
(if not as surreal and deranged) or to a slightly lesser extent Bertolucci, Sjoman is out to mix politics and sex (mostly politics and social strata) around in the midst of also making it a comment on embodying a character in a film.
The two characters, Lena and Borje, have a hot-cold relationship in the story of the film, where Lena is a "curious" socialist-wannabe who demonstrates in the street for nonviolence and 'trains' sort of in a cabin in the woods to become a fully functioning one, while at the same time maybe too curious about her car salesman boyfriend.
And as this is going on, which is by itself enough for one movie, Sjoman inserts himself and his crew from time to time as they are making this story on film (there's even a great bit midway through where, as if at a rock concert, title cards fill in during a break in shooting who the crew are, negating having to use end credits!) Then with this there's a whole other dynamic as Sjoman gives an actual performance, not just a "hey, I'm the director playing the director" bit.At first, one might not get this structure and that I am Curious (Yellow) is just a film where Lena is a documentary interviewer asking subjects about their thoughts on class, socialism, Spain and Franco, and once in a while we see Lena's father or Bjore.
But Sjoman does something interesting: the structure is so slippery as the viewer one has to stay on toes; it's impressive that so many years on a picture can surprise with not being afraid to mix dramatic narrative, documentary, film-within-a-film, and even a serious interview with Martin Luther King, who also acts as a quasi-guru for Lena.
His anarchy is playful but not completely loaded with semantics or tricks that could put off the less initiated viewer.If I Am Curious (Yellow) stands up as an intellectual enterprise and a full-blown trip into exploring sex in a manner that was and is captivating for how much is shown and how comfortable it all seems to be for the actors, it isn't entirely successful, I think, as an emotional experience.
Where Bergman had it down to a T with making a purely emotional film with deconstruction tendencies, Sjoman is more apt at connecting with specific ideas while not actually directing always very well when it comes time to do big or subtle scenes with the actors.
Occasionally it works if only for the actors, Lena Nyman (mostly spectacular here in a performance that asks of her to make an ambitious but confused kid into someone sympathetic and vulnerable even) and Borje Ahlstedt (a great realistic counterpoint to the volatile Lena), but some 40 years later its hard to completely connect with everything that happens in the inner-film of Lena and Borje since (perhaps intentionally) Sjoman fills it up with clichés (Borje has a girlfriend and kid, will he leave her, how will Lena reconcile her father) and a heavy-handed narration from his starlet of sorts.And yet, for whatever faults Sjoman may have, ironically considering he means it to be a comment on itself, I Am Curious (Yellow) holds up beautifully as an artistic experiment in testing the waters of what could be done in Swedish cinema, or testing what couldn't be and bending it for provocative and comedic usage.
I'd even go as far as to say it's influential, and has probably been copied or imitated in more ways than one due to it being such a cult phenomenon at its time (a specific technique used, with the film rewinding towards the end, is echoed in poorer usage in Funny Games), and should be seen by anyone looking into getting into avant-garde or meta-film-making.
MILLIONS of people flocked to this stinker, thinking they were going to see a sex film...Instead, they got lots of closeups of gnarly, repulsive Swedes, on-street interviews in bland shopping malls, asinie political pretension...and feeble who-cares simulated sex scenes with saggy, pale actors.Cultural icon, holy grail, historic artifact..whatever this thing was, shred it, burn it, then stuff the ashes in a lead box!Elite esthetes still scrape to find value in its boring pseudo revolutionary political spewings..But if it weren't for the censorship scandal, it would have been ignored, then forgotten.Instead, the "I Am Blank, Blank" rhythymed title was repeated endlessly for years as a titilation for porno films (I am Curious, Lavender - for gay films, I Am Curious, Black - for blaxploitation films, etc..) and every ten years or so the thing rises from the dead, to be viewed by a new generation of suckers who want to see that "naughty sex film" that "revolutionized the film industry"...Yeesh, avoid like the plague..Or if you MUST see it - rent the video and fast forward to the "dirty" parts, just to get it over with..
This is a landmark Swedish film, that pretty much changed the way American films at least, looked at censorship, especially nudity and sex in general.
To me, the controversial material is not the frontal male and female nudity and sex scenes, but the political message, which I interpret as nothing but Communism.
I would call the political theme radical, but remembering how things were back then, the censors were more concerned about the male frontal nudity, and one particular scene where she kisses a guys flaccid penis.
I have the companion film "I Am Curious (Blue)" on loan from the library too, which with (Yellow) was supposed to be one long film, but they broke it up into two.
Without going too far on this subject, I would say that follows from the difference in ideals between the French and the Swedish society.A movie of its time, and place.
Easily one of the worst movies of all time, this badly shot and edited pretentious bore did attract moviegoers in the late '60s on the strength of the then novelty of seeing a few fleeting nude scenes -- which,m just like the rest of this endless waste of motion picture film, were ineptly staged, lit, miked and photographed.
No longer scandalous by modern standards, but still an interesting look at 1960s Sweden, and I like how the films interlock.
In the 1960s Sweden underwent an enormous social upheaval, which brought it from a rather rigidly stratified and staid society, which cinephiles might have seen in Ingmar Bergman's earliest films, to a place where the old sexual taboos collapsed and angry class war broke out just like in some other Western European countries.
He developed a script through a great deal of improvisation and then shot enough footage to release it as two films: "Yellow" in 1967, and "Blue" the following year (these titles refer to the colours of the Swedish flag).
This review treats both of them.The main actress of these films was 22 year-old Lena Nyman who plays...
Lena Nyman, a 22 year-old drama student already well into sexual exploration and political commitment.
The films have another layer, however, where we see Vilgot Sjöman coaching his actors and establishing a sexual relationship with his lead actress -- but even this layer is fictional.
Yellow is more about political engagement and non-violence in the context of the Cold War, and it attacks the hypocrisy of the Swedish left (which had become entrenched and no longer a force for social change) and the monarchy.
Blue, on the other hand, explores the themes of religion and the prison system, and more of it is set in the countryside where we hear some of the attitudes of rural Sweden as opposed to the capital.Upon their release, these films (especially Yellow) were attacked as pornography, and Sjöman as a letch (even though it was the real-life Nyman's idea that there be a subplot where the director seduces his lead actress).
Another way in which Sjöman critically examines the New Left is by charting how those who preach non-violence could be very cruel in their interpersonal relationships with friends and family.I had seen only Yellow a few times and was prepared to consider this only a four-star deal, highly interesting as documentary material about 1960s Sweden, but missing something that truly moved me.
However, getting a DVD set and finally seeing Blue provided that moving experience; it is quite impressive how Sjöman made the two films interlock with just enough overlap to make it a convincing whole.
I Am Curious is really two films in one - half of it is the sexual experimental side of Lena and the other half is her curiosity with political/socialism.
The director should have just stuck with the romantic side of Lena and made a separate movie for the politics.
The film feels more like a fictional documentary than a movie.
Other than the interesting sex scenes, you'll be bored dry watching this film.
There is little of the over-the-topness I'm so used to seeing in the American films during this time..
My gosh!) that got a bunch of sneering, self-righteous critics all in a snitty, little outrage over the sheer brazenness of this film's content back in the USA.Banned outright (upon its initial release) in several countries across the globe, I Am Curious (Yellow), (which contains plenty of full-frontal nudity of both men and women) made sex, from my perspective, to be about as interesting to view as being forced to have to watch someone, whom I disliked immensely, fry an egg.Very amateurish, indeed - This disappointing Swedish production, which was definitely far too long for its own good, certainly seemed to go out of its way to feature a number of decidedly unattractive actors (especially when seen in the nude) in its cast.And after the whole ordeal was finally done - I may be somewhat naive about a lot of things that go on in this crazy world of ours, but, after watching this film, I still don't frickin' know what the hell being "curious (yellow)" is supposed to mean..
Back in 1967, "I am Curious Yellow" made quite the splash because it was the first mainstream film to show male frontal nudity.
But none of this is really important as the film also is sure to let you know that it's all fake and it exits the fourth wall quite often--showing the filmmaker and crew several times.
It is one thing to want to oppose excessive puritanism but this movie goes too far, but in fact sex is a minor part of it; the discussion of social inequality is rather boring and without much relevance.
A political documentary, about the social system in Sweden at the time.
A narrative about a filmmaker, Vilgot Sjoman, making a film...
he deals with a relationship with his star in the film and how he should have never got involved with people he's supposed to work with.3.
She is also a coming of age and into her sexuality, and the freedom of that.The magnificence and sheer brilliance of "I am Curious: Yellow/Blue" is how these three elements are cut together.
In one moment you are watching an interview about politics, and the next your watching what the interviewer is doing behind the scenes but does that so well that you sometimes forget that it is the narrative.Another thing is the dynamic between "Yellow" and "Blue", which if you see one, you must see the other.
I'll try to explain it best i can because to my knowledge, no other films have done it though it is a great technique.Think of "Yellow" as a living thing, actual events in 14 scenes.
A complete tale.Think of "Blue" as all the things IN BETWEEN the 14 scenes in "Yellow" that you didn't see, that is a complete tale on it's own.Essentially they are parallel films...
the same story, told in two different ways.It wasn't until i saw the first 30 minutes of "Blue" that i fully understood "Yellow"I hope this was helpful for people who are being discouraged by various influences, because this film changed the way i looked at film.thanks for your time..
121), but neither are outright horrible films- merely dull and, with time's leveling, pointless exercises in puerile political masturbation.
Artistically, they are Ingmar Bergman on a really bad day, although Bergman was Sjöman's filmic idol, and politically they are about as deep as a thimble, larded with the naïve Left Wing tripe that the 1960s overdosed on, in reaction to the dying Right Wing Colonialist culture that arose for a last time after the Second World War. That Sjöman was 42 years old when he made these lightweight films is the only thing surprising because their ranting is more in line with a teenager's to their parent, when they are not allowed to do something destructive.The two films follow the same tale, from slightly different perspectives.
The film is semi-documentary, and yet the camera also goes behind the scenes of the making of the film within the film, as well as ostensibly following Lena and other characters, like her on screen and offscreen lover Börje (Börje Ahlstedt) in places where it could not go, but the viewer is asked to believe unquestioningly.
Of course, this mushes up the real, the 'real', and the staged, but not in a good nor profound way, and since none of the characters are deep nor well drawn, a viewer really has no interest in sniffing out which level is which, assuming that the levels confuse any viewers of intelligence
.Like Bernardo Bertolucci's lame Last Tango In Paris, a few years later, neither of the I Am Curious films have relevance for anyone outside of their generation, which is a surefire marker that the art is bad.
Her co-stars were even less successful, and the I Am Curious films deserved their oblivion, for the years' passage has seen what at least seemed bold and innovative get pared down to dull and pretentious.
it's funny, the acting is great and it raises serious(curious) questions.i can't fully understand why this film was so mistreated, probably this is why i plan to never visit the us.
The film I am curious - yellow is made in the style of the nouvelle vague.
So it is no surprise that I am curious - yellow starts as a political film. |
tt0113041 | Father of the Bride Part II | The film begins five years after the events of the first one, with George Banks telling the audience his is ready for the empty nest he'll shortly receive with all of his children grown up. Shortly thereafter, Annie tells the family that she's pregnant, and George begins to mildly panic, insisting he is too young to be a grandfather. He has his assistant make a list of people who are younger than him, dyes his hair brown, and decides he and Nina should sell the home their children have grown up in if one more thing goes wrong with it.
Termites strike the house a week later. George puts the house on the market without telling Nina, and sells it to the Habibs. At dinner, after a discussion on whether the baby's last name will be hyphenated or not, Gorge reveals the house has been sold. Nina is livid, as she and George have to be out in 24 hours and have no place to go. On moving day George and Annie play a game of basketball one last time (what they always did for father and daughter bonding since Annie was a small child). Having no place to go, the Banks stay at the MacKenzies'(Annie's husband Bryan's parents) mansion. The MacKenzies are on vacation in Hawaii,so the Banks have to deal with their vicious Dobermans, much to George's chagrin (still obviously paranoid from a previous mishap with them.
After a late night between George and Nina, she begins experiencing symptoms that bring up the concern of menopause. After visiting the doctor the next day, they are given the opposite news: Nina is pregnant, too. Not long after, they have a chance meeting with Franc, Annie's wedding planner, who is elated at both Banks women expecting. George switches gears; now believing he is too old to be a father again. His feelings come to a head when he and Nina go to Annie and Brian's house to announce their news. Nina brings his insensitivity to light and tells him not to come home.
As an apology, George reluctantly hires Franc and his assistant Howard to do the baby shower.
As they are driving home, Nina and George have differing perspectives on the prospect of becoming new parents again. Both express how strange it will be, but begin to welcome the change.
One day when George is out, he notices that the street to their old house is blocked off and sees a demolition crew with a wrecking ball at the house and learns that Mr. Habib plans to demolish it. An upset George runs in and tries to stop them, as the wrecking ball is about to slam into the house. He pleads with Mr Habib not to tear down the house since he is going to be a father again, as there is great sentimental value to it. He realizes that if he's going to have another child, he wants to raise him/her in the house his family grew up in. When George offers to buy the house back, Habib agrees on the condition that George pay him $100,000 up front. Although reluctant to pay that money, he gives in when Mr Habib is about to send in the wrecking ball. The Banks then move back into their house, right as Bryan is called away to an emergency meeting in Japan.
Meanwhile, Nina and Annie are moving along in their simultaneous pregnancies and need around the clock care from George (Matty takes over when his father is away at work). Franck turns simple redecoration of Nina and George's new baby's nursery into a full-scale renovation/addition, which he affectionately calls, 'the baby's suite'. Eventually, all the stress and nights of sleep deprivation around Nina and Annie's constant care, and a few times where Annie thought she was going into labor, wear George out. When 'the baby's suite' is revealed, Franck offers George some sleeping pills from his native country after George tells him that he has not been getting enough sleep. George unknowingly takes too high of a dosage and suddenly passes out during dinner. The family becomes worried, which is only increased when Annie finally goes into labor.
Franck takes over the role of driving the family to the hospital with a barely coherent George in tow. After being mistaken for a patient in need of a prostate exam, George finally regains full consciousness and goes to see Nina and Annie when Nina goes into labor. George is initially cynical about Dr. Eisenberg, a young female obstetrician, who fills in because the intended physician had to tend to his sick child in Maine. Despite wanting his grandchildren to be delivered by the same doctor who delivered his won children, George comes to terms with the arrangement. Bryan soon returns to be with Annie, who gives birth to a baby boy, while Nina gives birth to a baby girl, named George and Megan respectively. The story picks up where it left off. George finishes telling the story about Nina and Annie's pregnancy. Bryan and Annie then move to Boston, since Annie took a job there. The film concludes with George standing in the road in front of his house, admiring it with the baby by his side. As he completes the story, he beings walking up the driveway, telling the new baby about all the basketball tricks George will teach her. | romantic, comedy, fantasy, sentimental | train | wikipedia | For example, it's unlikely that George Banks, a highly successful business owner who obviously must think through his decisions, would be so impetuous as to sell the house he loves and end up having to buy it back at a significant mark-up.
(George and Nina decide to sell following a rainstorm that caused their kitchen ceiling to leak, even though the house had two storeys above it.) The new baby *wing* which the Banks then decide to build on to their repurchased home is equally ridiculous, since the house is already huge and only young son Matty is still at home.
Its enjoyable as well as emotional!'Father of the Bride Part II' Synopsis: George Banks must accept the reality of what his daughter's ascension from daughter to wife, and now, to mother means when placed into perspective against his own stage of life.
Martin Short entertains.On the whole, 'Father of the Bride Part II' is a satisfying sequel..
As for the other star, Diane Keaton, her performance is wonderful too, but it is Mr. Martin who carries this movie and once again proves that he is the star..
as sequels go,this is film isn't too bad.i didn't think ti was quite as good as the first one,but it's not a bad effort.i didn't find it as funny,and some of Steve Martin's histrionics are old and seem forced a bit too me.really,this one doesn't quite have the same sincerity as the first.through much of this movie,i was all too aware i was watching a movie,whereas with firs tone,i was drawn in,and less aware i was watching a movie with people acting.having said that,there are some bright spots.for,one,this movie is just as touching as the first.and Eugene levy has a great cameo.and there is still some fun to be had.even though this may seem too high a rating after much of what i said above,i still think Father of the Bride II is a 7/10.
The original "Father of the Bride" with Spencer Tracey is a really good comedy, the remake starring Steve Martin is a good sweet-natured, amiable enough comedy - and I don't really think a sequel was necessary at all.
I mean the whole premise is basically the same - before George Banks (Martin) had to grasp the reality of his daughter being married, and now he has to come to grips with the fact that she's having a baby.
A nice twist on this is that his wife (played by Diane Keaton) is ALSO pregnant, but nevertheless it's still (basically) the same as the first film in one form or another.Thankfully it doesn't seem like a total cash-in (like so many sequels of this sort do) because it has a certain charm (as did the first film) and is still remarkably entertaining, all considered.
Martin Short, however, is yet again a stand-out and is very funny - he wasn't necessary for the plot but he is funny and a good addition to the movie regardless.Overall I'd say this is one of those sequels that didn't need to be made, but could have been a lot worse.
It's sweet, it's got some good lite-comedy moments, and in general it's just an enjoyable family movie that isn't trying to be anything other than simple entertainment -- which it is..
I loved that Martin Short was in the Sequel because I love his comedy and he made the movie very funny.
In the sequel to the brilliant Father Of The Bride, Nina Banks and her daughter Annie are both pregnant and George Banks, being his usual nervous self has to learn to get used to the idea that he's going to be a father again AND a grandfather.The whole cast including, Steve Martin, Diane Keaton, Kimberly Williams and Martin Short are all back here giving good performances.Even though Father Of The Bride Part II is not as good as the first Father Of The Bride, this is still a great movie which is enjoyable and fun all the way through and that's why I'm going to give this good sequel a 10/10..
I thought the movie was quite funny, especially scenes like Martin Short doing a workout with the pregnant mother and daughter...that was really great!
Martin Short is basically one of the highlights of the movie...his accent is so weird and funny that you have to love him.
Steve Martin is just the funniest man and watching his character change from hating the idea of being a grandpa and new father again never ceases to amaze me.
Steve Martin does it again in this touching and funny sequel to 1991's Father Of The Bride the rest of the cast returns in a new story dealing with the joys of parenthood.
He's a great comedian as well as an on screen father, my favorite scene is when both babies arrive at the same time.A year has passed since George Banks (Martin) watched his only daughter Annie (Williams) get married and has accepted her transformation from daughter to wife.
Everyone is thrilled and excited except for George who thinks he's too young to be a grandpa, from then on he tries to act young by dying his hair and exercising.But things are about to get a little crazy when his loving wife Nina (Keaton)discovers she's pregnant too now George must deal with the impending arrival of both his grandchild and his own child.
'Father of the bride' was a good film and probably didn't need a sequel.
steve martin and martin short are soo funny and its a great movie.
This is a great movie for anyone who like good clean comedy.
I love Steve Martin, but I was disappointed by the first movie, so I wasn't expecting as much from this one.
It's constantly funny, just like one should expect from Steve Martin; it's not preoccupied with corny emotion, like the first movie was.
It's Steve Martin in his best performance since "My Blue Heaven." Sometimes sequels can be surprisingly good.
George Banks (Steve Martin) is just getting over the wedding of his daughter (Kimberly Williams) when he has even more distressing news, she is going to have a baby!
This is my second favorite movie.My first is Father of the bride part I.This is a good movie.See it it is a great sequel.It is almost as good as the first one.
The first "Father of the Bride" film made us hold our sides in both laughter and tears, meshing Steve Martin's great comedic "Dad" character with the emotions of marrying off his "only" (to that point!) daughter.
However, when viewing the sequel to this great film, I was cautious...too often, sequels play for exactly the same type of laughs as the original (think "Ace Ventura: When Nature Calls") and thus fail to deliver like their predecessor.
Thankfully, "Father of the Bride II" does not fall into this trap.With daughter Annie (Kimberly Williams, who ratchets up her acting skills in this film compared to the first) announcing she is pregnant, father George (Martin) grapples with the conflicting emotions of becoming a grandfather.
Thus, while coming to terms with his new identity, George also must deal with two pregnant women!Not only is this film filled with comedic genius, though, but it also delivers just as many (if not more) touching emotional moments.
Sequel to Father of the Bride adds to the depth of George's character and family ties.
The original Father of the Bride had some "laugh till it hurts" moments, especially in the beginning, that are lacking in this sequel, though there are a good bit of chuckles.
Though in both movies the Father/Daughter relationship is prime, in the sequel we get a better sense of George and Nina's relationship and moments that tug at your heart one minute and then make you smile the next.
Maybe my own increased maturity allowed me to appreciate this movie in a deeper way.Diane Keaton is just so perfect in her role as Nina, and Steve Martin does his part well, as usual.
The 1991 Steve Martin comedy proved out to be popular enough to earn a sequel, much like the original Father of the Bride of 1950.
All of the main cast of the first film returns in a story where the eponymous father George Banks (Martin) has gotten over the stressful wedding of his daughter Annie (Kimberly Williams) and her fiancé Bryan (George Newbern).
Life has more in store for George and his wife Nina (Diane Keaton) though, as it soon turns out that Annie's is not the only pregnancy in the family.Again, the humour is best when it relies on Steve Martin's comical talent and charisma instead of craziness and exaggeration.
Unfortunately, adhering to the rule of always making sequels bigger and louder, the writers have given more screen time to the unbelievably annoying wedding planner Franck Eggelhoffer (Martin Short) whose noisy and flamboyant scenes are certainly the weakest parts of the whole movie.
Nevertheless, despite the predictability of the plot and the not-so-hilarious jokes, George Banks is a very likable character and Steve Martin is at home in the role, so those who enjoyed the first movie will probably like this one too – the basic building blocks of the story have not been changed at all..
What I learned tonight is that this movie is actually a remake of the 1951 movie "Father's Little Dividend", which in turn was the sequel to the original "Father of the Bride" (1950) and with the same great cast: Spencer Tracy, Elizabeth Taylor, Joan Bennett, et al.
Now, in conclusion, if you are a fan Steve Martin, Diane Keaton, or Martin Short, or if you liked FATHER OF THE BRIDE, I highly recommend this movie.
Its plot is mind-bendingly thin, with poor acting all round and is swimming with ridiculous ideas (indeed the main idea that the mother and daughter could be pregnant at the same time is stretching it a bit).My advice - do not watch this film, unless you like being bored out of your mind..
Steve Martin was masterful as George Banks, the sometimes neurotic father and patriarch.
The acting from all the characters is amazing, from Steve Martin to Diane Keaton to Kimberly Williams-Paisley.
I bet more people have been in that situation than you think.Anyway, this is a feel-good movie for some great laughs and a few happy tears!.
George Banks (Steve Martin) has to deal with becoming a grandpa after his daughter Annie (Kimberly Williams) announces that she's pregnant.
Franck Eggelhoffer (Martin Short) is also back in this one for some reason.The parts that I liked about the first movie are diminished.
So I watched the first Father of the Bride and really loved it, so I watched Part 2 right afterwards, I have to say this movie is a bit unbelievable.
But Father of the Bride Part 2 still delivers good laughs even if the plot is predictable and unbelievable.George and the family are doing well and are just enjoying life, he's even grown to like Bryan.
But the plot thickens, Nina is pregnant too with George's baby, like mother, like daughter, and when Bryan has to go out of town for work, George has to take over, but with Franck Eggelhoffer's help, that won't be too hard.Father of the Bride Part 2 is predictable and like I said it does get ridicules at times, but it still is a fun film for you and the family.
Steve Martin, I felt so bad for him how hard he was trying to take care of his wife and daughter at the same time, poor guy.
The story is also told by Steve Martins character, George Banks, like in the first.
The plot was easily predictable and the movie didn't have as many Steve Martin funny moments as the original.
In the sequel to Father of the Bride we have the daughter getting married and moving away from home, this presents a big dilemma to the father played of course by Steve Martin.
Maybe not quite as funny as the first one,, or as good,, but definitely above average,, it's always a pleasure watching Steve Martin work at his craft.
This movie is full of the old cast from the 4 year ago movie that brought us all smiles Father of the Bride, which stared Steve Martin and Diane Keaton.This sequel has all the old cast, Steve Martin, Diane Keaton, Kimberly Williams, Martin Short, George Newbern and Kieran Culkin.
Eugene Levy who played a minor role (just featuring in one scene) in the first movie as a wedding singer who was auditioning to be in the wedding, was given more screen time this time, as he plays Mr. Habib.Although fun and the plot smile able at, while watching this remake I didn't feel like I did in the first, were I was wishing that I was the family, the whole chaos of two child birth was more overwhelming to me the viewer not to mention George.
Although this part two didn't make as much money as the first, but it is a good addition if you desire to see what happened to the Banks family and how Annie carried on.The movie plot starts like the first with George Banks (Steve Martin) giving us a narration about what led to what.
So The Mother of the Bride and the Bride are both expecting a bundle of joy each, taking George's over reacting behavior off the roof.Martin Short and his companion were brought back but their inclusion was not as heartwarming as their presence was in the first.Well after you have seen the first, you will be tempted to see the second and you should, but don't expect too much of the smiles the first delivered, but it is a nice watch a good fun time for you and the family.www.lagsreviews.com.
And I also would have liked to have seen more of Kimberley Williams, she is so beautiful and quite a good actress, but I actually do agree that a little too much time is spent between Steve Martin and Diane Keaton.
And the acting is fine too, Steve Martin and Diane Keaton are still very likable, and while as I've said I would have liked to have seen more of her Kimberley Williams was lovely.
Steve Martin, Diane Keaton, Martin Short, and kimberly Williams Paisley return in Father of the Bride Part 2.
I've seen a lot of films with Steve Martin in them, and they all made me laugh.
Mediocre sequel to its equally disappointing predecessor has Steve Martin going through a mid-life crisis after he learns that his daughter (Kimberly Williams) is pregnant.
Things get more complicated for Martin as he learns that wife Diane Keaton is pregnant as well.
I think that Father of the Bride Part 2 was a great film and very hilarious.
And this one didn't change that opinion.Although I think Steve Martin and Diane Keaton did a fine job, Short does put much of this movie into slapstick category..
The first time I saw Father of the Bride 2 I really liked it.
I thought the sequel to the first Father of the Bride just showed what a great chemistry Steve Martin, Diane Keaton, Martin Short, Kimberly Williams, George Newbern, and Kieran Culkin, along with all the other supporting actors have together.
Some of the new material works better, however comic Steve Martin and his support cast never manage to make the film feel fresh.
The fun of the movie is seeing the actors, especially Martin.Steve Martin is back as George Banks, having just lost his daughter and basketball partner (Kimberly Williams as Annie ) to marriage, and now she is back home with her husband and a big announcement.
Basically George Banks (Golden Globe nominated Steve Martin) is getting used to the fact that his daughter Annie (Kimberly Williams-Paisley) has become the bride now wife and got married to Bryan MacKenzie (George Newbern), and more surprisingly a mother when she reveals she is pregnant.
But then he is shocked to find out he will be a father again as well when his wife Nina (Diane Keaton) reveals that she is also pregnant, and it may appear that both her and Annie's baby will be born on the same day.
I enjoyed this movie: Diane Keaton is my favourite actress, Steve Martin always makes me laugh and Martin Short is great, but I felt really sorry for Keaton having to pretend to be pregnant.
I would recommend it to anyone who enjoys watching Martin, Keaton or Short in a movie or who likes to laugh.
I did however like his dyed hair and new look,that was hilarious and he should have kept it until the end of the movie.Some may say the idea of a mother & daughter being pregnant at the same time,is impossible.
I love Steve Martin's warped expression when Bryan calls him a "Grandfather"!I liked that a woman having a baby in her 40's was taken very seriously,since it's a fact that women who have babies later in life have a more difficult time.
The comedy is helped once again by the presence of Martin Short and I like that he becomes more involved with the family.
"Father of the Bride II" may seem to some people like a lesser Steve Martin movie, with him as the patriarch from the previous movie now having to deal with his daughter's and wife's pregnancies.
Also starring Diane Keaton, Martin Short, Kimberly Williams, B.D. Wong and Eugene Levy..
Sure, Steve Martin's always fun to watch, particularly when he's acting dopey for whatever reason, but that didn't make it a great film.
In the sequel to the previous, Father of the Bride, George Banks (Steve Martin) is finally getting over the fact that his beloved daughter, Annie (Kimberly Williams)has gotten married.
They also have to deal with Fronk (Martin Short,) the goofy wedding coordinator from the first movie, who is now designing the new baby's room. |
tt0046246 | Rob Roy: The Highland Rogue | The film begins in the early 18th century with Rob Roy leading his McGregor clansmen against King George I's forces commanded by the Scottish Duke of Argyll. While determined to establish order in the Highlands, Argyll is sympathetic to "the bonny blue bonnets" whom he is fighting, even refusing to unleash German mercenaries against them. A final charge by royal dragoons scatters the clansmen but honour appears satisfied and Rob Roy returns to his village to wed his beloved Helen. The wedding celebrations are interrupted by fencibles - the private army of the Duke of Montrose who has been appointed as the King's Secretary of State for Scotland and who lacks Argyll's regard for the highlanders. All clans involved in the rising of 1715 are pardoned except for the McGregors.
Rob Roy is arrested and the Clan McGregor is deprived of the right to use its name. Rob Roy escapes, leaping a waterfall and subsequently leads McGregor opposition to the increasingly repressive regime imposed by Montrose through his agent Killearn. A fort is stormed by the clan and its garrison of English soldiers taken prisoner.
The Duke of Argyll goes to King George to plead the case for leniency for the Clan McGregor, who have been forced into rebellion. At a crucial point Rob Roy appears at the royal court, heralded by a piper. Rob Roy's self-evident qualities quickly convince the king to pardon him and his clan. After an exchange of compliments: "Rob Roy - you are a great rogue"; "and you sire are a great king", the McGregor returns to his people and his wife. | cult, violence | train | wikipedia | Probably the best FAMILY entertainment version of Rob Roy ever made..
This Walt Disney (early, when Walt Disney Production was synonymous with wholesome family fare - poor Walt!) film, was actually part of a trilogy contracted with British actors Richard Todd and James Robertson Justice (The Sword and the Rose & The Story of Robin Hood and His Merrie Men were the other two).
The lovely Glynis Johns, who plays Rob's wife, portrays a charming Mary Tudor in the Sword and the Rose, but is absent from 'Robin Hood'.
Joan Rice is delightful as Maid Marion, but ....Admittedly, one shouldn't substitute 'Highland Rogue' for a documentary on Scottish history of the period.
However, there is more than enough accuracy to explain the attitudes and conflicts of the time.Richard Todd shows, clearly, why he was one of the top British film stars of his time and why he was a popular North American import for both stage and screen .
He was one of the most passionately animated actors to achieve leading man status.
His dark good looks, range of expression, and obvious athleticism (he served as a paratrooper in WWII) complemented his energetic performances.Those who, after watching him, have wondered why he didn't have even greater success in North America, should remember two things: Britain, aflame with patriotic fervor after the war, had a very strong film industry of its own; therefore, many actors felt no desire to join Hollywood's 'British Colony'.
Also, Todd fell slightly short, pardon the pun, of North America's standard for romantic leading men.For those concerned about coarse language, explicit sex, or graphic violence when selecting family viewing - this is a keeper.
The historic struggle, warm interaction between the stars, and humour should satisfy the more mature members, while the bright colours and action sequences should appeal to all.I first saw this movie about 45 years ago and 3 scenes stayed with me until 'my good woman' was able to find a copy for me last year.
(Since I watch it every month, she uses it as one of her arguments when she feels a need to remind me why I should appreciate her so much!) I also heartily recommend the other two movies from the trilogy as wonderful family viewing..
Disney's Highland Fling.
The third and last of his British made films with Richard Todd is Rob Roy: The Highland Rogue.
As per a Disney family audience it's a lot more upbeat than the Nineties version of this same tale that starred Liam Neeson.It's after the 1715 uprising and James Robertson Justice as the Duke of Argyll wants to bring peace to Scotland as he's figured out the Stuarts ain't coming back.
But his aide Lord Montrose has a wholly different agenda going and it involves a special if unspecified grudge he has against the MacGregor Clan as headed by Richard Todd.Anyway in many attempts they just can't seem to capture Todd or intimidate the MacGregors.
The Earl of Montrose is played by Michael Gough and his bloodthirsty aide is played with special relish by Geoffrey Keen.Rob Roy is not quite up to the excellence of Robin Hood and The Sword and the Rose, but Richard Todd is earnest and athletic and every inch a Scottish hero.
There was definitely a special eye for the customs and mores of Eighteenth Century Scotland in the making of Rob Roy. And it holds up well after over half a century..
ROB ROY, THE HIGHLAND ROGUE (Harold French, 1953) **1/2.
Walt Disney's follow-up to THE STORY OF ROBIN HOOD AND HIS MERRIE MEN (1952) is this similar epic about another legendary outlaw (emanating from Scotland this time around).
He is once again played by Irishman Richard Todd (who has just passed away at the venerable age of 90) and the film even re-unites the actor with his three co-stars from yet another period outing from the Disney Studios, THE SWORD AND THE ROSE (1953), namely Glynis Johns, James Robertson Justice and Michael Gough.
For some reason, the film is fairly maligned (awarded a measly *1/2 by the "Leonard Maltin Film Guide"!) but I rather enjoyed it, while readily admitting to be the least of Disney's three colorful adventures derived from the pages of English history.
In traditional Disney fashion, the familiar events were simplified (though by no means rendered juvenile, as would often prove the case later) but there is enough sprawling action and engrossing drama – to say nothing of the beautiful scenery captured in gleaming Technicolor – to please most audiences.
Similarly, characterization for this type of larger-than-life fare is pretty much standard but, given careful casting all round, it emerges as forceful rather than clichéd; besides, at a terse 81 minutes, the film has little chance of outstaying its welcome.
Incidentally, I had found the flabby, oddly uninvolving and ill-cast 1995 remake (which had garnered critical praise and at least one top Oscar nod back in the day) a major disappointment on my sole viewing so far!.
The Film Deservedly Selected for the Royal Command Performance of 1953.
Although not based on Sir Walter Scott's novel of the same name, I found "Rob Roy" a most entertaining effort.
Splendidly acted throughout, particularly by James Robertson Justice (as the sympathetic Campbell), Michael Gough and Geoffrey Keen (two wonderful villains), and Eric Pohlmann (a truly charismatic performance one of his best as King George), "Rob Roy" emerges as a rousing adventure yarn with plenty of swashbuckling excitement, hair's breadth escapes, and even a bit of humor and romance.
French has directed in rousing style.
He has an eye for both the pictorial and dramatic possibilities of real locations.
Supporting technical credits are absolutely first-class, featuring fine scenic photography and a handsomely atmospheric music score..
Long time ago.
Although I said I had seen this film before it was at least 44 years ago and I was only a strapping lad of about 6 or 7 so my comments of the film might be touched with some nostalgia.I have incidently seen the new release of Rob Roy several times but I somehow prefer the 1953 version..
******* Disney Action Flick.
One of Disney's better historical pictures with excitement and plenty of action to satisfy moviegoers of all ages.
Richard Tod stars in the title role as the rogue clan leader and is primarily a British production, as it was filmed mainly in Scotland and the film contains mostly British actors.
Our hero leads raids and uprisings against British troops and the main thrust of the film is his efforts to get amnesty for his MacGregor clan in return for a truce.
The main nut is that the English might be so inclined, but not for Rob Roy himself.
Lots of battle and chase scenes throughout the picture keep the action moving.This film is much better than the write-up given it in Maltin's.
For some reason the reviewer thought very little of it and gave the film a bad review.
As is often the case, you must judge for yourself, because in my opinion it is one of the better family-oriented action films from the Disney studio.7/10 - The website no longer prints my star ratings..
Perfect Version of the Scott Novel.
If you're looking for a perfect swashbuckler in which people sound like stage Scots, ye can nae do better than this movie about the Scottish cattle thief and protection racketeer whom the early 18th-Century press, along with highwaymen, romanticized into heroes; the magnificently idiotic image was perfected by Sir Walter Scott and so we have this flick.Disney went full English with this, shooting at Elstree and the Highlands with a British cast, and the care shows, particularly with Guy Green's beautiful oil-painting Technicolor lighting.
Richard Todd gives a fine performance in the traditional, anachronistic costume; Glynis Johns (who is still with us as I write this) has never been cuter; Finlay Currie was never more Scottish; and John Robertson Justice, as the Duke of Argyll, plays his role as befitting a man whose name is John Robertson Justice, even though his real middle name was Norval..
Better than the Liam Neeson Version..
I am surprised this has a 6.6 rating.This was a classic I watched again and again as a kid.Plenty of action, rousing patriotism, singing, dancing, light romance, and manly speeches/battles to go around.This is from the era when Disney knew the basic formula for success, family values, and how to deliver a good story with a historical background, even if liberties were taken.Richard Todd is believable; tough and cunning, he also provides some humor as well.
He often reminds me of Odysseus, in his protracted journey abroad and home again, using his wiles and determination to defeat his enemies and survive.Todd's version is WAY BETTER than that Liam Neeson reboot that came later.
I was excited to see a modern adaptation of Rob Roy, but the Neeson thing just didn't cut it for me.
Way too many boring scenes that grew tedious, with no payoff.
Neeson himself didn't bring the mischief and energy of the role that Todd was brimming with.
A couple of scenes are good from the later one, and I still watch it occasionally, but it really wasn't the amazing remake I hoped for.
I felt they wasted a good opportunity to bring this to a new audience, and it fell flat, with little excitement or battles to showcase, nor the intrigue back in England.This was sort of the first version of a Braveheart film, noting the fiery Scottish rebellions against English rule that had gone on for years.The only thing I can really detract from the earlier film, is the fact that it is a little cheesy, and takes liberties, as most movies do.
It puts more of a light-hearted spin on certain things(though much of it is nicely dark and tense), and runs wild with history at times. |
tt0237993 | 101 Reykjavík | Geek Hlynur is approaching 30 years old, still lives with his mother who is divorced from his alcoholic father, downloads porn and wanders around Reykjavík half-heartedly searching for a job while spending lots of time in Kaffibarinn, the central Reykjavík bar (the bar is owned in real life by writer/director Baltasar Kormákur and his soundtrack composer Damon Albarn, a long-standing Icelandophile). The cramped, dark and oddly furnished house in which Hlynur and his mother live features a bath which transfigures into a sofa as Hlynur steps naked out of it, in the middle of the lounge with his mother watching.
Hlynur's isolated world — no small metaphor for his home country — is going along rather blissfully ignorant of the greater joys involved with engaging in life until his mother's friend Lola Milagros arrives to stay at the house for a while. Lola is a Spanish flamenco instructor with a seductive smile, a sultry voice and a carpe-diem attitude. Unknown to Hlynur, she is also in love with his mother, Berglind. An enigmatic character, Lola quickly becomes the center of the household dynamic when, after a night of heavy drinking while mom is away, she and Hlynur sleep together. The fling remains a secret between Hlynur and Lola. (Throughout the film, the song Lola often plays as background music.) As Hlynur gradually learns of their lesbian relationship, he becomes jealous of it, realizing that he was simply a momentary fling for Lola, but he is also the dutiful son who wants to accept his mother's newfound lesbianism and be happy for her. He also has occasional oedipal / incestuous dreams about his mother.
Lola wants Hlynur to get out of the house and find himself something to do because she recognizes from the start that that's what he needs most, but Hlynur prefers to pass the time in a true slacker fashion with plenty of excess and not an iota of effort. He sees no real future for himself, rather an entire life supported by the Icelandic welfare state. "It's a great system." he says. When asked what he does, Hlynur responds with, "Nothing." Pushed further with, "What kind of nothing?" he replies the only way he can: "A nothing kind of nothing." Not even death is a serious topic for Hlynur — intoxicating, out-all-night weekends inspire, "Each weekend I drop dead." He says this while lighting up a Lucky atop a snow-capped mountain, where he lies down as the snow gradually covers him up, but his plans are scuppered by rainfall melting his would-be tomb. His mixed up thoughts include musings about suicide: "The worst thing about AIDS as a method of suicide is that it takes so long to die from it."
On the other hand, Hlynur's fantasy life is alive with passion and glimpses of his subconscious show us a deeply conflicted sense of self. Flashbacks of an alcoholic father mix with sexual fantasies of the lovely Lola but quickly reveal that mom's in bed, too. During a quick trip to the suburbs for a dinner with extended family, Hlynur, so comically disturbed by the mundane family ritual (they actually gather to watch a video of last year's family dinner), imagines a bloodbath scene killing everyone at close range with a shotgun. When brought back to reality, Hlynur's blank slate and effortless personality come back into the fore: "I was thinking what a nice couch you have", he explains to the previously slaughtered family.
Hlynur's confusion over the whole situation is expressed in his rather profound and imaginative musings:
There they are... my mother the lesbian, and my father the boozer. What am I then? The offspring of a lesbian and a boozer? It's like two birds of different species. The lesbian bird and the boozer bird. The boozer is a wetland bird. He's rather heavy... and needs a good run-up to get off the ground. He can fly for a long time and has good stamina. Several weeks may pass by before he gets back on the ground. In between he lies low and goes on the defensive. Especially for the first days after landing. The lesbian. Unlike the boozer... the lesbian is a relative newcomer to Icelandic nature. She is thought to have migrated from Denmark and Britain. Her only contact with the male bird is during conception. In recent years we have witnessed cases of male birds... who are unable to fly at all. The offspring of a boozer and a lesbian is the Hlynur... an unusually slow developer that can't fly... and remains with his mother for the first 30 years. The Hlynur is defensive by nature, but harmless.
The film progresses as Hlynur comes to terms with his mother's love for Lola and his own feelings of inadequacy with her. The announcement that Lola is pregnant pushes him to the brink, making living under the same roof next to impossible for all three, but after a lot of acting out and flippant commentary Hlynur begins to see life little differently. The infant's arrival also symbolically coincides neatly with Hlynur's homecoming to the world outside his bedroom and a newfound contentedness. The strong possibility that he is the father of Lola's child has been a secret between Lola and Hlynur, and this is more than hinted at in the closing scenes of the happy household composed of mother, son, Lola, and Lola's baby who calls him Papa. | flashback, comedy, boring, home movie | train | wikipedia | null |
tt2477866 | Journey to the West | The novel has 100 chapters that can be divided into four unequal parts. The first part, which includes chapters 1–7, is a self-contained introduction to the main story. It deals entirely with the earlier exploits of Sun Wukong, a monkey born from a stone nourished by the Five Elements, who learns the art of the Tao, 72 polymorphic transformations, combat, and secrets of immortality, and through guile and force makes a name for himself, Qitian Dasheng (simplified Chinese: 齐天大圣; traditional Chinese: 齊天大聖), or "Great Sage Equal to Heaven". His powers grow to match the forces of all of the Eastern (Taoist) deities, and the prologue culminates in Sun's rebellion against Heaven, during a time when he garnered a post in the celestial bureaucracy. Hubris proves his downfall when the Buddha manages to trap him under a mountain, sealing it with a talisman for five hundred years.
The second part (chapters 8–12) introduces the nominal main character, Xuanzang (Tang Sanzang), through his early biography and the background to his great journey. Dismayed that "the land of the South knows only greed, hedonism, promiscuity, and sins", the Buddha instructs the bodhisattva Avalokiteśvara (Guanyin) to search Tang China for someone to take the Buddhist sutras of "transcendence and persuasion for good will" back to the East. Part of the story here also relates to how Xuanzang becomes a monk (as well as revealing his past life as a disciple of the Buddha named "Golden Cicada" (金蟬子) and comes about being sent on this pilgrimage by Emperor Taizong, who previously escaped death with the help of an official in the Underworld).
The third and longest section of the work is chapters 13–99, an episodic adventure story in which Xuanzang sets out to bring back Buddhist scriptures from Leiyin Temple on Vulture Peak in India, but encounters various evils along the way. The section is set in the sparsely populated lands along the Silk Road between China and India, including Xinjiang, Turkestan, and Afghanistan. The geography described in the book is, however, almost entirely fantasy; once Xuanzang departs Chang'an, the Tang capital, and crosses the frontier (somewhere in Gansu province), he finds himself in a wilderness of deep gorges and tall mountains, inhabited by demons and animal spirits, who regard him as a potential meal (since his flesh was believed to give immortality to whomever ate it), with the occasional hidden monastery or royal city-state amidst the harsh setting.
Episodes consist of 1–4 chapters and usually involve Xuanzang being captured and having his life threatened while his disciples try to find an ingenious (and often violent) way of liberating him. Although some of Xuanzang's predicaments are political and involve ordinary human beings, they more frequently consist of run-ins with various demons, many of whom turn out to be earthly manifestations of heavenly beings (whose sins will be negated by eating the flesh of Xuanzang) or animal-spirits with enough Taoist spiritual merit to assume semi-human forms.
Chapters 13–22 do not follow this structure precisely, as they introduce Xuanzang's disciples, who, inspired or goaded by Guanyin, meet and agree to serve him along the way in order to atone for their sins in their past lives.
The first is Sun Wukong, or Monkey, whose given name loosely means "awakened to emptiness", trapped by the Buddha for defying Heaven. He appears right away in chapter 13. The most intelligent and violent of the disciples, he is constantly reproved for his violence by Xuanzang. Ultimately, he can only be controlled by a magic gold ring that Guanyin has placed around his head, which causes him unbearable headaches when Xuanzang chants the Ring Tightening Mantra.
The second, appearing in chapter 19, is Zhu Bajie, literally "Eight Precepts Pig", sometimes translated as Pigsy or just Pig. He was previously the Marshal of the Heavenly Canopy, a commander of Heaven's naval forces, and was banished to the mortal realm for flirting with the moon goddess Chang'e. A reliable fighter, he is characterised by his insatiable appetites for food and women, and is constantly looking for a way out of his duties, which causes significant conflict with Sun Wukong.
The third, appearing in chapter 22, is the river ogre Sha Wujing, also translated as Friar Sand or Sandy. He was previously the celestial Curtain Lifting General, and was banished to the mortal realm for dropping (and shattering) a crystal goblet of the Queen Mother of the West. He is a quiet but generally dependable and hard-working character, who serves as the straight foil to the comic relief of Sun and Zhu.
The fourth is Yulong, the third son of the Dragon King of the West Sea, who was sentenced to death for setting fire to his father's great pearl. He was saved by Guanyin from execution to stay and wait for his call of duty. He appears first in chapter 15, but has almost no speaking role, as throughout the story he mainly appears as a horse that Xuanzang rides on.
Chapter 22, where Sha Wujing is introduced, also provides a geographical boundary, as the river that the travelers cross brings them into a new "continent". Chapters 23–86 take place in the wilderness, and consist of 24 episodes of varying length, each characterised by a different magical monster or evil magician. There are impassably wide rivers, flaming mountains, a kingdom with an all-female population, a lair of seductive spider spirits, and many other fantastic scenarios. Throughout the journey, the four brave disciples have to fend off attacks on their master and teacher Xuanzang from various monsters and calamities.
It is strongly suggested that most of these calamities are engineered by fate and/or the Buddha, as, while the monsters who attack are vast in power and many in number, no real harm ever comes to the four travelers. Some of the monsters turn out to be escaped celestial beasts belonging to bodhisattvas or Taoist sages and deities. Towards the end of the book there is a scene where the Buddha literally commands the fulfillment of the last disaster, because Xuanzang is one short of the 81 tribulations he needs to face before attaining Buddhahood.
In chapter 87, Xuanzang finally reaches the borderlands of India, and chapters 87–99 present magical adventures in a somewhat more mundane (though still exotic) setting. At length, after a pilgrimage said to have taken fourteen years (the text actually only provides evidence for nine of those years, but presumably there was room to add additional episodes) they arrive at the half-real, half-legendary destination of Vulture Peak, where, in a scene simultaneously mystical and comic, Xuanzang receives the scriptures from the living Buddha.
Chapter 100, the last of all, quickly describes the return journey to the Tang Empire, and the aftermath in which each traveller receives a reward in the form of posts in the bureaucracy of the heavens. Sun Wukong (Monkey) and Xuanzang (monk) achieve Buddhahood, Sha Wujing (Sandy) becomes an arhat, the dragon horse is made a nāga, and Zhu Bajie (Pig), whose good deeds have always been tempered by his greed, is promoted to an altar cleanser (i.e. eater of excess offerings at altars). | non fiction | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0114733 | Tromeo and Juliet | Set in modern-day Manhattan, the film begins with the narrator (Lemmy of Motörhead) introducing two families: the Capulets and the Ques.
At the center of these families are Tromeo Que and Juliet Capulet. Tromeo lives in squalor with his alcoholic father Monty and works at a tattoo parlor with his cousin Benny and friend Murray. Juliet is sequestered in her family’s mansion, watched over by her abusive father Cappy, passive mother Ingrid, and overprotective cousin Tyrone, all the while being sexually satisfied by family servant Ness (Debbie Rochon).
Both Tromeo and Juliet are trapped in cases of unrequited love: Tromeo lusts for the big-bosomed, promiscuous Rosie; Juliet is engaged to wealthy meat tycoon London Arbuckle as prelude to an arranged marriage.
In the meantime, a bloody brawl between Murray and Sammy Capulet catches the attention of Detective Ernie Scalus, who gathers the heads of the two families together and declares that they will be held personally accountable for any further breaches of peace. Almost immediately afterwards, Monty and Cappy start threatening each other with weapons. Sammy gets caught in the window of Monty’s speeding car, where he is thrown head-first into a fire hydrant and (very slowly) dies.
On the insistence of Murray and Benny, Tromeo attends the Capulets' masquerade ball in the hopes of meeting Rosie, only to find another man performing cunnilingus on her. Tromeo staggers around the party in disillusion until he locks eyes with those of Juliet. The two instantly fall for each other and share a dance until an angry Tyrone chases him out of the house.
Tromeo and Juliet continue to be enamored by one another from afar. Cappy, disgusted at his daughter’s active libido, forcefully imprisons her in a plastic cage as punishment. Tromeo sneaks into the house of Capulet and the two meet once again. After proclaiming their love for each other both verbally and physically, they agree to be married. Juliet breaks her engagement with Arbuckle and, with the help of Father Lawrence, the two are married in secrecy the next day.
Tyrone, upon discovering Juliet‘s secret affair, gathers his gang together and challenges Tromeo to a duel. Now a kinsman to the Capulets, Tromeo refuses to fight, suggesting to both sides to bring the lifelong feud to an end. Murray accepts the duel on Tromeo’s behalf and, in the ensuing brawl, is mortally wounded by Tyrone‘s club. Tromeo, enraged by his friend’s death, pursues Tyrone and slays him (through a series of car crashes which dismember him) and goes into hiding from the police.
Learning that she is involved with Tromeo, Cappy savagely beats Juliet and forces her to reconcile with Arbuckle. Arbuckle accepts her re-proposal and the marriage is set. Juliet visits Father Lawrence, who reunites her with Tromeo and enlists the help of Fu Chang, the apothecary, who sells Juliet a special potion which will aide her predicament.
On the day of her wedding, Juliet swallows the apothecary’s potion, transforming her into a hideous cow monster, complete with a three-foot penis. The mere sight of her causes Arbuckle to leap out of Juliet’s window in fright, committing suicide. Enraged over the loss of his would-be son-in-law and meat inheritance, Cappy attempts to rape and murder Juliet, but Tromeo arrives just in time, knocking Cappy unconscious and bringing Juliet’s appearance back to normal by a single kiss. Cappy awakens, taking both lovers captive by crossbow-point. While he is distracted, Juliet performs one last act of defiance against her father and electrocutes him.
As Tromeo and Juliet leave the house of Capulet, they are confronted by Ingrid and Monty, who reveal to them the real reason behind the Capulet/Que feud: Long ago, Cappy and Monty were the owners of the successful Silky Films production company. Ingrid, married to Monty at time, struck up an affair with Cappy, eventually birthing a son which Monty raised as his own. Faced with a divorce from Ingrid and the threat of having his son taken away from him, Monty was forced to sign over all the rights of Silky Films to the Capulets in exchange for his son. After the initial shock at the revelation that they are siblings, Tromeo and Juliet are determined not to let their whole ordeal be for naught; they passionately embrace and drive off into the sunset.
The film picks up six years later in Tromaville, New Jersey, where Tromeo and Juliet, now married, have become suburban yuppies with a house and (birth defected/deformed) children of their own.
The film ends with the narrator’s brief poem for the lovers: "And all of our hearts free to let all things base go/As taught by Juliet and her Tromeo". A brief shot of William Shakespeare laughing uproariously is shown before the end credits. | violence, cult, psychedelic, absurd, satire, humor, romantic | train | wikipedia | In the middle of all of this insanity are Tromeo and Juliet, literature's most famous "star crossed" lovers that fall for each other at first sight and problems arise when they realize whose family the other belongs to.The film follows the basic plot of the original play remarkably well and key scenes even use the original, or close to original, lines.
Like with most Troma its in your face, taboo subjects, gore and sex, and yet add in some really good acting and a Shakespeare plot.
You really have to see this movie to believe it!There are some hillarious jokes in the credits (best credits I've seen since Hot Shots) loads of Troma in jokes as well as general satire and shakespeare refs.
Troma at its best, this film really is a gem, and goes in my top 5 favourite movies of all time.
The effects are generally gross--though obviously fake--and the humor is generally stupid--and not the "funny stupid."I'm sure I'll get fried by the Troma Fans Union of America, but if you pay close attention to my review--like you should--I'm NOT panning this movie on account of EVERYBODY on the face of this Earth.
I haven't seen many "Romeo and Juliet" movie adaptations, but surely this is the one I enjoyed the most.
The 1996 version featuring DiCaprio and Claire Danes is a total mess compared to this one, it isn't half as entertaining as TROMA'S TROMEO AND JULIET.
I can't find a word to describe this movie, but I think of these: twisted, sick, entertaining, mind blowing, aggressive, explosive.The explitic sex scenes are well crafted, not disgusting as in other efforts (for a TROMA movie this is a surprise), and I guess that die hard Shakespeare fans deeply enjoy them as this is totally different POV of how Shakespeare would describe an explicit sex scene.
Addecuated for this times.If you're bored by now after reading the original play 100 times, then watch TROMEO AND JULIET for a twisted (and I mean TWISTED) Shakespeare experience.
Tromeo and Juliet (1996) is another jewel in the Troma Studios film archives.
If you have seen or read the play before nothing much has change except it has been "tromatized".Lloyd Kaufman adds his own twisted vision to the screenplay and makes it highly enjoyable film.
Lloyd Kaufman doesn't disappoint because you know what to expect from his films and other Troma productions.
If you like fun films with cheesy special effects, over the top acting and inspired directing, then this movie's just for you!.
So, mixing this silly story into the mix of Lloyd Kaufman and Michael Herz's Troma world is actually not a bad idea: lots of torpedo-the-top violence, excessive, icky almost Nickelodeon-slime-like gore, nudity and sex, and punk rock and piercings and tattoos for the characters.
When there's a gang-fight here, or any kind of altercation that might result in violence, there's not only gotta be blood - severed limbs, torn and cracked skulls, maybe even the occasional mutation or radioactive penis might do the trick.Here, it's a story told with a little more down-and-dirt grit (and coming out right around the time, intentional or not, with the Baz Luhrman Romeo + Juliet makes a terrific counterpoint for that film's unknowing stupidity).
You'll have to see it to believe it.Tromeo and Juliet offers up a lot of the gross-out stuff and crazy, X-rated cartoonish violence, including, a hight-light for me, a man's face stuck in a car window as it drives at top speed and then being flung to a fire hydrant.
But it also has James Gunn as writer and (un-official-but-really-was-co) director of the film, and it's fascinating to see after Slither and Super to see that his mark is on it: the film is more disturbing than one might expect from the crude but playful Kaufman, such as the 'black room' with the Plexiglas Capulet has, and some of the more crazy sexual dialog (though some of it is still Troma-light, like when Juliet calls a phone sex line just cause a picture she sees in the ad looks like Tromeo...
Once upon a time, Troma, the company that brought us cinema classics such as: The Toxic Avenger, Rabid Grannies, Poultrygeist, Redneck Zombies and Surf Nazis Must Die, decided long ago to adapt Shakespeare's famous play, 'Romeo and Juliet.' This adaptation decided to spice up the story by adding kinky sex, extreme violence, genital monsters, body piercing and incest and it succeeded in creating a bizarre yet hilarious film.
Many may think it sounds like utter crap that only morons would find funny...they may be right, but at the same time they may need to lighten up and enjoy the insanity and mind-numbingness that is Tromeo and Juliet.With a great cast, a funny script (by James Gunn and Lloyd Kaufman), a fitting soundtrack and plenty of great visual gags, Kaufman has yet again succeeded in turning what is right upside down and grossing the hell out of everyone.
This time, Lloyd takes Shakespeare's love story, turns it inside out, Tromatizes it, and adds that long, lost, entertainment value it was always lacking.
Tromeo And Juliet is the definitive edition of a rather lackluster story, and the crown jewel of the Troma universe.Years ago, in Tromaville, N.J. business partners, Monty Que and Cap Capulet start a film company called Silky Films, which would produce supposedly tasteful, soft core films.
It might, or might not, go a little something like the original, but figuring out how this one ends up is just simply not going to happen, you'll never see it coming."The one with Leo" is downright sleep-inducing compared to Tromeo & Juliet, but if watered-down, over-directed, big-budget, Hollywood, Garbage is what you've been programmed to go for, then by all means, go for it, but if you're in the mood for something a little more colorful, something that really packs a punch, and doesn't follow the "normal" movie pattern, and if you happen to have a rather abnormal sense of humor, then you just might not hate this movie.
Known largely for his production company Troma Productions and the cult favorite Toxic Avenger (1984), I doubt even movie historians and supposed bastions of good taste have ever heard of him.
Recently I watched my third helping of Kaufman's madness while staying the night at a friend of a friend's house.Tromeo and Juliet is a grungy, perverted and comic retelling of the classic Romeo and Juliet tale by William Shakespeare.
He goes to a Capulet party with his floozy girlfriend and best friend Murray (Valentine Miele) but catches the eye of Juliet and thus their romance and a lot of gore and hilarity begins.In many ways Tromeo and Juliet plays Shakespeare much like it was probably played in the 16th century.
Thank of that next time you see a person's face dimly lit by the light of their iphone.Tromeo and Juliet brings the story back where it belongs; to the masses and for that reason is probably the best film adaptation of Romeo and Juliet I have seen.
For the cheap seats; I think this is the best film adaptation of Romeo and Juliet I have seen!
There's blood, mayhem, humor and cheap, cheap sex in this salacious re-imagining and there are just enough changes in the plot to both appeal to Shakespeare originalists and people who aren't fans of ionic pentameter.Of course this movie is not for anyone.
Yet when I look back at my time in theater and the colorful, bawdy people I knew and called my friends, I can't think of one who wouldn't enjoy Tromeo and Juliet.
TROMEO & JULIET - 10TH ANNIVERSARY EDITIONWilliam Shakespeare's play Romeo & Juliet has been interpreted hundreds of times on stage and in films.
Lloyd Kaufman's film certainly stands out as one of the most original, modern versions of the bard's creation, It may be placed in a modern-day decaying New York and full of the modern-day anti-social behavior, body piercing, dismemberment and kinky sex (which, for the more than casual reader, Shakespeare himself wasn't shying away from), but at the same time it stays incredibly close to the overall feel and point of what the play is all about, which is quite an effort.
I've never heard of Troma before watching this movie.I had already given up hope to see a great movie until I saw "Tromeo and Juliet".
Lloyd Kaufman and James Gunn give Shakespeare's classic tale of star-crossed lovers the Troma treatment, infusing the bard's play with the studio's trademark brand of gross-out gags, cartoonish violence, and sex and nudity.
The result is typically tasteless and extremely juvenile, with wee, poo, fart, and penis jokes aplenty, but it also manages to be a surprisingly fun slice of nonsense, Kaufman and Gunn melding their lunacy with Shakepeare's prose to form a script that will delight Troma fans while somehow still managing to keep the whole affair surprisingly faithful to the original (at least until the ending).Okay, Shakespeare probably didn't envisage Lemmy from Motorhead as narrator of his work, nor is it likely that he ever anticipated the addition of a kiddie-fiddling priest, Juliet (the lovely Jane Jensen) making it with (T)Romeo inside a Plexiglas box, or a mutant cow/Juliet equipped with a massive schlong, but he wasn't above using vulgar tactics of his own, as evidenced by the gore-fest that is Titus Andronicus, the incestuous nature of both Pericles and Hamlet, and the countless crude sexual innuendos in his other plays.
I'd have to say that Lloyd Kaufman's three greatest films are "The Toxic Avenger", "Troma's War" and of course "Tromeo & Juliet".
If Shakespeare were to of teamed up with Salvidor Dali and John Waters, the result would be a film like "Tromeo & Juliet".
Tromeo and Juliet is perhaps the best Shakespeare modernization I have ever seen, not that there's much competition, but anyway...All in all, Tromeo and Juliet is definitely one of Troma's better movies, one of the little pearls hidden in a towering heap of dung.
Well, except for the ending, where Tromeo and Juliet kill Juliet's abusive father, and live happily together in a sunny suburban area for the rest of their lives with their hideously mutated children.THIS is the movie high school literature classes should show instead of making poor students read through hundreds and hundreds of pages of Shakespeare's scripts.
This movie is a absolute masterpiece!, 'Tromeo and Juliet' has all the Kinky Sex, Car Crashes, Mutations and a Penis Monster that Shakespeare always wanted but never got!
Tromeo and Juliet is the Troma classic adored by fans world wide!
What can i say about Tromeo and Juliet, other than if you like twisted Troma machinations, then you MUST see this movie!
i haven't seen a troma film before this but i was pleasantly surprised with it after catching glimpses of some of old troma work,This is a definite must see and must buy after you see it cause it is that cool =) funny with drama and some B Rated gore.You Love it right away just give it a rental At LEAST..
The story essentially follows the classic Shakespeare play we've all come to love (or in my case, hate), but spiced up in a way that only Troma can manage.
Tromeo and Juliet is a must-see for any fan of Troma Films, or cult movies in general..
This film is a brilliant retelling of Shakespeare's classic love story, complete with "kinky sex, body piercing, and dismemberment".
This movie should be viewed by all, because it remains faithful to the original story while still being jam-packed with Troma's trademark gore/sex humor..
I found it real shocking at first to see William Shakespeare's love masterpiece reworked into a gory, violent and kinky sensual movie adaptation.
But after you watched it once, it sort of grows on you when you watch it the second and third times, as you come over the shock and start appreciating the movie on its own merits - solid acting, good dialogue, nice sequencing and choreography, not-too-bad soundtrack and some of the (special) effects that go on.
I think it may have been better if the movie would have just gone for its own story rather than trying to base it on Shakespeare's play, but it still works pretty well.
I thought the direction was poor but let's face it, Lloyd Kaufman really doesn't know what he's doing, but he does know how to entertain and that's what he did with this movie.If you decide to sit through Tromeo and Juliet, expect a good time but not anything spectacular.
Troma Pictures are an acquired taste, and this one, an 'adaptation' of Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet, directed by Troma founder Lloyd Kaufman, is no exception.You want suicidal squirrels?
A Shakespeare film provided by Troma entertainment?
Their version of Shakespeare's play is extremely funny with the usual dose of Troma nudity and gore.
Troma has made some very good gore films, one of my favorites is "Street Trash" and of course the Toxic Avenger movies.
Unfortunately their fathers are at each other as Juliet's dad wants to take over Tromeo's dad's movie studio, but could love really conquer them all and stop this feud?
Hilarious and gross horror comedy drama satire from the wacky and disgusting people at Troma is a wonderful modern day take on William Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet.
This has set the scene for many of Troma's movies, this is a very Tromatic film.
This is the best adaption of Shakespeare's Romeo And Juliet.
Tromeo and Juliet, belonging to two different families with a lot of bad blood between them, meet and fall in love and decide to go against their families' wishes and be together.
Troma's TROMEO AND JULIET is the best modern update of Shakespear ever to hit film.
For the most part it follows the true Romeo and Juliet story, but many Troma elements are added.
with this movie, those amazing people at troma offer you a whole new perspective into the story of romeo and juliet in ways you never would have thought to be possible!
The ony ones I can think of that really nail the romance's spirit were WEST SIDE STORY and, beleive it or not, Troma Film's TROMEO AND JULIET.
There's a great scene where Juliet utters the famous, "Parting is such sweet sorrow," and tromeo quickly follows, in mid-nineties grunge fashion, "Yeah, it totally sucks." I think it's truly unfortunate that this film isn't going to get the recognition or the wide release that it deserves.
I have seen the future movies since Tromeo & Juliet (T & J), and while they are good, they cannot touch this one.
The sets, the sex, the gore, the plot, the incest.......ahhhhhhh, too sweet.I would like to define what I consider a "Troma Movie".
A true "Troma" movie is one that is produce by Lloyd Kaufman.
Tromeo Que and Juliet Capulet are star crossed lovers, whose love for each other must overcome their fathers hate for each other.
I love Troma movies, but this is by far the best!I will not spoil the movie's ending for you, I can only hope you watch it.
Right now, I could waste a few paragraphs describing the 110-minute insanity fest that is Lloyd Kaufman's "Tromeo and Juliet," but I'll put it like this: they don't get any better than this!
I'll admit I know a great deal about Troma but have seen very few of their films.
So, if "The Toxic Avenger" is the Citizen Kane of bad movies, then what does this say about "Tromeo and Juliet"?10/10.
Troma's very weird and very gross response to William Shakespeare's 'Romeo and Juliet' is not for all tastes (the nipple piercing scene is not for the squeamish).
If you're reading my comment you probably know everything about how the films of Troma are and why they are so unique and great so you are probably, if you haven't watch it of course, imagine how is the mix between Shakespeare and Kaufman.
Since the very beginning, with Lemmy of Motorhead as the narrator, this film is nothing but a really unique, bizarre and hilarious version of the Shakespeare classic.Capulet and Que, the last names of two rival families that once were friends but now the only thing that they feel of each other is hate.
The life of Tromeo Que (Will Keenan) will never be the same after he meet Juliet Capulet (Jane Jensen) and they must fight for an impossible but true love.I really like the way that the hate between the two families is shown at the beginning because this is real hate and all the members are just crazy in different ways, of course depending of which last name they have.
The end is also hilarious with the real reason of the hate between the families and the sons of Tromeo and Juliet.The cast is also pretty cool with the beauty of Jane Jensen and Debbie Rochon and a great and funny work of Will Keenan.
There are great cameos: Lemmy as the narrator, Lloyd Kaufman appears at a party, Ron Jeremy and also Sgt. Kabukiman N.Y.P.D. and Toxie appears.Well I really enjoyed this film but I can only recommend it to people who know something about Troma.
Well in my humble opinion no it doesn't, I'm not a fan of the Troma way of doing things & I don't really like their films.
If you haven't already guessed I didn't like Tromeo and Juliet that much, apart from a few effective scenes there is little here to get excited about.Directors Gunn & Kaufman didn't have much of a budget to work with & it shows, this has all the low production values, poor special effects & moronic ideals that most Troma films suffer from.
The acting is terrible & these people shouldn't go anywhere near a camera ever again.Tromeo and Juliet is an interesting take on Shakespeare to say the least, but that doesn't mean it's any good. |
tt0028174 | Revolt of the Zombies | On the Franco-Austrian Frontier during World War I, an Oriental priest, chaplain of a French colonial regiment, is condemned to life imprisonment because he possesses the power to turn men into zombies. In his prison cell, the priest prepares to burn a parchment containing the location of the secret formula. Gen. Mazovia (Roy D'Arcy) kills the priest and takes the partially burned parchment. After the war, an expedition of representatives from the Allied countries with colonial interests are sent to Cambodia to find and destroy forever the so-called "Secret of the Zombies". The group includes Colonel Mazovia; a student of dead languages, Armand Louque (Dean Jagger); Englishman Clifford Grayson (Robert Noland); General Duval (George Cleveland); and his daughter Claire (Dorothy Stone).
Armand falls in love with Claire, who accepts his proposal of marriage to spite Clifford, whom she really loves. Later, when Claire runs to Cliff for comfort following an accident, Armand breaks the engagement, leaving her free to marry Cliff. Further accidents caused by Mazovia result in the natives refusing to work, forcing the expedition to return to Phnom Penh. Armand finds a clue which he had overlooked before and returns to Angkor against orders.
After viewing an ancient ceremony at a temple, Armand follows one of the servants of a high priest out of the temple, through a swamp, to a mysterious bronze doorway. When the servant leaves, Armand goes through the door to a room paneled in bronze, with an idol holding a gong. He accidentally strikes the gong, and a panel in the wall opens, revealing a small metal tablet. He translates the inscription and realizes that it is the secret for which they have all been looking. He alone now has the power to make zombies out of people, and begins with a practice run on his servant before using his zombie powers in an attempt to coerce the fickle Claire in the movie's climax. | revenge, romantic | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0246134 | Lucky Break | James 'Jimmy' Hands (James Nesbitt) and Rudy 'Rud' Guscott (Lennie James) are two friends who used to play "Cops & Robbers" when they were young. Now adults, they plan to actually rob a Bank, but the robbery goes wrong and Hands flees the Bank leaving Guscott trapped behind the security shutters. Hands is caught and arrested not long later.
After being sentenced to do time in prison, Hands and Guscott make a daring escape plan as the prison is scheduled to put on a theatrical show of Nelson: The Musical. Hands and Guscoot plan to use the show as cover their daring break-out attempt. During rehearsals, the inmates are unable to find a pianist for the show, until one inmate, Cliff Gumbell (Timothy Spall) volunteers and impresses them with his amazing piano skills. Hands is cast as Nelson (against his will) and Guscott is cast as Hardy, much to Guscott's dismay as his character kisses Nelson as he dies.
The escape plan proves difficult to proceed with, as one of the guards becomes very suspicious of Hands. Further complications arise when one of the more dangerous inmates threatens Hands to help him escape, as well as Hands warming to a prison employee named Annabel (Olivia Williams). During a prison visiting day, Gumbell is devastated to learn that his son is spending more time with his uncle, and that his wife is very disappointed being married to a criminal. Unable to live with the shame, Gumbell commits suicide in his cell.
The night of the show arrives and the escape plan is put into action. However, the dangerous inmate is tricked into going over the 30-foot prison wall and falls down the other side, where he is captured. Hands and Guscott are about to escape when Hands reveals his intentions to stay because of his feelings for Annabel. Guscott reluctantly lets Hands go and escapes with two other inmates, one of whom has a friend who arrives in a plane to help them escape.
Back in the prison, one of the guards resigns from his job over frustration of the inmates escaping and becomes a car park warden. Hands is later released from prison and starts a new life with Annabel. | romantic, sadist | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0049755 | Showdown at Abilene | Charlie Mayeaux (Liam Neeson) is an undercover DEA agent suffering from anxiety and gastrointestinal problems after a bust gone wrong. During the aforementioned incident, his partner was killed and he found himself served up on a platter of watermelon with a gun shoved in his face just before back-up arrived. Charlie, once known for his ease and almost "magical" talent on the job, is finding it very hard to return to work. His requests to be taken off the case or retired are denied by his bosses, Lonny Ward (Louis Giambalvo) and Dexter Helvenshaw (Mitch Pileggi) as so much time was put into his cover. Charlie works with the dream of one day retiring to Ocean Views, a luxury housing complex with servants and utilities.
During his flight to New York, where his job will resume, another passenger strikes up a conversation with him. It turns out that this man, Dr. Jeff Bleckner (Michael Mantell), is a psychiatrist and upon arriving to New York, Charlie enlists his services. Dr. Bleckner listens to his troubles and prescribes him anti-anxiety medication to help him deal with stress. He also encourages him to join a group therapy session. At therapy, Charlie meets and befriends a group of stressed out men from the business world.
To deal with his gastrointestinal issues, Charlie goes to the doctor where he meets the free-spirited and beautiful Judy Tipp (Sandra Bullock), the self-proclaimed "Enema Queen" who introduces him to alternative therapies to his problems as well as some romantic interest.
Back on the job, Charlie is knee-deep in negotiations for high-stakes money laundering and stock manipulation. He was brought into the group by the passionate Fidel Vaillar (José Zúñiga) and his close bodyguard, Estuvio Clavo (Michael DeLorenzo). Vaillar is a son of an important Colombian drug cartel and fears being viewed as a stereotype. They are dealing with an intense man with an unpredictable temper named Fulvio Nesstra (Oliver Platt) who represents the Italian mob in New York. Fulvio is disfavored son-in-law of high-ranking Italian mobster, Carmine Minetti (Frank Vincent). Jason Cane (Andrew Lauer), a young Wall street-type with a plan, but poor taste, completes the group. Each thinks he understands the other players, but there is more to these characters than meets the eye. | murder | train | wikipedia | Better than Average Western.
Couldn't quite give this film an 8, but I think it's a solid 7.
The cinematography takes advantage of a few great landscapes, and some solid lot work, and even dares to shoot dark at dusk and in the dark.
The depth of the film being pushed becomes really apparent, and it has a thick, rich, painterly quality to it.Jock Mahoney is said to be wooden, but I think he adapts well in the role of a war- weary veteran with a disability he needs to hide since it is central to his ability to fight and shoot.
All that's really needed to carry the film is one hero, one tragic figure, one template bad guy (who still warns the tragic figure he's gonna lose, and the tragic figure doesn't take his heed), and a heroine.
This keeps the film competently engaging.The real meat of the script is given to Dave, played strongly and with complexity by Lyle Bettger, whose big eyes project emotion well.
His part is really phenomenal in that he is a decent man who is a childhood friend of Mahoney's lead Jim Trask, and yet Trask undoes his entire life and accomplishments, and I ended up wanting him to triumph more than the lead character.
It's one of the most tragic figures I've ever seen played in any Western.
The trajectory of Dave's destruction occurs on multiple levels, partially through the usual underestimating of his foe, but also at his failure to step in and take down the hero, who has done a list of wrongs any man would kill for.There's a boilerplate villain, played competently, but not phenomenally, and a heroine who is gorgeous and devoted, but their characters are pretty two dimensional.
The strength of this film is really in the dynamic between a hero trying to find his way, and the epic tragic figure of his childhood friend.
In fact, the tragedy is almost overwritten, to the point you almost lose support for the lead by the end.This film has the feel of a peak Hollywood Western, not too clean but far before the revisionism of the 70s.
It just has a real authenticity to it, with the dialog and the horse work and stunts, which include Jock Mahoney doing some serious diving into the dirt and hand to hand fighting.
The actor was a real physical threat, and it shows.All in all, a strong film, especially for its time and budget..
Showdown at Abilene is directed by Charles Hass and written by Bernie Giler and Clarence Upson Young.
It stars Jock Mahoney, Martha Hyler, Lyle Bettger and David Janssen.
Music is by Joseph Gershenson and photography by Irving Glassberg.Plot has Mahoney as Jim Trask, a former Sheriff of Abilene who returns home from the Civil War with a guilty conscience and a new contempt for guns.
Compounding his troubles is that his old friend Dave Mosely (Bettger) has taken up a romantic relationship with his girl, Peggy Bigelow (Hyer), and he soon learns that Dave is also into villainous activities.
Can Trask overcome his troubles and restore order to Abilene and his life?Better than average and competently acted, Showdown at Abilene is a solid time filler for the undemanding Western fan.
Although thoughtful in its treatment of the characters, formula dictates there are no surprises and comparisons are easily drawn to better Westerns with the same thematics.
Mahoney (TV series The Range Rider) turns in a good show as the emotionally perturbed Trask, while as a stuntman by trade he isn't found lacking in the physical demands of the role as he leaps around with exciting conviction.
Hyer (The Sons of Katie Elder) is pretty as a picture as serves the story well as a rose between two thorns, while Bettger (Gunfight at the O.K. Corral) scores favourably as the crafty Dave Mosely.
Not faring so well is Ted de Corsa (also Gunfight at the O.K. Corral) as Dan Claudius, who looks (and is) wrong for prime villain duties.
Shot primarily out of Morrison Ranch, Agoura in California, picture sadly is lifeless in colour, so we never get to see the locale and costuming come to life.
Producer Howard Christie liked the story so much he re-made it eleven years later as 'Gunfight in Abilene', where Bobby Darin starred as the conflicted lead character.Nothing overtly impressive here, nor anything particularly damning either.
Just safe and solid B Western viewing.
While this modestly-cast production from 1956 has a number of the elements found in the usual B-western, its plot and characters offer a bit more depth and complexity than one might expect.
This is largely due to the "triangle" relationship between Jock Mahoney, his former girlfriend, Martha Hyer, and the man she's now engaged to marry, Lyle Bettger.
It's an awkward situation and the fact that these three people, at least at the start of the story, like each other gives the situation refreshing ambiguities and nuances.
At least it's not the usual "good guys and bad guys." As has been mentioned in other reviews, this movie is well-cast though I agree Ted de Corsia is too old and out-of-shape to be convincing as the "hired gun." Curiously, just 11 years later, Universal released a re-make of this movie called "Gunfight in Abilene" with, of all people, Bobby Darin in the Jock Mahoney role.
Excellent Permances Makes Showdown At Abilene An Above Average Western.
This is an average western that is predictable right from the start.
Excellent performances by Jock Mahoney as Jim Trask, Martha Hyer as Peggy, Lyle Beher as Dave and, a young, David Janssen as Deputy Vern Ward make Showdown At Abeline worth a look.
The hired gun was played by Ted de Corsia which was the only error in casting that I could find.
The town of Abilene and surrounding areas, do not match the flat lands of Kansas but otherwise, excellent photography give the film added appeal..
Jock Mahoney and Martha Hyer star in this good B western about a Civil War veteran returned from the war with a dark secret and a desire not to carry weapons.
Naturally he has no plans to return to his former occupation as sheriff of Abilene.Abilene has a new sheriff in the coarse and brutal Ted DeCorsia and he's in the pocket of Lyle Bettger who in the interim has moved in on Mahoney's girlfriend Martha Hyer and they plan to be married.
Everybody did think Mahoney was killed and one who was killed was Bettger's younger brother.Abilene has also changed from a peaceful agricultural community to a trail's end for cattle shipping.
How many gazillion westerns have been made with that plot premise and all it entails.Given Mahoney is a cowboy hero in the tradition of Tom Destry you know he only has one way to go.
Still Showdown In Abilene is nicely packaged for any western fan..
Routine and pedestrian Western.
In my view by far the best book on the Western is Phil Hardy's "The Western".It is volume one of the Aurum Encyclopedia of the Cinema a series which explores different genres in each volume.The methodology of the series is to provide capsule reviews on a year by year basis and the book has been useful in steering me towards some of the less well publicised WesternsPhil Hardy does not deem this movie worthy of a seperate review and consigns it to a one line mention in an appendix This is a tad unfair because while routine in conception and execution it is sturdt enough and the studio obviously thought well enough of the basic plot to remake it in the late 1960's as "Gunfight in Abilene"starring the least convincing Westerner in the genre's history,Bobby Darin Mahobney plays "Jim Trask" a retuning Cofederate veteran who is pressured by old friend and ruthless entrepreneur "Dave Mosley" played by Lyle Bettger to take up his former job as the law in Abilene,a town riven by conflict between ranchers and the cattle interests represented bty Mosley who feels he can manipulate "Trask" to seve the cattlemans causeTrouble soon breaks out and open conflict erupts between the parties before the final shootout restores orderPerformances are perfunctory and the direction is routine,but genre lovers could do worse as a way of whiling away a wet afternoon.
"A man's gotta fight to live in peace".
The western tap showed no sign of being turned off in the late 1950s,with all formats of cowboys oaters flooding out of major Hollywood studios, Universal was probably the most prolific and well established in making such films, SHOWDOWN AT ABILENE was one of these.
Confederate officer Jim Trask(JOCK MAHONEY)returns home from the Civil war to his home town of Abilene,Kansas.What he finds is a powder keg situation just waiting to explode, a range war threatening to erupt between farmers and ranchers due to large areas of farm land being taken over by Dave Mosley(LYLE BETTIGER)to be used as grazing land for cattle.
Jim takes back his old job of sheriff, but refuses to use or even wear a gun due to a terrible incident which occurred during the war...SHOWDOWN AT ABILENE was remade in 1967 as GUNFIGHT IN ABILENE, in a way, I nearly think that this film is on a par with the remake, but the more I think about it, SHOWDOWN AT ABILENE is definitely the better of the two films.
The storyline and script are by far superior and the script is more tightly written which gave the film a much better pace than the remake.
The action scenes,although few and abrupt, were fantastically put together, the fistfight in the street Trask and the cowboy was really impressive.
Jock Mahoney does some Spaghetti western style acrobatics as he leaps over a wooden barrier and pounces onto his enemy before beating him unconscious.
The final showdown between Trask and Claudius was amazing and much better than the one in GUNFIGHT IN ABILENE, it's far more intense and exciting and again I was blown away by the stunts and how the sequence was shot, loving how a wounded Trask jumps onto the ground as he dodges gunshots from Claudius, lifts his gun and shoots Claudius.
I think this scene is an awesome example of the real western showdown that is described in books and comics.Jock Mahoney is better in the lead than Bobby Darin was, he's far cooler and is the proper image of the cowboy action hero.
Lyle Bettiger was more dramatic than Leslie Nielsen,especially in the scene near the end when he discovers that Trask killed his brother, he delivers more emotion and gives more of a powerhouse performance here.Ted De Corsica was alright as Dan Claudius, but I thought Donnelly Rhoades was better in the remake, he was more sadistic and brutal.
Thankfully the whipping scene was included fully in this film and it was incredibly shot, it's still really cruel and chilling and you can feel young Chip's fear and pain as he is repeatedly thrashed and the final shootout was definitely more spectacular here than in the remake.
I happened to notice that the shots of the townsfolk looking out of their windows before the final shootout were the exact same shots used before the final shootout in the remake.
One big gripe I did have about this film is that there is no battle scene at the beginning of the film to let the audience know what Jim Trask did, a battle or at least a short montage would have looked fantastic and been a brilliant and explosive way to kick off the film.SHOWDOWN AT ABELINE is just as enjoyable as GUNFIGHT IN ABELINE,but just a little bit better, both films are nearly the exact same, but it's interesting to compare the two, but both of them are strong and entertaining films.
Universal really did know how to make action packed and riveting westerns and were the greatest in Hollywood at making them.SHOWDOWN AT ABELINE is, without a doubt, deserving of a good DVD release.9/10..
"Showdown in Abilene" emerges as a rugged but formulaic Universal International Pictures' oater with some nice touches.
Jock Mahoney tops a first class cast that features western stalwarts like Lyle Bettger, Martha Hyer, Ted de Corsia, and Lane Bradford.
"Showdown in Abilene" is more than a mere western melodrama.
This horse opera boasts a hero who suffers from a guilty consciousness that puts him into a film noir category.
The leading man in a western has an antipathy to firearms.
Later, when he becomes a sheriff, he walks around in public without wearing a six-gun!
Aside from its sturdy cast, "Showdown in Abilene" is far better than its remake "Gunfight in Abilene." Crooner Bobby Darin took over the role that Mahoney originated, but he isn't convincing as the iron-willed lawman.After the American Civil War, former Confederate officer Jim Trask (Jock Mahoney of "Money, Women, and Guns") rides back to his hometown of Abilene to find things have changed.
One of Trask's old friends Dave Mosely (Lyle Bettger of "Gunfight at the O.K. Corral") has given up farming and entered the beef business.
Once a farmer, Dave has amassed a fortune now as a result of the railroads setting up shop in Abilene and shipping cattle out to market.
Not only has Dave gotten into the cattle business, but he also has bought up real estate so he can fatten his herds.
In the meantime, he has pinned the sheriff's badge on one of his hired gunmen, Dan Claudius (Ted de Corsia of "Gunfight at the O.K. Corral"), and Dave has Abilene wrapped up in his fist.
Literally, Dave rules Abilene with an iron fist, but he has only one hand.
We're never told how he lost his hand in a childhood accident that Jim Trask committed.
If Trask finds that Abilene has changed, Abilene learns that Jim has changed, too.
Initially, everybody thought Jim had died in the war so his reappearance surprises several people.
One of them is none other than Trask's former sweetheart, Peggy Bigalow (Martha Hyer of "The Sons of Katie Elder"), the lady that he vowed to marry after he came back from the war.
Now, Peggy is poised to marry Dave.
One of the best scenes, staged imaginatively by Haas, has Peggy confronting Jim in the general store where our hero is having a suit of clothes made for him.
When Jim and Peggy approach each other, Haas has set up a full-length mirror in front of and between them so we can see the reflection of Dave Mosely.
Literally, Dave stands between Jim and Peg as they gaze into each other's eyes.
Later, Haas stages another interesting scene when former Union soldier Chip Tomlin (Grant Williams of "The Incredible Shrinking Man") is bull-whipped by the evil Claudius.
The villains tie Chip to the tail end of their wagon and Claudius cuts Chip's shirt to ribbons with his bull whip.
In a separate shot, one of the drovers holding the team of horses has to calm that horses that have been frightened by the crack of the whip.
The fear that the shuddering horses show reflects the brutality of Claudius and his whip.
Naturally, Dave is incensed when he learns what Claudius has done.
Dave dreads the prospect that Chip's death will bring.
Clocking in at a trim 80 minutes, "Showdown in Abilene" never wears out its welcome, and it is looms over its remake..
A sheriff without a gun.
As the film starts it looks as if it will start with a bang; two men, one in Confederate grey, the other in Union blue meet; it turns out though that the war is over and they are friends who chose different sides returning to their home town of Abilene Kansas.
There are been a lot of changes while they were gone; before the war everybody was growing wheat but with the coming of the railway the town is becoming part of cattle country.
The Confederate soldier is Jim Trask, who everybody thought was dead, the former sheriff of Abilene and a close friend of the most successful cattleman, Dave Mosely.
Things start off awkwardly between the two of them; while Trask survived the war Mosely's brother who served with him died and Mosely is now engaged to Trask's former fiancée, Peggy Bigelow; they appear to be willing to bury the hatchet though and Mosely asks Trask to take his old job back.
The current sheriff, Dan Claudius, and villain of the story then returns to being Mosely's senior stock man.
It isn't long before feelings are running high between the farmers and Mosely after Claudius whips a farmer who he accused of stealing a cow despite the man protesting that he was in fact returning it.
Matters are complicated by the fact that Trask will not carry a gun because he is haunted by an event that happened during the war and the fact that his ex-fiancée still has feelings for him.While this is far from a classic it is a decent enough film with a solid performance from Jack Mahoney as Trask and it was a nice twist making the sheriff unwilling to use a gun; although he will inevitably be forced to use one in the end...
you can't call a film 'Showdown at Abilene' without there being a showdown between hero and villain!
Ted de Corsia was okay as the villain but didn't have the lean, mean look of a dangerous gunfighter; at least his character was suitably unpleasant.
The love triangle between Trask, Mosely and Peggy didn't have any surprises apart from the reason Trask didn't seem willing to try to get her back, this is also the reason for most of his actions and I won't spoil it although I'm sure several people will guess it as they watch the film.
Overall this is worth watching if it is on the TV if you enjoy westerns but it isn't a must see example of the genre. |
tt0068454 | Los amigos | The Republic of Texas has just gained its independence from Mexico. Erastus "Deaf" Smith, who is a deaf mute, and his partner Johnny Ears are sent by President Sam Houston to stop general Morton, who plots against the annexation of Texas by the USA.
They find their contact McDonald and his family massacred by Morton and his men. McDonald’s daughter Hester is married to Morton, and when Smith convinces her of the truth, she helps them overhear a conversation where a German diplomat promises Morton new weapons.
They have a saloon fight with Morton's gang. At a brothel, Johnny recognizes a prostitute he saw bathing in a river, Suzie Q. Deaf pays so he can spend a night with her. Later he is jealous of her other customers, but when she suggests that they leave together using her money, he says that Deaf needs him. Later he refuses to go on with the dangerous mission because he is in love and hits Deaf.
Deaf steals dynamite in Morton’s fort but is almost given away by a garter with bells that he was given by a prostitute and has forgotten that he still keeps in his pocket. He is then pursued by three men and kills one of them in a sneak fight in a cave, by throwing a knife against his gun blaze. As Deaf came out of the cave, he saw the dead bodies of the other two men who were killed by Johnny who came to rejoin him. Deaf gestured in jest that Johnny owes him a punch.
They set a trap with explosives to blow up the weapons transport to Morton, but stop the explosion when they see children playing near the wagon train. Instead they infiltrate Morton's fort and killed his men with explosives and with the new weapon, a machine gun that Deaf can handle because he could read the lips of the instructor. Johnny gave his gun to Morton for a shoot out with Deaf. Morton is killed.
Susie leaves together with Johnny and Deaf. In the morning the deaf mute is gone, leaving Johnny his watch. Johnny cries out his name. | western, cult, murder, violence, romantic | train | wikipedia | Nero stands out in watchable western.
Set in 1830's Texas, Erastus 'Deaf' Smith (Anthony Quinn) is an ageing but trusted spy for the president, despite the obvious handicap of being a deaf mute.
His friend and companion is the sexually charged Spaniard Johnny Ears (Franco Nero), seemingly on a constant mission to obtain another notch on his bed post (or should I say, someone elses!).
In fact, unlike your usual Spaghetti Western hero, he is probably more likely to be found in bed than in a bar brawl or gunfight.The two have been sent by the president to halt the uprising down south, where a rebel by the name of Morton is rallying a rebellion to create independence and domination, with the help of German backing.The whole emphasis of the story is the great bond between Nero and Quinn, which is quite enjoyable throughout.
Comically, Johnny Ears is constantly throwing stones at the laid back Smith in order to get his attention.
Ears' relationship with the luscious local whore Susie (Pamela Tiffin) is also a fine display of character play, as their interplay changes from flirtation to sexual tension, and from lust to love.
Hell, by the end, Ears seems willing to quit his womanising ways and settle down with the blonde beauty.There are entertaining one-liners throughout (all obviously left to Nero, who is in fine comic form).
As for Quinn, the whole idea that a deaf gunhand can survive and be held in such esteem is entertaining in itself (as he walks away completely unaware of the explosions metres behind him, and sneaks up on opponents oblivious to the fact that the bells on a whores garter - given to him whilst he awaited the return of the promiscuous Ears from the local brothel - are jangling together).Aside from these highlights, the film is fairly average fare.
At times Smith's inability to communicate can be as frustrating to the viewer as it must be to Smith himself.
The Director does however highlight this disability to some effect, with silence at any time when the story is shown from Smith's eyes.
Too much weight is also placed on the final action-packed climax, which goes on for an age with a maximum explosion count (although it does contain a priceless moment when Ears is unable to operate the enemies' machine gun - a skill mastered to great effect by Nero's Django).In summary, this is an entertaining little film, high on cheese but low on substance.
And there are days when that is exactly the sort of "popcorn" movie that you want to watch.
If you are in that mood (I was) you will probably enjoy it (I did!).
But it is definitely more "watchable" than "recommended"..
The Real "Deaf" Smith.
I like the above comment: "Watchable if not recommended".
I just saw it on TV as "Deaf Smith and Johnny Ears".
It breaks my heart that AMC didn't show the full credits as I am haunted by the music and cannot identify the tune.Erastus "Deaf" Smith was actually a soldier in Houston's army and was distinguished for destroying a bridge that cut of Santa Ana's retreat at the battle of San Jacinto.
The movie, of course, is pure fiction with no historical basis.Anthony Quinn has always been one of my favorites and it pleases me that a Mexican actor has found such worldwide success.
His AMC interview is well worth a watch..
Good Music!.
The plot of this movie and the characters may be a little bit suspect but the photography is brilliant and, to add to the appeal, so was the music which was written by a name that I have never heard of before i.e. Daniele Patucchi.
Soundtrack collectors like myself may be interested to know that the main themes are available on a CD entitled "Wanted - Dead or Alive".
catalogue No. CVS 900-020.
I enclose the number as it is an Italian CD but if I found it in Australia you can guarantee that it is more readily available elsewhere.Anthony Quinn and Franco Nero, who have appeared together in other productions, have this rapport between them that is so obvious.
See this movie!
Don't analyse it.
Just sit back and enjoy it!.
Passable Spaghetti Western with great duo protagonist , Anthony Quinn/Franco Nero and shot in Almeria , Spain , as usual.
The war with Mexico over , the new republic of Texas is born .
Set in 1836's Texas just after the Republic won its independence from Mexico.
President Houston is actively working to have the new republic join the United States of America .
But rebel forces , aided by a foreign power , are plotting against him .
Houston , busy reorganizing the exhausted forces of Texas sends his faithful scout Erastus .
As President Sam Houston instructs one of his agents to put down the plotters , the tough deaf-mute Erastus Smith (Anthony Quinn and based on real-life character) to carry out a dangerous mission .
Deaf Smith is the man who hears with his eyes and speaks with his gun .
Accompanying him is his best friend the sex-obsessed Johnny Ears, (Franco Nero) who falls for a beautiful prostitute (Pamela Tiffin) , Susie the ¨hooker¨ .
But the rebels and the general Martin (Franco Graziosi) have intercepted a message that a deaf-mute spy is in their midst .
At the beginning ,there takes a place a massacre executed by rebel henchmen (Romano Puppo , Luciano Martino) against McDonald family and things go wrong .Pasta Western picture is set post American-Mexican war but ignores the wealth of the authentic history and becomes yet another action/adventure/humor Western and this decent production delivers what it should .
However , it relies heavily on the peculiar relationship between Deaf Smith/Anthony Quinn and Johnny Ears/Franco Nero .
Here there are some historical remarks about Texas , as the Republic's future is in doubt, with various factions and foreign powers hoping to sway matters to their own advantage .
And based on facts , as Deaf Smith was a soldier in Houston's army distinguished for destroying a bridge and there's actually a Deaf Smith County in Texas .
Although it has some anachronisms as an out of time machine gun and hokey historical events .
It is a decent Western with comedy , tongue-in-cheek , action and plenty of shoot'em up , gun-play , explosion , and some moments results to be quite entertaining .
Including a spectacular ending when our protagonists using a machine gun and a lot of dynamite execute a slaughter in which they take down themselves the enemy army .
Anthony Quinn gives over-acting as the deaf-mute Erastus "Deaf" Smith , to infiltrate and put down one of the growing rebel factions and sympathetic acting by Franco Nero as his companion Johnny Ears who must not only do Smith's hearing for him, but must also conceal Smith's handicap .
Acceptable support cast full of ordinary Spaghetti secondaries as Luciano Rossi , Goffredo Unger , Tom Felleghi , Renato Romano and Romano Puppo .
It packs an anti-climatic musical score by Daniel Pattucci and attractive ¨ballad of Deaf Smith and Johnny Ears¨ sung by Ann Collin .
And an atmospheric cinematography in Eastmancolor by Tonino Delli Colli , though a perfect remastering is necessary , being shot on location in Gelato falls , El Lacio , Rome and Almeria , Spain , as usual .
The motion picture was regularly directed by Paolo Cavara , a craftsman who made all kinds of genres .
As Paolo directed Giallo as ¨Black belly Tarantula¨ , ¨E Tanta Prava¨, Drama/war : ¨La Cattura¨, ¨comedy : "Virility" , ¨Il Lucamone¨, ¨La Lacandiera¨ and especially shock-documentary as ¨L'Occhio Salvaggio¨, ¨Mondo cane¨ , ¨La Donna Nel Mondo¨, ¨Witchdoctor in Tails¨, and ¨I Malamondo¨ ..
Better luck next time, Franco.
I like Franco Nero.
I like his voice, his accent, his acting style, his acrobatics.
Any movie starring Franco Nero already has one thing going for it in my book.
Saying that Nero is the ONLY thing going for "Deaf Smith And Johnny Ears" would be somewhat inaccurate - there is also a good score, Pamela Tiffin's spunk (at one point, she puts Nero in a reverse headlock!), and some interesting directorial touches (as when Cavara films some scenes from the deaf man's point-of-view, with no sound).
But if this is supposed to be a comedy, it's much too violent (beginning with the massacre of an entire family), and if it's serious, then the plot is confused and uninteresting.
Anthony Quinn is a bore...and what's up with that ending?
This is not a bad little movie, of a certain 'style' that was popular when it was made.It's loud - and violent - at times, but there-in lies a heart and whilst neither (Franco) Nero or (Anthony) Quinn show us their inner feelings, rather like a lesser Butch Cassidy and Sundance Kid, there is a sort of loyal, strange chemistry between them, that like the best of friendships, work for reasons only known to them.Unlike 'B' westerns of 20 years earlier, that almost tried too hard to get the most out of their tiny budget/bad script/untalented actor, director etc, Deaf Ears...
doesn't, it just gets on with it, which is nice as we can relax and let it unfold.Erastus 'Deaf' Smith (Anthony Quinn) is the deaf mute messenger who is hired by General Sam Houston to infiltrate a rebel faction that are trying to stop Texas becoming part of the U.S. His friend, Johnny Eras (Nero) comes to assist him with his mission.There's the usual womanising in the cat-house that helps beef up both the lead's manliness and the male viewing numbers is there as is blowing things up.Though the film is also known as the bland 'Los Amigos', it's often and usually goes by this far more intriguing one.
I saw it on TCM (Turner Classic Movies).
It says on the Radio Times website that it was in Italian, but it was not, though in hindsight I'm sure it was dubbed - and Quinn, who is multi-lingual, doesn't speak, of course.
The ending and its music is quite a strange enigma, mind you.If you're after a good, standard, straight western, I'd dither at recommending it, but if you do like your spaghetti westerns, with some sauce, then go for it..
"western" tells a tale of Texas.
Franco Nero and Anthony Quinn co-star in this odd, period piece about Texas independence.
Houston is now the leader of Texas, and sends Johnny and Erastus to knock out those who want to stop integration to the U.S. It's an odd film, since Nero was born in Italy, and Quinn was born in Mexico.
The music NEVER matches the mood of the film.
and apparently, it was filmed in Spain.
They meet up with the Mortons, played by Ira von Fürstenberg and Franco Graziosi.
The plot is kind of choppy, with lots of time spent in the madam's house.
very italian spaghetti western.
Erastus and Johnny are best buddies, but spend the whole film arguing.
Not bad.
Not bad.
it's okay.
when Johnny wants to get Deaf's attention, he throws a stone at him...
the running gag.
shows on Turner Classic now and then.
Los Amigos, also known as Deaf Smith.
Directed by italian Paolo Cavara, about halfway through his career.
Looks like he died young at 56.
odd...
no info on him anywhere.
only made 16 films..
Nice movie.
I watch this movie at different ages..
and i love it..
i love this kind of westerns..
Speak No Evil, Hear No Evil, Watch no Evil!.
With the talent assembled in the production of this tosh, it should have at least been tolerable.
The films English title "Deaf Smith and Johhny Ears" attracted my curiosity, but a film about a deaf commando (gunfighter!) set in a historic Texas, where more people end up in Boot Hill than seem to live in the township was certainly difficult to believe.
What could they have been thinking?...a 'deaf' 60ish protector of the countries president......I ask you!
I see from other posts, a few have enjoyed it but I'm with those who looked deeper and found very little.
After a string of films just like this, it's little wonder the Western genre was well and truly killed off.
Leone's Cinematographer Tonino Delli Colli may have had an eye for detail, but he obviously did not get the budget, or the time, to create any magic here.
Any promise in the idea, is quickly killed off with shoddy Italian and Spanish writing and film technique (or lack off it) A halfway interesting Music score attempts to give more than the script can deliver (the song lyrics promise a strong idealistic storyline but it's not forthcoming) In fact, the music score not only seems to belong to another film, it sounds somewhat familiar.
The film wastes beautiful Pamela Tiffen, and reduces the Franko Nero role to little more than a clone of the 'Trinity' films character, and Quinn, well he just appeared to be enjoying getting paid in his old ageItalians could not make intelligent films about the 'American' west (even Sergio Leone's epic 'Once Upon a time in the West' while it looked good at the time, in retrospect, is filled with the type of foolishness that drags this work down to 'C' grade level) The near ridiculous body count and callous way people are killed puts 'Deaf Smith' in the 'Dollar' film category.
The undiscerning viewer could be impressed, anyone else may want to leave town.
Maybe with better handling....but I doubt it.
TCM in Australia screened this (as with most of their movies) with the 'Automatic Sound Leveler' on...
creating what sounds like a constant hailstorm in the background when no-one is speaking.
In this age of technical excellence when will they ever get it right?
KenR.
A nice job by Mr. Anthony Quinn.
It is not really a good movie.
The best things are the character of Deaf Smith (Quinn), the beautiful prostitutes appearing in the film and the moves of the camera around a deaf gunman, that help us to understand how he is aware of the people around him.
Anthony Quinn performance is incredible, being the most notable character without pronouncing a single word.
All the scenes where he appears flows around him, even when the apparently most charming Johnny Ears (Nero) tries to be funny (sometimes he creates the opposite effect).
Smith is funnier, harder and more interesting than Ears, and maybe that is the main reason to watch this film..
Another awful spaghetti western.
Whenever you have a lively Franco Nero (or his clone Terence Hill) in a western you've got one thing in your favor already.
But that's the only thing in this film's favor.
Otherwise you have the flat dubbing, tinny and wretched music scoring, and predictably imbecilic action scenes typical of these spaghetti westerns.
First of all, Anthony Quinn plays a deaf mute, a casting decision on the far side of stupidity (although obvious that his name would lend box office value).
An actor of such ebullience and renown for his growling/shouting presence is reduced to pantomime.
It takes you right out of the film in every scene because you keep expecting that famous voice to come bursting out any moment.
And then there is co-star Tiffin who plays a likable character but her voice is mostly shrill.
Better if SHE had been the mute.
And the rest of the cast is the usual standard issue Italians-on-the-range from central casting in Rome.
The script is also standard issue (with the exception of the deaf-mute angle) so we get parts of 'Duck You Sucker/A Fistful of Dynamite' and a Gatling gun finale ala 'The Wild Bunch.' The finale is especially bad since a platoon of gunslingers blast away at Gatling gun-wielding Quinn with no discernible effect, as if the act of using such a gun makes you impervious to all lead fired in your direction.
Then there is the hideous music score that features two absurdly dated songs: one during the opening credits that sounds like a TV commercial jingle for hair spray, and a second one in the middle so derivative of Burt Bacharach that it's lawsuit-worthy.
Needless to say, it's a tortured viewing experience to watch a western set in Texas in 1836 that is almost completely cast with Italians and features soft pop tunes from 1972.
And how can you think of this film at all without scratching your head at the incredibly bizarre freeze-frame at the very end?
What in blazes were the director/writer/powers-that-be thinking with that shot of Nero screaming in what should have been a sweet-to-bittersweet final moment?
All it needed was horror music.
Yeesh! |
tt1161418 | Gentlemen Broncos | Benjamin Purvis lives with his mother Judith, who designs tacky clothes and makes rock-hard popcorn balls. Judith and Benjamin make ends meet by working at a women's retail clothing store. Benjamin spends his spare time writing science fiction stories, and he has recently completed a story called Yeast Lords, which centers on a hero named Bronco, modeled after his long-dead father.
At various times, portions of Yeast Lords are seen as Benjamin imagines them. Bronco is obliquely masculine, and he valiantly struggles with a villain over yeast production.
At a two-day writing camp for aspiring fantasy and science fiction authors, Benjamin attends lectures by his idol, the prolific and pretentious writer Ronald Chevalier. Chevalier announces a contest for the writers, in which the winner's story will be published nationally. After encouragement from fellow camper Tabatha, Benjamin submits Yeast Lords. Tabatha shows the story to her friend Lonnie Donaho who runs an ultra low-budget video production company. Lonnie gives Benjamin a post-dated check for $500 and begins adapting Yeast Lords into a film.
As Chevalier reviews the stories from the campers, he gets a call from his publisher, rejecting his latest manuscript. Panicked, he picks up Benjamin's story, and it sparks his imagination. Chevalier changes Purvis' Bronco into Brutus, an extremely effeminate and comically flamboyant hero, changes the other character names and title, but otherwise leaves the story intact. His publisher loves it, and the novel is rushed into production under the title, Brutus and Balzaak.
Portions of Chevalier's version are now seen playing out alongside Benjamin's original vision of the story.
At the local premiere of Donaho's version of Yeast Lords, Benjamin is nauseated to see how badly Donaho has adapted his work, and he abruptly leaves the film with Tabatha. They go to a bookstore where he discovers Chevalier's plagiarism after reading a paragraph from Brutus and Balzaak. He confronts Chevalier at a local book signing, and assaults him with some merchandise Chevalier had offered him in exchange for keeping his theft quiet. Two policeman hustle him out of the store and he is placed in jail.
Judith comes to visit her son in jail to give him his birthday present. She hands him a box of manuscripts, all officially bound by the Writers Guild of America. She explains that she has been registering all his stories with them since he was seven years old, thinking they would make a nice keepsake for his children. Yeast Lords is one of the registered stories.
Copies of Chevalier's novel are unceremoniously dumped from store shelves, being replaced with Benjamin's original novel. | absurd, stupid | train | wikipedia | I saw the trailer for it some time ago, and was excited for it; "Napoleon Dynamite" and even Hess' follow-up "Nacho Libre" were two of the most off-kilter, refreshing comedies I've seen in the past decade.
"Broncos" is absolutely no exception, expanding on and arguably perfecting the "geekverse" that Hess started with "Napoleon." This third film in the "Crayola Trilogy" may be so well designed for sci-fi geeks and lovers of Hess' first two movies, that it simply had no way to possibly survive in the mainstream market.
I am also a sci-fi nut, and I like my comedies full of bizarre and strangely real people- this, Hess excels in, as well.
I can see why "Gentlemen Broncos" has not enjoyed the success of "ND"--- it is a truly far-out film, that only "nuts" such as myself are likely to enjoy; I spent my youth much like the lead character writing short stories and dreaming up far-off worlds--- for kids like that, and their adult counterparts, I can only say "See This Film." You won't regret it..
You will know within 2 minutes of watching this if you can watch all of it or not - it is anti-Hollywood, just about anti-indie, a brilliant take on boredom, eccentricity, makes unoriginality into hyper-originality and is generally like a 1930s freak show with a side order of banal.Seriously weird, and yet oddly familiar, the psychodramas and models of parenting and the wakwardness of friendships are all twisted in a maelstrom of ideas that just keep on coming.
There are some lines when both in and out of context made me laugh so hard I cried.This movie is not for everyone, I think people who like both napoleon Dynamite and Nacho Libre will find some enjoyment out of this(which I don't).
Gentlemen Broncos is quite simply one of the freshest, funniest, well acted (from a comedic standpoint), and sharply written comedies I've had the privilege of seeing.The film tells a small but endearing tale which is playfully examined on a number of skilfully interwoven levels.
Like Hess's earlier film, Napoleon Dynamite, Broncos is populated by an array of quirky characters, each with hidden depths.
Being a good actor and being funny in a film are not necessarily mutually compatible skills but Rockwell does it with ease and as the fictional heroes of both Bronco and Brutus, he gives us two entirely different and insanely original comedy Sci-Fi characters that I will personally relish watching again and again.As a backdrop to the action Hess uses the world of pulp science fiction novels and, as intimated above, it is with this multi-layered device that main thrust of the comedy is delivered.
The fictional world of the "Yeast Lords" is so outrageously funny that I defy anyone to get through the four or five scenes starring Bronco or Brutus without cracking up at least once (for those who have the DVD, there's a particularly hilarious blooper where Rockwell can't bring himself to say the line "were there pimps?" without breaking into laughter at the sheer absurdity of his lines).
All in all, the film sends up this peculiar little genre of "writing" while clearly maintaining a strong affection for the potential imaginative freedom it sometimes manages to exploit.Gentlemen Broncos is the most original and authentically eccentric film I've seen, well since Napoleon dynamite.
Three other films spring to mind that Broncos reminds me of in the sense that they all bring similar elements; absurdist story structure, over-the-top character-acting, and an unapologetic bevy of immature, toilet-ish, sometimes abstract humor.
It breaks down like this; 10%; people who even knew this was coming out - 5%; of those people saw it - 2.5%; of those people liked it - 90% of everybody else doesn't care - 100% of those people who didn't care would probably hate this worse than could possibly be imagined.If you disagree and love this film, see box office receipts for, and then watch; Land of the Lost, Freddy Got Fingered, and UHF.
And for Napoleon Dynamite, the critics had to admit there was something more to it than a cheaply made movie.The Hess's style of writing does not focus on some crazy, larger than life shot 'em up.
Mike White has never been even nearly as hilarious as he was in this film (watch out for snakes), Jennifer Coolidge was in top form (as usual), and Sam Rockwell got all the way on board with a career burning phoenix of comedy that covered the polar ends of the spectrum.
One of the funniest people alive, Jemaine Clement (of Flight of the Conchords) reproves his very real character-acting abilities, swanning over the film in full form as a tightly wound, bad-jeans-wearing, writer-bearded egomaniac who is so cheesy that you can smell the leather conditioner coming out of the screen.
He's so likable and well-paced that you just can't believe it either, and can't imagine anything getting any better for him- until he goes off in a blaze of glory.Now I realize that all of these descriptors may sound like Hess may have sacrificed the inspired randomness of Napoleon Dynamite in order to make a more structured film.
Gentleman Broncos follows awkward sci-fi loving Benjamin as he tries to have his story, Yeast Lords, made into a "movie." But after going to a sci-fi camp and meeting his favorite sci-fi author, Chevalier played by Jemaine from Flight of the Concords, he steals Benjamin's idea and makes the book himself.Now, first things first, unlike another That Was Junk writer, I like Napoleon Dynamite and I don't think it's the worst movie I've ever seen.
The main character, Benjamin played by Micheal Angorano, isn't necessarily as weird as Napoleon Dynamite but everyone else around him is such as his mother, played by lovely Jennifer Coolidge who sells tacky clothing and giant balls of popcorn, is.Everything and everyone is weird in this movie.
And cinematographer Munn Powell, also DP on Napoleon Dynamite, has a way of making Hess' movies look dated.
There's a prophetic line hidden in Jared Hess's new film, "Gentleman Broncos," which opens in limited release this Friday:"People hated your movie," says a main character, "some of them walked out."I had the painful experience of watching Gentleman Broncos at a DC screening on Tuesday.
The commenter below me compares this film to Wes Anderson, Scorsese, and the Coen Bros-- they must be a close personal friend of Jared Hess, or a PR agent for Fox Searchlight, or maybe we saw different movies.
Written and directed by Jared Hess, also responsible for Napoleon Dynamite and Nacho Libre, this eccentric comedy lands somewhere in between the hypnotic success of the former and the disappointing shortfalls of the latter.
The awkward, passionately inept cast doesn't quite have the charms of Napoleon or Pedro, (with the exception of Jermaine Clement of Flight of the Conchords, who's outstanding as selfish sci-fi plagiarist Ronald Chevalier) and there's a notable lack of a top-of-the-mountain moment that was so present in Dynamite's dance scene.
It is time to reflect, to ponder, to review the woefully neglected film entitled "Gentlemen Broncos." The latest endeavour from visionary director Mike White is a bold exploration into the limitless expanses of outer space, and the infinite potential for awkward comedy in human interaction.To summarize the narrative, Benjamin is a young man who writes a sci-fi novel called "Yeast Lords." When he goes to a teen writer's camp the story is stolen by his favorite author, the inimitable (although you will try) Ronald Chevalier.
If you laughed when Napoleon asked "Do the chickens have large talons?" then you will appreciate Bronco's statement that "I can smell a cache of yeast cakes forty miles off!" The pinnacle of this cinematic saga is Mr. Ronald Chevalier, the pretentious deep voiced author of novels like "Brutus & Balzac," "The Cyborg Harpy Trilogy," and "Moon Fetus." Jemaine Clement (the taller half of the Flight of the Conchords duo) improvises some of the funniest lines.
Jared Hess made a great Job Making a fully original movie with original style themes ideas characters, and prospective.
Sam Rockwell is excellent in his dual roles.I thought it better than Napoleon Dynamite.You can dislike this movie, but that only makes you a square in my book..
The deadpan (and sometimes nonsensical) delivery is enough to mask many of the funniest, most ironic aspects of the film.With that being said, Gentlemen Broncos is probably my favourite comedic movie of all time.
And yes, they would have had fun making the movie.Michael Angarano does his usual outstanding job, while Jennifer Coolidge is great and Mike White, who does a great job, reminds us of Michael McKean's long flowing hair in "This Is Spinal Tap".Along with a fun and pleasant story, we are treated to many great songs by artists such as Zagar and Evans "In The Year 2525", Kansas "Carry On Wayward Son", Cher "Just Like Jesse James", Black Sabbath "Paranoid" and many more.
How could Jared Hess, director of Napoleon Dynamite and Nacho Libre, make such an awful mess of a movie??
Meanwhile, Benjamin has already sold the rights to his book to a local filmmaker who butchers his work, leaving him a bit frustrated and volatile.A few years ago, director Jared Hess caught lightning in a bottle with the cost-nothing-to-make blockbuster "Napoleon Dynamite." "Napoleon" was a weird piece of ridiculousness that you either loved or hated and I happened to love.
Jared Hess's works are all very good with an abundance of great scenes and characters, and indeed excellent casting.
Jared and Jerusha Hess may not have created a financial success but Gentlemen Broncos is without a doubt one of the greatest movies I have ever seen.
Michael Angarano, Jemaine Clement, Jennifer Coolidge, and Sam Rockwell all deliver stellar performances and are backed up by Halley Feiffer and Héctor Jiménez who really knocked it out of the park.Its not Flight of the Concords or Napoleon Dynamite; Gentlemen Bronco's really shines as a film like nothing else these silver screen has seen before..
"Gentlemen Broncos" is so off-the-charts weird at times that you often can't tell whether it's breaking new ground as a brilliantly original and creative work - or just trying too hard.Michael Angarano ("Forbidden Kingdom") plays Benjamin Pervis, a friendless teen who lives with his penniless mom in a geodesic-domed house in rural Utah.
Ben is a writer of sci-fi fantasy fiction who has one of his stories stolen by Ronald Chevalier (the delightful Jemaine Clement), a world-famous author with a James Mason voice.
Ben also runs into a couple of bizarre indie-film makers who want to make the same story Chevalier stole from him (entitled "Yeast Lords" from the series "Gentlemen Broncos") into one of their shoestring-budget productions.It's hard to know whether writers Jared and Jerusha Hess (Jared also directed the film) have any real affection for their characters and the world they inhabit or whether they view them merely as objects of out-and-out mockery and ridicule.
The enactments of scenes from Benjamin's novels are appropriately hokey and cheesy, and the movie also makes astute musical choices, particularly Zager and Evans' 1969 hit "In the Year 2525," which effectively book-ends the story..
I understand that Gentlemen Broncos isn't going to please everyone, but I find it difficult to comprehend how so many film critics can find so little to like about it.Its quirky, bizarre, often "over the top" and drags a bit in places, but even its occasional toilet humor is refreshingly unpredictable and produced a number of genuine laughs for me, and I consider myself to be uncommonly hard to please when it comes to comedy films.I didn't love Napoleon Dynamite or Nacho Libre, but what I did like about them (that element of curiosity, that faded for me after about half way through), is not only present in this movie from beginning to end, but is magnified significantly by a stellar cast and a vastly more interesting story arc that is periodically punctuated with some very imaginative slapstick moments, the pacing of which is right on time, keeping attentions firmly focused on the film.I don't write reviews often, but I hope that the people who made this movie will someday read this and feel a sense of accomplishment for a job well done.AND to highlight the fact that the pro critics, like most of American media dispensers these days, can be counted on to deliver one thing and one thing only, politically correct opinions that suit the climate their mother hen pecking corporate shareholders hope to create, while ever becoming increasingly numb to reality.Those critics know what they saw, but they chose to keep their heads down on this one, because some low budget indie flick with no advertising budget isn't worth getting a scowl from the boss over.And as for Roger Ebert, I'm sure my 80 year old grandma would agree with your review.
The acting is just painful to watch, identical to Napoleon Dynamite, with the exceptions of Jemaine Clement and Michael Angarano giving great performances to their character.
Weird yet common people, bad acting (on purpose), memorable characters, and completely random story lines make Jared Hess' films brilliant.
If you liked Napoleon Dynamite, you will also enjoy Gentlemen Broncos..
The film's director, (Jared Hess), Is a real favorite of mine; His work on Napoleon Dynamite is something that needs to been seen by everyone.
Gentlemen Broncos is a quirky comedy that never truly makes an impact I think it wants to and although has a few OK jokes, is never truly funny either.
As the plot goes along we start to see the craziness about the book involved and a lot of the funny jokes also derive from the reading of the novels seen in this film basically about writing.Michael Angarano is actually not that bad in this movie as Benjamin and his timid like performance is quite nicely done.
The funniest character has to be Lonnie Donaho played by Hector Jimenez who is so random and a person actually turns out being funny at the end and his contribution is widely accepted here.Jared Hess directs and co writes the script and well although I don't want to criticise his skill as both, he doesn't really do a top notch grade piece of work here.
This is an alt very indie feel movie, with extreme silliness as it's major plot line.The movie pokes gentle fun at pulp sci fi authors and books, with lots of hilarious scenes having the actors depict characters in the main sci fi stories.The Space Harpie Vixen Women, with laser-shooting tits, are probably the best, and a close second would be the jet powered stuffed deer stag mounts.I say those things so you have an idea where this movie is going.If you read the above and said, "Oh well, Space Harpie Vixens with laser titties, well that's just SILLY!
Hess's third movie after "Napoleon Dynamite" and "Nacho Libre," Gentlemen Broncos" qualifies as insanely hilarious.
While on the bus going to the festival he befriends two attendees, Lonnie (a gay Mexican-American filmmaker responsible for a multitude of low-budget films and his sidekick Tabatha, an aspiring but hopelessly untalented screenwriter).Benjamin has written his own sci-fi fantasy opus entitled "The Yeast Lords: The Bronco Years".
Chevalier reminds me of the character 'Roger De Bris' from the original Mel Brooks 1968 'Producers' movie—a pretentious, affected theater director (Jermaine Clement is similarly a hoot as the crazy fantasy author).Chevalier is at the Cletus Fest because he needs the money and ends up teaching a workshop on how to create better character names for sci-fi fantasy novels (when Benjamin tells Chevalier he's using 'Bronco' as his main character title, Chevalier feels 'Broncanus' will work much better).
Now that Benjamin can prove he holds the copyright to his work, all of Chevalier's books are destroyed and Benjamin becomes successful enough to finance his mother's first fashion show.On the plus side, the film's creator, Jared Hess, has showed improvement in his screen writing abilities in that his current protagonist (Benjamin) is actually warm and likable as opposed to the unlikeable Napolean Dynamite.
Jermaine Clement gives a strong satirical performance mocking the world of sci-fi fantasy writers and their misguided adolescent fans.On the down side, those 'film versions' of the 'The Yeast Lords', get kind of repetitious and you could say that the joke wears thin.
Gentlemen Broncos tells the story of Benjamin (Michael Angarano), a teenage, homeschooled boy who aspires to become a published science fiction writer.
These two are just weird and not good for the film.The scenes from the science fiction story about Bronco start off strange, but I didn't mind.
"Gentlemen Broncos", which sees Michael Angarano playing an awkward teenage sci-fi writer whose work is plagiarised by an arrogant celebrity author, is no different.Many of Hess' films take place in a world which seems to be a hybrid of the 1980s and the 21st century.
If "Napoleon Dynamite's" victory ending worked, it's only because the film was self-consciously tapping into your typical teen movie finale.
Jared and Jerusha Hess are excellent writers, and I love their quirky characters and the colorful worlds these characters live in.But this film just does NOT work!
(www.plasticpals.com) Director Jared Hess' Gentlemen Broncos is an absurd coming of age comedy that manages to be even stranger than his more well-known breakout hit, Napolean Dynamite.
The film focuses on Benjamin, played with earnest by Michael Angarano, a teenager who dreams of seeing his own stories share that shelf space.Ben attends a writer's workshop where his idol, the eccentric Dr. Ronald Chevalier, gives a hilarious lecture about sci-fi naming conventions.
Eventually Chevalier finally publishes the plagiarized story, and the crap hits the fan when Ben realizes what's up.Like Napolean Dynamite, I'm not convinced Gentlemen Broncos will hold up to repeat viewings, but these oddball Americana slice-of-life movies are possibly worth checking out at least once if you're willing to go there.
but 1 of the few movies that i like is "napoleon dynamite". |
tt0454879 | Journey to the End of the Night | The film is set in a dark and decadent area of São Paulo, Brazil, where the exiled Americans Sinatra and his son Paul own a brothel. Paul is a compulsive gambler addicted to cocaine. Sinatra is married to a former prostitute named Angie, with whom he has a son. A Russian client is killed by his wife in their establishment, leaving behind a suitcase filled with drugs. On the night that they have scheduled a negotiation to sell the contents of the suitcase to African buyers, their go-between dies while having sex with a transvestite named Nazda. In desperation, Sinatra makes a deal with the Nigerian dishwasher of the brothel, Wemba. Wemba is to travel to the harbor of Santos, taking the place of the go-between, and make the sale to the drug dealers. In return Wemba would receive a large amount of money. Wemba accepts but while returning to his car in the harbor, he is attacked by two small-time thieves and is knocked unconscious. His lack of contact with Sinatra and Paul starts a chain-reaction of misunderstandings that lead to a tragic end. | paranormal, revenge | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0060694 | A Midsummer Night's Dream | The play consists of four interconnecting plots, connected by a celebration of the wedding of Duke Theseus of Athens and the Amazon queen, Hippolyta, which is set simultaneously in the woodland and in the realm of Fairyland, under the light of the moon.
The play opens with Hermia, who is in love with Lysander, resistant to her father Egeus' demand that she wed Demetrius, whom he has arranged for her to marry. Helena meanwhile pines unrequitedly for Demetrius. Enraged, Egeus invokes an ancient Athenian law before Duke Theseus, whereby a daughter must marry the suitor chosen by her father, or else face death. Theseus offers her another choice: lifelong chastity while worshipping the goddess Artemis as a nun.
Peter Quince and his fellow players Nick Bottom, Francis Flute, Robin Starveling, Tom Snout, and Snug plan to put on a play for the wedding of the Duke and the Queen, "the most lamentable comedy and most cruel death of Pyramus and Thisbe." Quince reads the names of characters and bestows them on the players. Nick Bottom, who is playing the main role of Pyramus, is over-enthusiastic and wants to dominate others by suggesting himself for the characters of Thisbe, the Lion, and Pyramus at the same time. He would also rather be a tyrant and recites some lines of Ercles. Bottom is told by Quince that he would do the Lion so terribly as to frighten the duchess and ladies enough for the Duke and Lords to have the players hanged. Quince ends the meeting with "at the Duke's oak we meet."
In a parallel plot line, Oberon, king of the fairies, and Titania, his queen, have come to the forest outside Athens. Titania tells Oberon that she plans to stay there until she has attended Theseus and Hippolyta's wedding. Oberon and Titania are estranged because Titania refuses to give her Indian changeling to Oberon for use as his "knight" or "henchman," since the child's mother was one of Titania's worshippers. Oberon seeks to punish Titania's disobedience. He calls upon Robin "Puck" Goodfellow, his "shrewd and knavish sprite," to help him concoct a magical juice derived from a flower called "love-in-idleness," which turns from white to purple when struck by Cupid's arrow. When the concoction is applied to the eyelids of a sleeping person, that person, upon waking, falls in love with the first living thing he perceives. He instructs Puck to retrieve the flower with the hope that he might make Titania fall in love with an animal of the forest and thereby shame her into giving up the little Indian boy. He says, "And ere I take this charm from off her sight,/As I can take it with another herb,/I'll make her render up her page to me."
Hermia and Lysander have escaped to the same forest in hopes of eloping. Helena, desperate to reclaim Demetrius's love, tells Demetrius about the plan and he follows them in hopes of killing Lysander. Helena continually makes advances towards Demetrius, promising to love him more than Hermia. However, he rebuffs her with cruel insults against her. Observing this, Oberon orders Puck to spread some of the magical juice from the flower on the eyelids of the young Athenian man. Instead, Puck mistakes Lysander for Demetrius, not having actually seen either before, and administers the juice to the sleeping Lysander. Helena, coming across him, wakes him while attempting to determine whether he is dead or asleep. Upon this happening, Lysander immediately falls in love with Helena. Oberon sees Demetrius still following Hermia and is enraged. When Demetrius goes to sleep, Oberon sends Puck to get Helena while he charms Demetrius' eyes. Upon waking up, he sees Helena. Now, both men are in pursuit of Helena. However, she is convinced that her two suitors are mocking her, as neither loved her originally. Hermia is at a loss to see why her lover has abandoned her, and accuses Helena of stealing Lysander away from her. The four quarrel with each other until Lysander and Demetrius become so enraged that they seek a place to duel to prove whose love for Helena is the greater. Oberon orders Puck to keep Lysander and Demetrius from catching up with one another and to remove the charm from Lysander so Lysander can return to love Hermia, while Demetrius continues to love Helena.
Meanwhile, Quince and his band of six labourers ("rude mechanicals," as they are described by Puck) have arranged to perform their play about Pyramus and Thisbe for Theseus' wedding and venture into the forest, near Titania's bower, for their rehearsal. Bottom is spotted by Puck, who (taking his name to be another word for a jackass) transforms his head into that of a donkey. When Bottom returns for his next lines, the other workmen run screaming in terror: They claim that they are haunted, much to Bottom's confusion. Determined to await his friends, he begins to sing to himself. Titania, having received the love-potion, is awakened by Bottom's singing and immediately falls in love with him. She lavishes him with the attention of her and her fairies, and while she is in this state of devotion, Oberon takes the changeling. Having achieved his goals, Oberon releases Titania, orders Puck to remove the donkey's head from Bottom, and arranges everything so Helena, Hermia, Demetrius and Lysander will all believe they have been dreaming when they awaken. Puck distracts Lysander and Demetrius from fighting over Helena's love by mimicking their voices and leading them apart. Eventually, all four find themselves separately falling asleep in the glade. Once they fall asleep, Puck administers the love potion to Lysander again, claiming all will be well in the morning.
The fairies then disappear, and Theseus and Hippolyta arrive on the scene, during an early morning hunt. They wake the lovers and, since Demetrius no longer loves Hermia, Theseus over-rules Egeus's demands and arranges a group wedding. The lovers decide that the night's events must have been a dream. After they exit, Bottom awakes, and he too decides that he must have experienced a dream "past the wit of man."
In Athens, Theseus, Hippolyta and the lovers watch the six workmen perform Pyramus and Thisbe. The performers are so terrible playing their roles that the guests laugh as if it were meant to be a comedy, and everyone retires to bed. Afterwards, Oberon, Titania, Puck, and other fairies enter, and bless the house and its occupants with good fortune. After all the other characters leave, Puck "restores amends" and suggests that what the audience experienced might just be a dream. | fantasy | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0039725 | Possessed | A woman (Joan Crawford) is found wandering Los Angeles, unable to say anything other than "David". Admitted to a hospital, she is coaxed into recounting her life.
She reveals herself as Louise Howell, an emotionally unstable woman who had worked as a nurse to the invalid wife of Dean Graham (Raymond Massey) in the Graham home. Louise fell in love with neighbor David Sutton (Van Heflin), an engineer, who loathes her smothering obsession with him; he ends the relationship and leaves the area to Louise's great hurt. Shortly after, Graham's wife drowns. It is undetermined whether she committed suicide or not. Louise remains with the family as they move to Washington, D.C., to care for the two Graham children: young Wynn and college-age Carol (Geraldine Brooks).
Time passes and David re-enters the scene, having taken an engineering job with Graham. He is surprised to find Louise with the family. Louise — still obsessed with David — makes a pass and is rebuffed. Moments later, Graham proposes to Louise and she accepts to salvage her pride. She tells him outright that she is not in love with him, but Graham pledges to make it work in spite of that.
Carol takes a fancy to David, much to the consternation of Louise, who tries to dissuade Carol from establishing a relationship with him. Louise's mind begins to decline with her obsession over David; she hears voices, has hallucinations, and believes her husband's first wife is still alive.
When David and Carol consider marriage, Louise tries to end their relationship. Graham is concerned about Louise's mental state and tries to persuade her to see a doctor. Believing her husband is trying to put her away, Louise bursts into David's apartment and kills him in a schizophrenic episode.
The psychiatrist to whom Louise has recounted her story pronounces her insane and not responsible for her actions. He laments that he had not seen her sooner, as he is sure that if he had, the tragedy could have been avoided. He tells Graham that he intends to help Louise back to sanity, though the process will be long and arduous, with much pain and suffering in store for her. Graham pledges his full support and vows that he always be there for her, no matter how difficult it becomes. | psychological, murder, flashback | train | wikipedia | In the film she plays Louise Howell, a woman who begins to suffer a mental breakdown after the man (Van Heflin) she loves walks away from her.
Before "Play Misty For Me" (1971) and "Fatal Attraction" (1987), comes this story of a nurse (Joan Crawford) who's attached to a man (Van Heflin), who eventually finds her too possessive and breaks it off, but she can not let him go.
This movie takes the smoldering talents of Joan Crawford and lets them burn the screen down, right before your eyes...she's utterly convincing as a fairly demented "possessed" lover, torn to pieces by hideous dysfunction.
I half expected him to start wringing his hands with an Igor-type `yes, master I think it's working, master' look on his face every time one of the drugs he gave Joan Crawford began taking effect.
This is accomplished in spite of Ridges' misguided portrayal of Dr. Willard, and due in large part to Crawford's brave, unglamorous portrayal of patient Louise Graham.On the whole, Possessed is a very entertaining film that left me wanting to know what would happen next.I think the death of Dean Graham's first wife is rushed and a bit muddled.
CAST/PERFORMANCES: Joan Crawford (Louise Howell Graham) Crawford's transformation from personally neurotic, yet mild, unobtrusive caregiver to scheming, paranoid, jealous, unstable woman scorned is fairly believable, given the plot.
I adore her voice, and the circumstances of the script, her role, and therefore her dialog really allow Crawford to express herself well, and she is a treat to hear as well as watch, as usual.Raymond Massey (Dean Graham) Massey is such a natural actor that I always adore his performances, and here is just wonderful.
I think it was a good casting choice to go with Massey, as his self-effacing nature is perfect for this role.Van Heflin (David Sutton) Despite the character's flaws (a very difficult role to play), in the actor's capable hands, it is done well.
In his inimitable style and voice inflection, Heflin has the best line in the film, which he delivers offhandedly while pacing the floor: `I'm sorry, Louise I seldom hit a woman, but if you don't leave me alone, I'll wind up kicking babies.' Geraldine Brooks (Carol Graham) a lovely actress, who I am sure I've seen in other films, as her name sounds familiar.
Just what does Van Heflin's David have the makes Joan Crawford's Louise go literally mad for him?Doesn't appear to be that much in the looks department.
Since Geraldine Brooks and Raymond Massey portray these respective roles, there's sure to be strong convictions expressed.Made just two years after her Oscar-winning turn in "Mildred Pierce," Crawford is in her mature mettle here.
Possessed (1947)A taut, brilliant look at insanity coming out of obsessive love, and Joan Crawford plays it with enough perfection you wonder what kind of madness she had experienced herself first.
It's more along the lines of The Snake Pit. It stars out with Joan Crawford walking the streets in a trance-like state and she keeps on repeating the name David.
The flashback stars with Joan Crawford wanting to marry Van Heflin but he just wants to break the relationship off.
Joan Crawford turns in one of her best performances as a mentally disturbed woman in love with Van Heflin but married to Raymond Massey.
Possessed (1947) stars Joan Crawford, Van Heflin, Raymond Massey, and Geraldine Brooks.
An intriguing, compelling script on mental illness keeps the audience guessing, with "Possessed", starring Joan Crawford, Van Heflin, and Raymond Massey....not exactly a cast made up of sublimely beautiful people.
It doesn't matter that Heflin wasn't the best looking fellow in the world, but he played his part expertly here, and had some of the best lines in the picture.I am not a big fan of Joan Crawford, but found myself hooked watching this film after about 20 minutes.
It stars Joan Crawford, Van Heflin, Raynond Massey and Geraldine Brooks.
"David," she mutters, "I'm looking for David." Awakening in an asylum, Ms. Crawford unravels her story
In flashback, we meet Crawford as a relatively level-headed Washington nurse; in a rustic northwestern estate, she cares for the mentally unbalanced wife of wealthy Raymond Massey (as Dean Graham).
Mr. Massey's wife thinks Crawford is having an affair with her husband, but Crawford is really seeing World War II veteran Van Heflin (as David Sutton).
He returns to romance step-daughter Geraldine Brooks (as Carol), who thinks Crawford killed her mother to marry Massey
The melodramatic plot continues, and remains fascinating throughout.
Director Curtis Bernhardt and photographer Joseph Valentine match Germanic-inspired "film noir" with their star in stylish black and white.********* Possessed (7/26/47) Curtis Bernhardt ~ Joan Crawford, Van Heflin, Raymond Massey, Geraldine Brooks.
This has culminated in a narrow, one dimensional way of looking at film as in the case of Possessed.Accordingly, this has culminated in many consumers of this film to focus on the chief character Louise Howell (Joan Crawford).
The ignorance is apparent when Howell's husband Dean Graham (Raymond Massey), ex-lover David Sutton (Van Heflin) and step daughter, Carol Graham (Gereldine Brooks) are oblivious to Cowell's breakdown which is in fact symptomatic of schizophrenia.Pointedly, when making his diagnoses Cowell's physician's approach to the condition is indirect.
From here on in Crawford's film career took on a new direction.While the supporting cast in Possessed is credible their acting did not convey the depth of ignorance to mental illness as convincing as could have been.
Another Crawford gem.Funny how the character she portrays in this film looks like that of Gene Tierney in "Leave her to Heaven " which was released at about the same time;Like Gene Tierney ,in love with her late father,finds a substitute with a husband who resembles his beloved dad ,Crawford's idee fixe is to make David love her;and she too marries someone else just because her love works for her husband ;as Tierney's enemy is the others ,Crawford' s rival is her husband's daughter.But whereas Tierney portrays a ruthless femme fatale,Crawford is stricken with remorse:her obsession reaches its peak in that scene when the new wife feels the presence of the dead woman in the house by the lake (another analogy with "leave her to Heaven" );it drives her so mad she confesses to having committed a crime of which she is totally innocent.A long flashback,this film has to be ranked among the good psychological films noirs of the forties..
For once Joan Crawford is not quite in the center but part of a triangle, and the mise en scene beautifully takes account of that; her usual overacting is generally held in check by the performances of Heflin, Brooks and, to a lesser extent, of reliable character actor Raymond Massey.I would not be surprised had Van Heflin ranked this performance one of the best in his career.
She goes over-the-edge and somersaults all the way down to the bottom with sheer, unadulterated gusto.In "Possessed", Joan is in love with Van Heflin.
Crawford plays a woman who slowly begins to go mad when Van Heflin breaks up with her.
THE SNAKE PIT was Hollywood's first realistic treatment of mental illness and was a ground-breaking landmark film in that genre, a serious treatment of schizophrenia and of one woman's experiences in a state mental asylum and written by a woman who had been institutionalized herself.POSSESSED is a noir melodrama calculated to give JOAN CRAWFORD a chance to go insane with her mad, obsessive love for VAN HEFLIN whom she must have at all costs.
The 1940s was a decade wherein Hollywood became interested in making films where psychiatric disorders (alcoholism, mental illness) could be examined and became fodder for searing melodramas like THE LOST WEEKEND, SPELLBOUND, A DOUBLE LIFE and THE SNAKE PIT.POSSESSED is a striking example of Joan Crawford at her most persuasive, but fails to convince the viewer that the psycho-babble about her illness is the real thing.
"Possessed" is one of the best performances of Joan Crawford, but the movie is ruined by too many psychiatric explanations..
"Possessed" is good for the performance of Joan Crawford as Louise, a nurse who falls in love for a sadistic and self-centered David (Van Heflin).
Some reviewers say that it's Joan's best performance, and she sure does good things, but it's hard to believe a woman would fall in love so madly for a man who finds such visible fun in despising her completely, and the plot is always menaced by an overdose of kitsch.
Fine performance by Crawford (received an Oscar nomination) in this 1940's film noir drama dealing with mental illness..
A Joan Crawford's star-vehicle directed by German émigré Curtis Bernhardt, in POSSESSED (not the namesake film Crawford made in 1931 with Clark Gable), Crawford plays Louise Howell, an erotomaniac possessed by her desire over David Sutton (Heflin), an engineer who cannot reciprocate her with the same obsession.The film opens with a frazzled Louise roaming in the streets of Los Angeles, unable to utter another word besides "David!", she succumbs to a stupor and is taken to the hospital, under the treatment of Dr. Willard (Ridges), she lets up her stories in flashback from the falling-out between her and David, he considers her as a mere intermezzo in his life, yet she contends to be his theme song (aka, Schumann's Carnaval, Op. 9 piano solo), the music cue plays a significant role in the later stage which compounds Louise's descent into psychosis.
Joan Crawford, Van Heflin, Raymond Massey and Geraldine Brooks give outstanding performances in a movie that is well ahead of its time.
However, it's not the portrayal of a yowling inmate but a normal-appearing woman whose insanity comes upon her slowly but inevitably.Miss Crawford portrays Louise Howell, nurse to the neurotic wife of oil tycoon (BEFORE we became dependent on Middle Eastern oil) Dean Graham.
This is not to be confused with the MGM film of the same name and also starring Miss Crawford, but costarring Clark Gable and made in 1931.In this story Joan has a passionate love affair with Van Heflin, hard to see him in this kind of role, who dumps her early on, causing our Joan to get crazy over him.
In this one, it's Joan Crawford so obsessed with lover Van Heflin that she literally goes crazy when he breaks off their affair and she instead marries dutiful but dull Raymond Massey.
His first wife, a mentally ill woman, commits suicide and Crawford plays the nurse that had taken care of her.
Van Heflin learns the hard way that you trifle with Joan Crawford's affections at your peril, and the fact that both Stanley Ridges and Moroni Olsen play psychiatrists gives a good idea of where this handsomely produced hokum directed by Curtis Bernhardt with expressionistic sets by Anton Grot and atmospheric photography by Joseph Valentine is going.
It all gets too much for her and she finally snaps culminating in a tragic final reel!Crawford gives one of her great wide-eyed antagonistic performances with fine support from Van Heflin, Raymond Massey (in one of his more amiable roles), the ill-fated Geraldine Brookes (whose previous film for Warners just before this was as Errol Flynn's younger sister in "Cry Wolf") and Stanley Ridges as Crawford's psychiatrist.From a cracking screenplay by Silvia Richards and Ranald McDougall (who also wrote "Mildred Pierce") the picture turned out to be a splendidly absorbing drama thanks to the smooth and solid direction by Curtiz Bernhardt, the stylish and sharp monochrome cinematography of Joseph Valentine, an effective score by the great Franz Waxman (featuring Schumann's rhapsodic "Carnaval - Opus 9" "played" by Van Heflin) and most of all to the outstanding performance of Miss Joan Crawford.A nice package - extras include a ten minute featurette on the noir aspects of "Possessed", a good commentary by film historian Drew Casper and an excellent trailer..
As her story unfolds to a doctor, she's a nurse taking care of Raymond Massey's wife, and she's seeing Van Heflin on a casual basis.
Joan Crawford, fresh out of her Oscar win in MILDRED PIERCE, acts the hell out of her role as the ill-fated Louise Howell, a former nurse who has collapsed in the middle of a street moaning "David...
" The thing is, she is an unknown person in a strange town and a team of psychiatrists try to find out the reason behind her madness.POSSESSED is a good, soapy yarn told in flashback with some nice twists and turns, directed quite well by Curtis Bernhardt who gives the movie a moody noir feel, and while at times Louise's character can be quite unsympathetic, going from possessive to manic to moody (and more so once "David," played by Van Heflin, re-enters her life), there's a certain sorrowfulness about her inability to start again with her own life as a married woman, and thankfully Crawford is able to convey this perfectly.
Such seems to be the message of "Possessed", a film that was obviously tailor made for its star, Joan Crawford.
The film is involving, although having seen some of these melodramas prepares us for all possible answers.Joan Crawford does an impressive job as Louise.
This story of romantic obsession, mental breakdown and murder provided Joan Crawford with one of the most memorable and successful movies of her career and an Oscar nomination for Best Actress (1947).
It's soon revealed that Louise had been deeply in love with a construction engineer called David Sutton (Van Heflin) who tired of her possessiveness and decided to end their relationship.
Shortly after, David had left to work in Canada.Louise continued to work as a nurse caring for the bedridden wife of a wealthy oil man called Dean Graham (Raymond Massey) and a little while later, tragedy struck when Mrs Graham was found drowned in the lake near to the Graham residence.
The anguish that she'd experienced over David and the feelings of guilt she'd had about Mrs Graham's death increased even further when Carol and David became romantically involved and the pace of her mental deterioration accelerated dramatically."Possessed" is a fine psychological melodrama, which features good acting performances and exploits the great interest in Freudian themes which was widespread in the 1940s.
She is sent to the psychiatric wing with catatonic stupor and Dr. Willard (Stanley Ridges) diagnosis that she has nervous disorder and injects some medicine to calm her down.She tells that she is a nurse named Louise Howell (Joan Crawford) that takes care of a paranoid woman named Pauline Graham in the family house in an island.
Meanwhile, Louise has a deterioration of her mental state and is schizophrenic; when she learns that David will marry Carol, she takes and ultimate decision."Possessed" is an engaging and melodramatic film-noir where the lead character gets insane and obsessed for an unrequited love for a construction engineer.
When they fish Massey's wife's body (you never see her, but here her voice on the intercom) out of the lake the film hits a dramatic point, and Louise (Crawford) is confronted with Heflin's presence in several great scenes that are full of tension.
Surely, not everyone would go to the extent Crawford goes in this film, but, as a woman working as a nurse to an invalid, she nor anyone who knows her would ever have expected her to.
Then I saw that she had on the same dress that she has found in when she was walking around at the beginning of the movie, and I knew that we were cutting to the chase.Joan's final confrontation with Van Heflin was a good one, and I liked some of his lines a lot in this scene, especially when he slapped her and said, "I'm sorry Louise, I seldom hit a woman but if you don't leave me alone I'll end up kicking babies." Their interplay was interesting, and VH's attempts to regain control of the situation and save his own life were well done, I thought.
****SPOILERS**** Looking like a combination homeless bag lady and something that the cat dragged in Louise Howell,Joan Crawford, aimlessly walks the streets of Los Angeles asking and looking for just one thing, the only word that comes out of her mouth, David!
This decision on David's part has Louise go off her nut to the point of almost losing both her composer, when David was around, and her ability to look after her and Davids employers Dean Graham's, Raymond Massey, very ill wife Pauline whom Louise, a licensed nurse, was taking care off.Davids hold on Louise is so strong that it totally warps her mind having the love sick woman go into fits of anger and self pity over his treatment of her by wanting to have nothing to do with Louise.
Joan Crawford gives a great and almost hypnotic performance as Louise, 'a woman in trouble'.
Joan Crawford plays an unstable woman who slowly slips into madness after being rejected by Van Heflin.
To make matters worse, Heflin is now dating Crawford's step daughter following Joan's rebound marriage to Raymond Massey.
"Possessed" released in 1947, gives Joan Crawford one of her best performances at the height of her popularity at Warner Brothers.
Crawford stars as Louise, a seemingly cool, detached nurse who cares for an ill woman (whom we never see) who is married to a wealthy man named Dean (Raymond Massey).
Louise has also just been dumped by her lover David (Van Heflin) whom she was very much in love with.
Van Heflin is well cast as the heel, whilst the excellent Raymond Massey and Geraldine Brooks come close to rivaling Miss Crawford for our attention.
There was an old Joan Crawford film on TCM, and I became fascinated.At the point where I came in, Louise (the Joan character) was confronted by Dean Graham (Raymond Massey), who was unhappy about her having been out when his wife, Pauline, threw another tantrum.
I don't know why I didn't turn off the television right then.Louise is in love with David (Van Heflin). |
tt0041634 | Manon | Place: France
Time: the reign of Louis XV
=== Act 1 ===
The courtyard of an inn at Amiens
De Brétigny, a nobleman, has just arrived, in the company of Guillot, an aging rake who is the Minister of Finance, along with three flirtatious young actresses. While the innkeeper is serving dinner to the party, the townspeople collect to witness the arrival of the coach from Arras. Among them is Lescaut, a guardsman, who tells his comrades that he plans to meet a kinswoman. The coach appears, and among the crowd Lescaut quickly identifies his fragile young cousin, Manon, who appears to be somewhat confused ("Je suis encore tout étourdie") since this is her first journey, one which is taking her to the convent.
Manon is accosted by the opportunistic Guillot, who tells her that he has a carriage waiting, in which they can leave together. His heavy-handed seduction is undermined by the return of Lescaut, who then lectures the young woman ("Regardez-moi bien dans les yeux") on proper behavior. He leaves her unattended once more and she admires the three fashionably-dressed actresses, but reproaches herself ("Voyons, Manon"), unconvincingly vowing to rid herself of all worldly visions.
Des Grieux, traveling home to see his father, catches sight of Manon, and instantly falls in love. When he approaches, she is charmed by his chivalrous address ("Et je sais votre nom"), and their exchange rapidly becomes a mutual avowal of love. Both their planned journeys, hers to the convent and des Grieux's to his home, are swiftly abandoned, as they decide to flee together ("Nous vivrons à Paris"). But there are hints of incompatible aspirations: while he returns, over and again, to "tous les deux" (together), the phrase she fondly repeats is, "à Paris". Making good use of the carriage provided by the disappointed Guillot, the lovers escape.
=== Act 2 ===
Manon and des Grieux's apartment in Paris
With little hope, des Grieux writes to his father, imploring permission to marry Manon. Lescaut enters intent on creating a scene and accompanied by de Brétigny, who is masquerading as a fellow-guardsman. But his concern for offended family honor is only camouflage for his alliance with his friend. Trying to prove his honorable intentions, des Grieux shows Lescaut the letter to his father. Meanwhile, de Brétigny warns Manon that des Grieux is going to be abducted that evening, on the orders of his father, and offers her his protection and wealth, trying to persuade her to move on to a better future.
After the two visitors depart, Manon appears to vacillate between accepting de Brétigny's offer and warning des Grieux. When her lover goes out to post his letter, her farewell to the humble domesticity she has shared ("Adieu, notre petite table") makes clear she has decided to go with de Brétigny. Unaware of her change of heart, des Grieux returns and conveys his more modest vision of their future happiness ("En fermant les yeux", the "Dream Song"). Going outside to investigate an apparent disturbance, he is seized and hustled away, leaving Manon to voice her regrets.
=== Act 3 ===
Scene 1: Paris, the promenade of the Cours-la-Reine on a feast-day
Among the throng of holiday-makers and vendors of all kinds are Lescaut and Guillot, the latter still flirting with the young actresses, while Lescaut expresses the joys of gambling ("À quoi bon l'économie ?"). De Brétigny arrives, soon joined by Manon, now sumptuously dressed and with a retinue of admirers. She sings about her new situation ("Je marche sur tous les chemins"), following it with a gavotte ("Obéissons quand leur voix appelle") on the joys of love and youth.
Des Grieux's father, the Comte, greets de Brétigny and Manon overhears that her former lover is Chevalier no longer, but Abbé, having entered the seminary of Saint-Sulpice. Approaching the Comte, Manon tries to discover whether his son still loves her. Guillot then attempts to win Manon over by bringing the ballet dancers of the Académie Royale de Musique, which she had expressed a desire to see. However Manon is seized by the desire to see des Grieux once more, and admits, to Guillot's annoyance when asked, that she paid no attention to the dancers. She hurries off to Saint-Sulpice.
Scene 2: Saint-Sulpice
From the chapel, the congregation is leaving, enthusiastic over the sermon of the new abbé ("Quelle éloquence !"). Des Grieux enters, in clerical garb, and his father adds his voice to the chorus of praise, but tries to dissuade his son from this new life, so that he can perpetuate the family name ("Epouse quelque brave fille").
He leaves, having failed to shake his son's resolve and, alone, des Grieux relives memories of Manon ("Ah ! Fuyez, douce image"). As he prays, Manon herself appears, to implore his forgiveness for her faithlessness. Furiously, he attempts to reject her, but when (in "N'est-ce plus ma main ?") she recalls their past intimacies, his resistance is overcome, and their voices join in an impassioned avowal of love.
=== Act 4 ===
A gaming salon at the Hôtel de Transylvanie
Lescaut and Guillot are among the gamblers, and the three young actresses are prepared to attach themselves to any winner. Manon arrives with des Grieux who declares his total love: ("Manon ! Manon ! Sphinx étonnant"). He is persuaded to gamble, in hopes of gaining the wealth she craves. He plays at cards with Guillot and continually wins, as Guillot doubles and redoubles the wager. As Manon exults, Guillot accuses des Grieux of cheating. Des Grieux denies the charge and Guillot leaves, returning shortly with the police, to whom he denounces des Grieux as a cheat and Manon as dissolute.
The elder des Grieux enters, and tells his son that, while he will intercede on his behalf, he will do nothing to save Manon. In a big ensemble, with Guillot exulting over his revenge, Manon lamenting the end of all joy, des Grieux swearing to defend her, and the rest expressing consternation and horror, the arrested pair are led away.
=== Act 5 ===
[Act 4, Scene 2 in the original version]
A desolate spot near the road to Le Havre
Convicted as a woman of ill-fame, Manon has been condemned to be deported. Des Grieux, freed by his father's intervention, and a penitent Lescaut, now his ally, wait to waylay the convoy in which Manon is being marched to the port. A detachment of soldiers arrives with their prisoners. The would-be rescuers recognize the hopelessness of attacking so strong an escort, but Lescaut succeeds in bribing their sergeant to allow Manon to stay behind till evening. The convoy moves on, and a sick and exhausted Manon falls to the ground at des Grieux's feet.
In his arms, near delirium, she relives their former happiness. Des Grieux tells her the past can exist again but Manon, now calm, knows that it is too late. With the words "Et c'est là l'histoire de Manon Lescaut" she dies. | romantic, murder | train | wikipedia | Nothing is dirty when we love each other......
"Manon" might well be Clouzot's masterpiece ,surpassing even "diabolique " " le salaire de la peur" or "le corbeau".It's an adaptation of "l'histoire de Manon Lescault et du chevalier des Grieux" by L'Abbé Prévost, a novel from the XVIIIth century ,but never mind.When HGC Clouzot takes a novel,he makes it his very own .He would do the same for detective story " celle qui n'était plus " which he completely rewrote for "les diaboliques"Clouzot's misanthropy has never been so omnipresent that in this opus.He became an outcast after the liberation in 1945 because of his "collaboration" -"le corbeau " was produced by a German firm-and one cannot help but think that his painting of the end of WW2 seems a settling of scores:the cropped women -they say it happened to the star of "le corbeau " Ginette Leclerc who had a lot of problems too-,the black market ,the war profiteers ,no one is spared in this wholesale massacre.Serge Regianni epitomizes the scumbag ,in a part which sometimes recalls that of Carné's "les portes de la nuit".But evil is not only inside him,it's everywhere :Clouzot's world is noir ,noir ,noir and leaves absolutely no hope to the audience .And however the way he films his lovers is stunning:on the ship, Manon under the pouring rain,trying to spend her last hours with Robert;Manon ,in the confessional,in a church in ruins ,explaining to Robert she did not do any harm to anyone and that, had the American come first ,she would not have played around with the Germans ;the first night of love where the lovers become shadows in the dark;Robert finding Manon in a brothel;Manon desperately searching for her lover in the overcrowded carriage ;and mainly mainly the extraordinary final scenes the romanticism of which surpassing even the frenzied passion of "Colorado territory" or "duel in the sun".Actually ,Clouzot's extravaganza is not unlike Von Stroheim's "greed" 's madness.The male lead ,Michel Auclair,is absolutely extraordinary :the last ten minutes are his and he 's so moving that he carries these sequences in the desert single -handedly as much as he carries Manon' s dead body.But Clouzot's directing will leave you on the edge of your seat as well:the long walk under a blistering sun ,the cactuses which become ghosts from the past ,Robert burying Manon in the sand and screaming that now she's his at last.Cécile Aubry (debut) portrays Manon .
Seven years before Carroll Baker in "baby doll", she is a femme enfant -much more than a femme fatale-.She's not evil,but she lives in a hostile world and she does not want to live like her mother,she needs luxury;it's a sensitive character who feels remorse ,pain and loves Robert dearly even when she cheats on him outrageously.Her good-natured sexuality and her absence of hypocrisy predates that of Brigitte Bardot by seven years too.Their problem is the world outside :that's why the key of the movie is the sequence in the oasis "why couldn't we stay here forever?
" Manon asks.As they leave this haven of peace -the only minutes of happiness in the whole movie" ,Clouzot films their reflections in the cool clear water.And the fact that Manon and Robert are looking for a promise land in the desert in the company of Jews ,what a symbol!"paradise is too far away"she says.The rest of the cast features some of the best actors of the era:Serge Regianni,Manon's dirty brother;Gabrielle Dorziat ,a madam ,screaming "quel bordel!" ; Helena Manson,the nurse in "le corbeau" who wants to punish the whore who sleeps with the enemy;and more and more and more..Another permanent feature in Clouzot's work is the sordidness of the places:the crummy boarding-school of "les diaboliques" ,the seedy apartments in "quai des orfèvres" ,the poor hospital in "les espions" ,and here the ship where they pack Jews on their way to Palestine ,not to mention the desert with its animal skeletons -soon to be joined by those of the Jews-The action of this movie is remarkably dense ,and its construction very subtle :the film begins with the illegal embarkation of the Jews ,and then ,at the least expected moment,the lovers appear for the first time and shortly afterwards tell the captain their sad story .Did French cinema need the nouvelle vague so bad when it had a genius like Clouzot?"Manon" is an absolute must.N.B.1.Another modern "Manon" "Manon 70" (sic) was made in the sixties with Catherine Deneuve ,but it was laughable.2.Cécile Aubry's actress career was short-lived;in the sixties ,she moved into the -rather bland- serial for children ,the likes of "Belle et Sebastien" featuring her own son;she was very successful..
Classic Quality by Any Measure..
My first contact with MANON was at age 11 when it played many weeks at the small PLAZA in Washington, DC.
The ads said, "Cecile Aubry's gift to the world --- Her body!" To which my older brother said, "What body?
She doesn't have one!" Hmm!
My poor brother; what does he know?
Anyway, I didn't see MANON in 1949, but 56 years later, thanks to eBay, I caught up on this classic, and without disappointment.
This film has the authentic feel of classics like Italy's "Bicycle Thief" and "Paisan" --- having the ravages of World War II right there and everywhere you look in 1949, neither war-torn Europe nor attitudes needed to be re-created.
The story is involving from the first moments and never lets up.
Manon and her soul-mate Robert meet when he helps save her from the collaborator-head-shave she's sentenced to endure as punishment for her attentions to German soldiers.
They will remain together throughout her numerous and shameless infidelities, each of which serves both of them, and never with any loss of love for Robert.
Cecile Aubry's femme-innocent was a rare thing to see in 1949.
Truly experienced men know that getting and holding a young woman like Manon is a never-ending challenge that no real man would ever quit.
While traditional "built like a brick you-know-what" sexpots wait in vain for the phone to ring, the femme-innocents are fighting men off like flies.
This film will show the viewer many of the dark sides of the pre- and post- liberation era which history might like to have buried.
I'll skip over most of the compelling story and just say that the final scenes, when the couple arrive in Palestine along with the Jewish refugees --- these are scenes that define classic movies.
Amen!.
Surprisingly faithful, late '40s French update of the (in)famous Prevost tale best known in the operatic versions by Puccini & Massenet..
With his short CV, Henri-George Clouzot is known only for his international hits, WAGES OF FEAR and DIABOLIQUE, yet every newfound title turns out to be a near masterpiece.
This updated take on the infamous Prevost tale (operatic versions include Auber, Massenet & Puccini) is a notch below breathtaking 'finds' like QUAI DES ORFEVRES, LE CORBEAU and his striking film of the Verdi REQUIEM.
But on its own terms it's ingenious & effective, perfectly fitting the story into the morally ambiguous climate of post WWII France.As the heedless young beauty who loves the rich life when she should love her besotted spouse (and vice versa), Cecile Aubry makes an appalling & devastating French sex-kitten, admittedly, an acquired taste.
Michel Auclair, in Gerard Philipe mode, is very fine as her tormented husband and Serge Reggiani as Manon's amoral brother is beyond praise.
And who but Clouzot would have the chutzpah to merge Manon's exile to a group of Jewish refugees trying to smuggle themselves into Israel.NOTE: This title is currently unavailable in ANY video format.
Is there no justice?!.
Great director, great film.
I have seen this film a long time ago, perhaps in 1958 at Prague Film School (FAMU).
It still haunts me, unlike many, many other entirely forgettable "movies", I would love to have a copy.
The film has an essence of what my generation lived, what my children have forgotten, and what we are powerless to remind them of..
Oddity.
I can imagine that Clouzot took on the task of filming this classic with a lot of trepidation: it's just not his kind of story.
A picaresque novel of 1734, with aristocratic ideals in conflict with a sordid story was not going to be well-handled by a director who pioneered the noir form in France.
His forte was telling a gritty story with characters stretched to the breaking point (as Montand and Vanel were in Wages of Fear).
It required a great deal of updating and tinkering with the basic story before Clouzot could feel comfortable with it.Cecile Aubry does not impress me with her acting skills; she mainly pouts and sighs her way through the picture.
How much more could Danielle Darrieux or Micheline Presle have brought to the film!
Michel Auclair was a superb leading man who made many films, this is one of his best (see him also in Maigret et l'affaire Saint-Fiacre).
Here he manages to convey desire, murderous rage and exasperation with Manon's whims.
Dora Doll and her big toothy grin, as well as Gabrielle Dorziat as the prim madam of Manon's brothel were good, but Serge Reggiani as Manon's brother stole every scene he was in..
Clouzot's revenge..?.
MANON may well be Clouzot's misanthropic riposte to the terrible injustice he suffered in post-war France when he was accused of making a "collaborationist" film, LE CORBEAU, and subsequently barred from working in the French film industry for five years as punishment.
(LE CORBEAU is in fact the only film that I know of made during the Pétain era that presented any sort of subversive threat to that collaborationist regime; one which, let it not be forgotten, was officially recognised by the USA, the Soviet Union, and The Vatican).It is as if Clouzot wanted to show both the depths to which humans will sometimes sink in order to pursue their own personal well-being, (collaborating with evil), as well as the greater moral outrage of war and its aftermath, which never somehow seems to eclipse or exceed society's trivial and self-righteous moral preoccupation with human sexuality.
It is a film about survival in a society which has become brutalised and desensitised by war, where racketeers, gangsters and prostitutes resort to any means or method as they ruthlessly take the measure of the hypocrisy of the dominant ideology and act in kind.
Totally apolitical, feckless and bereft of any human sympathy for anyone but themselves, they become a bleak and grotesque underclass that has taken "the rules of the game" to its logical, hideous, and heartless conclusion.Manon, the central character, is not so much slut turned prostitute, as prostitute turned slut.
Dehumanised by the experience of the war and the cruel retribution that subsequently scape-goated women whose only "crime" of collaboration was to have sex with German soldiers whom their own government had described as "guests", (and which are now re-written into history as "occupiers"), she sees sex as a means to an end; her only available weapon in her own personal war of survival in a cruel and cynical world.But, although to all intents and purposes she has long since convinced herself that she has consciously extinguished any kind or compassionate part of her nature, or human fellow-feeling she might once have had, it returns with an ironic and cruel vengeance when she meets someone whom she really loves.
Like Lulu in PANDORA'S BOX, the first and only time she shows a genuine acte-gratuite of human kindness, her fate becomes sealed, and this "weakness" becomes the very means and vehicle by which she will meet her downfall.
As a heartless tart she can make it, but as a vulnerable loving human, she is doomed.When she and her lover flee as illegal immigrants to try and find happiness in Palestine, she is shot in the desert by marauding Arabs, and dies in the arms of her lover; one of cinema's most powerful and memorable scenes in which he buries her corpse in the sand, but cannot bring himself to finally cover her face.Originally banned in the UK but passed with cuts by the London Council, (even then, they ordered no less than 10 cuts in the film's trailer!!), it has, as a result, become a forgotten and lost film, and if remembered at all, (as is so often the case in these matters), it is for the "controversy" it caused when it was new, despite the fact that it was awarded The Golden Lion at the Venice Film Festival.
A gesture which, I suspect, also reflected the jury's contempt for the post-war injustice meted out to Clouzot over LE CORBEAU.Clouzot was one of the world's most gifted directors, and all his films merit not just one, but several viewings, and MANON is one of his very best..
"The Nazi girl.".
Planning to watch 5 French films connected to the Occupation of France,I struggled to find a suitable title which would show what effect the end of the Occupation had on French cinema.Taking a look at a fellow IMDbers reviews,I stumbled across a film which co- writer/(along with Jean Ferry)director Henri-Georges Clouzot had made as a response to getting banned from making movies for 5 years by the French Resistance over his previous film being seen as critical against the Resistance,which led to me getting ready to meet Manon.The plot:France-The late 1940s: Hearing strange noises from the cargo bay of their boat,the crew discover 2 stowaways called Robert Dégrieux and Leon Lescaut.With Dégrieux being wanted for murder,the ships captain prepares to bring them in,but is stopped in his tracks by Lescaut,who tells the captain that he must allow Dégrieux to explain what they are running away from.France-The early-mid 1940s:Joining some American soldiers in their battle to free a city, Dégrieux find the local residence surrounding Lescaut,who they want to humiliate via shaving her head,due to having strong suspicions that Lescaut is a Nazi collaborator.Wanting Lescaut to face the full justice of the law, Dégrieux pulls Lescaut from the crowd,and takes her back to his hideout.Planning to give her over to his superiors, Dégrieux finds that despite being sickened by Lescaut's past activities,that he is unable to stop himself from falling in love with Lescaut.With the libation of France from Hitler,the young couple find themselves in a small apartment and low-paying jobs.Dazzled by new material possessions flooding the high streets, Dégrieux promises Lescaut that he will spend every penny he has on getting all the luxury goods that she desires.Being well aware of the low wage Dégrieux is on,Lescaut decides that the only way she can live the life that she so desires,is to secretly enter the underworld once again.View on the film:Banned from making films from 1943-1947 (when Quai des Orfèvres was made) Jean Ferry and co-writer/director Henri-Georges Clouzot's loose adaptation of Abbé Prévost's novel "L'Histoire du Chevalier des Grieux et de Manon Lescaut" burns with an unrelenting fury.
Transferring the XVIIIth century set book to the '40s,the writers attack every area of Occupied/Post-War France with a Film Noir heart,as Lescaut obsession with the consumer culture is shown to be a soulless entity which pulls Lescaut back into the darkness of the war time era.
Attacking those who had made him an outcast,Clouzot's shows the former "The Resistance" fighters to be cold hearted devils,who along with accepting everything at face value,are also determined to block any sunlight from entering Dégrieux & Lescaut relationship.Hitting back at those who had tried to make him fall,(talk about getting on the wrong side of the guy!) director Henri-Georges Clouzot and cinematographer Armand Thirard seal Dégrieux & Lescaut in a merciless Film Noir world,as Clouzot subtly uses a charcoal depth of field to show that even gold can not glitter in this world,with Clouzot giving the title a chilling atmosphere of impending doom,by scattering tightly coiled tracking shots to show the dark world closing in on Dégrieux and Lescaut.
Empathizing the bleak mood built in the indoor scenes,Clouzot gives the outdoor scenes a very contrasting appearance,thanks to Clouzot painting the outdoors as a stark,burning white desert wasteland,which along with allowing Clouzot to take a little dip into Adventure-movie mode(!),also gives Clouzot the chance to take a mature allegorical route in showing how wrong his critics were,as Dégrieux & Lescaut find their one moment of happiness in the promise land.Offering his heart and all the jewels that she desires, Michel Auclair gives an extraordinary,gritty performance as Robert Dégrieux, Initially appearing calm and collective, Auclair pulls everyone of Dégrieux's nerves out to reveal his vulnerability towards Lescaut,as Auclair shows Dégrieux to be a Film Noir loner, who's growing obsession with Lescaut leads him to an ocean of death.
Appearing like a fragile doll,the beautiful Cécile Aubry sets the film alight as burning hot femme fatale Manon Lescaut.
Striking a fine balance,Aubry gives Lescaut a sweet, joyful nature which gets under Dégrieux skin,which is countered with Lescaut's hard-edge fight for all that she desires,as Lescaut reveals to Dégrieux the real resistance. |
tt0076890 | Viva Knievel! | Daredevil motorcycle rider Evel Knievel stars as himself in this fictional story. The film opens with Knievel sneaking into an orphanage late at night to deliver presents: Evel Knievel action figures. One of the boys casts away his crutches, telling Knievel that he'll walk after his accident just as Knievel had.
Knievel then prepares for another of his stunt jumps. We are introduced to his alcoholic mechanic Will Atkins (Gene Kelly), who was a former stunt rider himself before his wife died, driving him to drink. While signing autographs, Knievel is ambushed by feminist photojournalist Kate Morgan (Lauren Hutton), who has been sent to photograph the jump: if Knievel is killed, it will be a great story.
As it happens, Evel does crash while attempting the stunt, and though badly injured, survives. He berates Morgan, announces his retirement, and is taken to the hospital.
While rehabilitating, Knievel resists all attempts to get back on the horse, including those from Jessie (Marjoe Gortner), a former protégé with mysterious backers who want Evel to do a jump in Mexico. Eventually, though, Knievel relents and agrees.
A subplot develops when Will's estranged son Tommy shows up from boarding school, and asks to join the tour. Will, who is reminded of his dead wife, is cold to Tommy, leaving Knievel to show the boy kindness. Likewise, Kate reappears, apologetic for her previous motives, and now wishes that he will never stop jumping.
Meanwhile, Jessie's benefactor is revealed: Drug lord Stanley Millard (Leslie Nielsen). Millard (without Jessie's knowledge) plans to cause a fatal accident during the jump. He will then have Knievel's body transported back to America in an exact duplicate of the tour trailer, but one that has a massive supply of drugs hidden in the walls.
Will, however, stumbles onto the plot, is drugged, and sent to a psychiatric ward under the control of the corrupt Ralph Thompson (Dabney Coleman) to prevent him from spilling the beans. Evel sneaks into the ward late at night when Will has dried out, but all Will can remember is that someone knocked him out. Knievel leaves him there to keep whoever is behind the plot in the dark.
As Knievel prepares for the jump (down a massive ramp and over a fire pit), Jessie—hopped up on drugs—confronts Evel, claiming that he will prove who the best jumper is. Jessie knocks Evel out and dresses in Knievel's signature red, white, and blue outfit. Jessie then successfully makes the jump, however, the bike has been sabotaged and he is killed as he lands (footage from a real Knievel crash was used). While the body is taken away for the drug smuggling plot, Evel wakes up, gets on another bike, and goes to free Will.
After breaking out of the psych ward, the two find the mockup trailer, in which, by an amazing coincidence, both Tommy and Kate have been taken hostage. Pursuing the truck, Will and Evel decide to split up: Will will disable the semi, Evel will lead off the gun-toting drug lords riding guard in another car.
At the end of several extended chase scenes, the drug lords are defeated, Will and his son are reunited, and Kate has fallen head over heels for Knievel. The film ends with Knievel performing a daredevil jump over a pit of fire, this time successfully.
The end jump is stopped in a freeze-frame shot and a color matte, similar to that of the one that appears in the opening credits, appears over Evel in mid-air. The song that plays over the opening credits also plays over the film's end credits. | cult | train | wikipedia | First of all, just consider this plot: a mob boss, played straight by Leslie Nielson of all people, wants to assassinate good ol' Evel in Mexico so he can use his stunt trucks to smuggle drugs back to the U.S., because no one is going to stop a "funeral procession for a hero." Try to follow THAT logic!!
Another priceless moment comes when Evel delivers an anti-drug speech warning kids that if they use dope - just like race car drivers who use nitro in their cars - they too, will "blow all to hell!" (well, at least after "5 or 10 years" by his estimation anyway).
I've never seen Gene Kelly looking so disgruntled and tired, and what would be complete without a way-over-the-top Red Buttons (classic line delivered to a groggy Evel: "What is this, Judgement Day!?).
And let's not forget that kid at the orphanage who literally throws his crutches to the floor and says, I kid you not, "you're the reason Evel!
You're the reason I'm walkin'!" Evel Knievel: miracle man...ordained healer.
Evel Knievel, the greatest thing on two wheels (despite the fact that he had immense trouble with actually landing!) is on the attack!
Truth, justice & the American way are under threat from some nefarious drug dealers out to use Evels fame as a way to smuggle drugs into the U S of A & then into the innocent hands of the nations youth no doubt!From the opening bars of the theme tune to the closing credits this is non-stop-two-wheeled-high-octane-death-defying-cinema!
See the horror as his best friend is turned into a drug crazed dope-fiend by the bad guys, then rejoice as he is saved & reunited with his estranged son by the one & only Knievel!
In the grand, suspense filled rubber burning finale let out a mighty Huzzah as Evel foils the bad guys & saves the day for all the innocent children of the free world!
Kneivel says he's never taken a drug in his life, which is good so there was plenty enough to go around for the writer, the director and love interest Lauren Hutton.And Kneivel's not even the weirdest guy in the movie!
That honor goes to poor old Gene Kelly who plays Evel's sad excuse for a mechanic.
His performance is quite possibly the worst captured on film; Kelly was playing this either as senile or retarded, though I suppose it doesn't matter which.
In VIVA KNIEVEL, the daredevil foils a drug shipment, charms a Mother Superior, reunites a long-estranged father and son, inspires crippled children to walk, woos a feminist news photographer and makes a 150-foot jump over a cage full of lions.
Not all at once, however.Robert Craig Knievel was one of his era's most singular pop culture figures, an endless self-promoter whose failures (e.g. his aborted 1974 Snake River Canyon jump) drew more media hype than almost anyone else's successes.
A well-marketed, low-budget Knievel biopic starring George Hamilton did great at the box office in the early 1970s, so it was assumed the real Evel would also pack them into the theaters.
But Knievel, unlike a Babe Ruth or Muhammad Ali, has no genuine on-camera magnetism and many of his line readings are horrid; trying to get Red Buttons to pay up on a debt, Evel says flatly, "You stole from me (long, long pause)...
PROMOTER." A quintessential 1970s cast (in fact, three POSEIDON ADVENTURE survivors appear here) includes a poorly-wigged Gene Kelly as Evel's alcoholic mechanic, a pre-AIRPLANE!
Leslie Nielsen as the drug kingpin, Marjoe Gortner (take my word for it, kids, he was big in the 1970s) as Evel's protégé-turned-druggie and Lauren Hutton as the women's lib photographer who F-stops her way into Evel's heart..
And the "Allen Tradmark" of casting over-the-hill has-beens -- in this case Gene Kelly -- in a 'throw away' role?
Allen's wife played the Mother Superior in the famed scene where the orphan throws his crutches away at the sight of seeing Evel as he sneaks into the orphanage in the middle of the night(!).The story behind this film is that producer Sherrill Corwin (who was the head of the Motion Picture Academy of Arts and Sciences during the '70s), was a major financial contributor to Irwin Allen's "Poseidon Adventure" and "Towering inferno." Allen needed backing because the studios baulked at the high production costs.
But, by the mid-70s Irwin was 'The Man' and now it was 'pay back time' for Corwin when he wanted to hype Knievel, who by that time was a superstar among the teen-set.
True, Evel Knievel WAS bankable when it came to packing arenas, selling lunch boxes, action figures and toy motorcycles.
Problem was that in the acting department Evel was as wooden as a tree trunk and this movie shows it.Not helping matters was the horrendous screenplay by Norman Katkov and Antonio Santillian (whoever he is), and the ingredients for a GRADE A Turkey were assured.
But then again, he was also one of the primary contributors to the screenplay for another Irwin Allen travesty: "The Return of Captain Nemo" (aka "Amazing Captain Nemo"), a mini-series produced or should I say released the following year."Viva Knievel" is best enjoyed by those suffering from insomnia or otherwise get their kicks from bad-movie marathons..
Viva Knievel has to be one of the worst movies ever made.
If you like bad movies, this is a must see.
In the film Knievel is presented as some sort of cross between Elvis and Jesus.
One scene at the front of the film even has Evel seeming to heal crippled children by presenting them with Evel Knievel model kits.
By the way, how on Earth did people like Red Buttons, Gene Kelly, Lauren Hutton, and Leslie Nielson end up in this turkey?!?
If you can't appreciate an incredibly bad movie, stay as far away as you can!.
I recently bought a video tape of this film expecting it to be somewhat funny...it turned out to be one of the funniest movies I've ever seen.
And that's saying alot since it was made as a dramatic vehicle for the one, the only, EVEL KNIEVEL.I can't believe all of the negative comments that have been posted for this film.
Sure the acting is bad and the plot is subpar, but overall, this movie is destined for cult status!
This 1 hour and 40 minute film turned into a three hour viewing experience for me since I was laughing so hard at everything, and I knew I was missing more great dialogue and acting...I'd have to stop the video, rewind it, and watch again...and I'd laugh just as hard the second time.
Even now, while writing this review, I'm laughing to myself just thinking of certain scenes...especially the "drug speech."I won't spoil anything for those reading this...Just pop this baby in your VCR and "sit down and take a load off!"And who the hell did Frank Gifford have to sleep with to get his name mentioned so many times in this film?PUT THIS FILM ON DVD in WIDESCREEN!!.
The stunts were great, but I could jump over the plot..
Evel was a great showman, and was incredibly popular in the 1970's.
There are a few stunt scenes that bear this out, including a great two-person tour around and through a small stadium on Evel's bike.But that's about it; the plot is pretty simple, and the criminals are as stereotyped as they come.
Oh, what an incredible trashy bad movie from the '70's this is, starring none other than Evel Knievel himself and Hollywood celebs from the 'old' days Gene Kelly, Red Buttons and Leslie Nielsen as a villain.The movie has a real shaky plot that doesn't make an awful lot of sense.
I don't know it has something to do with an evil Leslie Nielsen wanting Knievel death so he can smuggle drugs with Knievel's death body as a cover.
It makes the movie often disjointed to watch and halve of the time you don't know what is going on, also because there is often very little actually happening in the story.The movie was an obvious attempt to launch Evel Knievel a movie career.
He crashed- and broken more bones during his stunts than a regular race-car driver would in his entire career.Evel Knievel is in this movie presented as an all American hero.
He gets a standing ovation as well from the crowd after this inspiring speech.The only last month deceased Evel Knievel just wasn't much good as an actor.
It also didn't really helped him that he had Hollywood-cannon's Gene Kelly and Red Buttons opposite him.
It's true that Kelly's and Buttons' careers already had their best time and the same goes for Leslie Nielsen, who in this movie plays one of his last 'serious'.
This is basically also the only reason why those three appear in this movie.
It was a bit weird to see Kelly as an 'old' man, mainly of course since I'm used to seeing him in only just '40's and '50's movies.
So perhaps this movie is not entirely deserving it's title of 'one of the worst movies ever made' but nevertheless, this is a great example of bad movie making, which at the same time also makes this movie some delicious bad trash from the '70's to watch.
Some films are bad enough to be funny, this one is worse.
What put me off, was the appearance of Gene Kelly, a performer of some standing in my opinion, in this rag.
Do not watch this movie, even when you want to see it for its lack of quality.
Leslie Nielsen is trying to sabotage Evel's bike.
Will Lauren Hutton discover the plot in time?And can Evel convince his mechanic to give up the bottle, and be a good father to the son he has heretofore ignored?Will Evel and Lauren give up their adversarial flirting and get together?DOES ANYBODY CARE?!?!I am a fan of bad, cheesy movies.
Evel Knievel is the world's leading motorcycle jumper.
However Millard, the tour's organiser (Leslie Nielsen) plans to use Knievel to smuggle drugs back over the Mexican border, using Knievel's fame to escape detection.This is very much a star vehicle of it's time - it screams 70's all the way through - from the clothes to the attitude, from the stars to the cheesy theme song it's all very dated.
This is actually a reasonable plot - if a little far fetched - but the 70's definitely produced worse crime thrillers.
That's not to say that it's brilliant - but for an Evel Knievel movie anything that is better than OK is good.
Several times the film slows down and loses the main plot so that Knievel can be kind to kids, or lecture about the dangers of drugs etc.
That said - there are times that this doesn't seem like a star vehicle.
Knievel overall is played as a kind man who is good to kids etc, but quite often during the film he is an unpleasant man - arrogant, rude, selfish and, in one throwaway remark, racist.
It just surprised me that he would let himself be portrayed in that way - unless of course he is like that and didn't see it in the finished film.
For the most part though this is a star film that shows him as a moral, kid loving, God-fearing American.The rest of the support is quite surprising, Gene Kelly plays Will quite well, but overdoes the emotions in his subplot.
Leslie Nielsen is good as the bad guy, pre-spoof days, and plays it straight (read boring) and steady.
Even Red Buttons pops up momentarily as Knievel's organiser.
But most are sidelined as the story focuses on Knievel.Overall a good 1970's crime movie, but both Knievel and the other subplots slow the plot and take away from the film.
Ill-advised starring vehicle for the king of motorcycle jumping, Evel Knievel.
Evel Knievel is hired to do a jump in Mexico, and his promoter, Leslie Nielsen, plans on getting him killed so he can smuggle a boatload of cocaine into the US in Evel's coffin (which he assumes the border guards will be too respectful to ransack).
At least the action at that point is decent (though apparently Evel was forced to use a stuntman to perform most of the riding).
To classics fans, the film is probably more notable because it contains the penultimate performance by Gene Kelly (Red Buttons is also in it).
is the only film Kelly appeared in which is even more lowly rated than Xanadu.
Actually, much of the plot revolves around Kelly, as the son whom he sent off to be raised elsewhere is reunited with him.
Kelly kind of ignores the boy because his wife died in childbirth, but Evel eventually sets him straight.
There's also a romantic subplot involving a feminist photographer, Lauren Hutton, who is sent to photograph Evel's "last jump".
This is one of numerous movies that were featured on Video On Demand from Rifftrax and it's easy to tell why.
I didn't even know that was the real Evel Knievel.
This film features guys who want to take Knievel's body to smuggle cocaine.
Gene Kelly...one of his last roles..
I realize that the movie was about Evil Knievel, but I was more interested in Gene Kelly.
Gene was a run down, alcoholic who was trying to impress a son he hadn't seen in years.
Knievel starts to show off, and Gene's son looses interest in him.
Gene has to work hard to regain his son's love.
It was a very emotional role for Gene, I enjoyed watching him emote more than I did Knievels stunts.Lauren Hutton was an over the top, harridan of a photographer; and " love interest" for Knievel.
Had Gene Kelly not been in the film, I never would have watched it.
He adds dignity and strength of character to any role he plays.This was not one of Gene's better films, but it was good to see that he hadn't lost his "magic" on the screen.Kitty.
Great Movie.
The strangest part about this movie is the apparent idea that all kids loved Evel Kneivel.
Sure, it would be entertaining but I dont think it will heal my polio or reunite the drunkard Gene Kelly and his son.
This is a great movie though and is a good reminder of the whole AMF/Harley era.
Especially when that theme is played during the film on what sounds like a paper and comb or a kazoo?
Yet expecting a "so bad it's good" experience can only lead to disappointment hereTo be honest I'd quite forgotten what Evel looked like, if in fact I'd seen his face at all.
As it turns out, Knievel looks like a cross between Garry Shandling, 70's Elvis and my Uncle Derrick.
And in case the first two make you think this is a dark-haired raven, then Knievel's hair not only recedes, but is also grey, just like ...
How tasty Lauren Hutton is supposed to find a man attractive when he looks old enough to be her father is beyond me.
Or maybe he's supposed to be charismatic, and it's just Evel's performance that has the charm of a rotting carcass.
Even the illegitimate love child of Chris Rea and Keanu Reeves couldn't produce such a wooden performance.The "plot" involves drug dealers trying to kill Knievel (Not that anyone could tell if he was dead or not) and use his funeral procession to ship drugs.
The use of drugs, and Knievel's reaction to them, is as adult and sophisticated as that in Moonwalker...
Favourite bad lines include: "That kid was your number one fan, why, he'd take on the Supreme Court for you"; "What is this, judgement day?"; "You're chicken, huh?"; "You're supposed to be the head honcho of this hacienda" and "You're the reason I'm walking, Evel!
Just for example, the last line is a crippled child who throws away his crutches upon meeting Evel.For acting, Leslie Neilson playing it straight is far funnier than Leslie trying to be comical.
Only Gene Kelly produces anything approaching a competent performance, though all have their presence sapped by the lifeless direction.
Ultimately, Viva comes across as a TV movie, or one of those kitsch action shows of the eighties.
Sort of like The Fall Guy, but with your overweight dad playing the part of Lee Majors.
Neilson's car crash is hilarious, but generally this isn't so bad it's good...
Basically legendary stuntman Evel Knievel has come to Mexico to perform one of his greatest stunts, and while there preparing he gets to know some of his fans and catch up with old friends.
This includes helping a bunch of orphans, getting his alcoholic mechanic Will Atkins (Gene Kelly) to put things right with his son Tommy Atkins (Eric Olson), and getting to know photographer and journalist Kate Morgan (Lauren Hutton).
While all this is going on, villainous drug lord Stanley Millard (Leslie Nielsen) plans to have Evel killed in his stunt so that he can get a replacement biker and smuggle a massive supply of drugs through.
Evel is seen to do one jump prior to the main one, but when it comes to the big one he finds out about this plot, goes ahead with the jump, and after recovering there are some chases and stuff to which he saves the day in the end.
The critics rate this film two stars, the extra star is probably just from the fact that it is Evel Knievel and there are two stunts in the film, but the supporting one or two big names are wasted, especially Kelly and Nielsen, the story is ridiculous, over the top cheesy and predictable, I can never see myself watching this garbage again, a stupid action thriller adventure.
Staring Knievil himself,a gang of drug smugglers try to use his custom rig to smuggle drugs from Mexico to America.This is a neat,anti drug movie. |
tt0314123 | Grand Theft Auto: Vice City | In 1986, Tommy Vercetti (Ray Liotta), a loyal former member of the Forelli Family, is released from prison after a 15-year sentence. His former boss, Sonny Forelli (Tom Sizemore), ostensibly promotes Tommy to a caporegime and sends him to Vice City to act as the Forelli's buyer for a series of cocaine deals. When Tommy and his bodyguards arrive in Vice City, crooked lawyer Ken Rosenberg (William Fichtner) takes them to the docks; the site of the deal. They are ambushed by several armed and masked men, who kill their bodyguards. Tommy narrowly escapes with Ken from the docks, losing the Forelli's money and the cocaine in the process. After Ken returns to his office, Tommy drives back to his hotel and informs Sonny, promising him under the threat of consequences to get back the drugs and money and kill whoever was responsible for the ambush.
Seeking information, Ken points Tommy towards Juan Garcia Cortez (Robert Davi), who helped set the exchange up. Expressing regret for the matter, Cortez promises to help Tommy find out who masterminded the ambush plot. In the process of finding leads, Tommy meets Kent Paul (Danny Dyer), who leads Tommy to one of the participants in the ambush. Tommy then works for Ricardo Diaz (Luis Guzmán), who hires him as protection. Cortez soon voices his suspicion that Diaz might have organised the ambush. With the help of Lance Vance (Philip Michael Thomas), whose brother died in the ambush, Tommy kills Diaz; as a result, Tommy and Lance become Vice City's drug kingpins, allowing Tommy to create his own organisation and distance himself from the Forelli family. Tommy works with the Cuban's leader Umberto Robina (Danny Trejo) in their fight against the Haitians. After destroying the Haitians' drug factory, Umberto becomes Tommy's partner in the drug trade. Tommy also earns the respect and friendship of Mitch Baker (Lee Majors), leader of a biker gang, whose bikers work alongside the Cubans to become protectors of Vercetti family business. Tommy also expands his drug business by purchasing assets in nearly bankrupt companies and turning them back into competitive businesses.
Eventually, Sonny discovers that Tommy has gained complete control over Vice City's drug trade without cutting the Forelli family in. Enraged that Tommy has become independent and is hustling him, Sonny sends high-ranking Forelli members to forcefully collect money from Tommy's assets. Tommy quickly disposes of them and decides to sever his ties with the Forelli family. Sonny arrives at his estate with a small army of mafiosi and demands his tribute under the threat of force. As Tommy attempts to give the tribute in counterfeit money, Sonny reveals that he set Tommy up fifteen years prior, resulting in his prison sentence. Lance also reveals his partnership with Sonny, admitting to have informed Sonny about Tommy's activities in Vice City. Angered at this betrayal, Tommy chases and ridicules Lance before killing him for his treachery. Heading through his estate, the gunfight eventually culminates in Tommy killing Sonny once and for all. When Ken arrives, he is shocked and worried by the events, but Tommy reassures him that everything is fine; having finally established himself as the undisputed crime kingpin of Vice City. | violence, satire, murder | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0090310 | Wetherby | Set in the town of Wetherby in West Yorkshire, the film focuses on Jean Travers, a middle-aged spinster schoolteacher. One evening, she invites married friends for a dinner party, only to have some terrible repressions and past traumas dredged up when guest John Morgan expresses his emotional pain. The strange young man arrives at Jean's cottage the next morning with a gift of pheasants. While sitting at the kitchen table waiting for tea, he puts the barrel of a gun in his mouth and kills himself.
From this point onward, the film's story is told in chronologically discrete, interlocking flashbacks to the recent and distant past, showing actions and events as seen and experienced from various points of view. The central mystery of Morgan's suicide is the fulcrum around which the narrative turns. The narrative construction of the film resembles a jigsaw puzzle and, in keeping with Hare's style of exposition, frequently appears to have key pieces missing.
There are further scenes of the dinner party as well as scenes of the police investigation into the suicide. We learn Morgan had not been an invited guest—he walked in with others who assumed he was an acquaintance of Jean's, and Jean assumed that her friends had brought him with them.
An aloof and peculiar young woman named Karen Creasy—a former acquaintance of Morgan's—is delivered from the funeral to Jean's doorstep by Mike Langdon, one of the policemen conducting the inquest. For several weeks after, the girl insinuates herself into Jean's life and home and shows no intention of leaving. Sullen and self-centred, Karen is curiously unmoved by Morgan's death and is even hostile to his memory. It is later shown in flashbacks that Morgan had developed an obsession with Karen when they were both students at the University of Essex, and she had violently rebuffed his desperate attempt to initiate a relationship with her. It is implied this rejection may have been a factor in his decision to leave Essex for Yorkshire with the intention of committing suicide.
When Jean suggests to Karen that she may have been responsible for Morgan's decision to kill himself, the young woman angrily denies that her behaviour was, or is, in any way provocative. Karen makes it clear that she hates emotional involvements—what she harshly describes as "people digging into each other"—and likewise resents Jean's attempt to engage her in a close relationship. In a sudden fit of pique, Karen quits Jean's home and Wetherby for good. But before leaving, she cruelly taunts Jean by remarking that, if Morgan's suicide wasn't merely an accident, then she would love to know what possible role the spinster played in causing it.
In addition to the events occurring in the present day, there are flashbacks of Jean and her lifelong friend, Marcia, as teenagers in 1953. These scenes reveal Jean had been engaged to airman, Jim Mortimer, and that she failed to stop him from going away on active service in southeast Asia. In a brutal twist of fate, Jim was senselessly murdered in a gambling den during the anti-imperial uprisings in British Malaya.
As these episodes from the past and present criss-cross and overlap, Jean begins to understand the dull resentment and lonely despair that drove Morgan to take his life. She also seems to gain some insight into the restlessness and self-destructive impulses of the younger generation. In a related incident, she tries to get one of her female students to see the value of continuing her education (At the end of the film, Jean is told that the girl has dropped out of the Sixth Form to run away to London, presumably with a boyfriend).
Jean is likewise affected by the diminished hopes of her contemporaries, who bemoan the state of the country under Thatcherism. She regularly discusses these current matters with Stanley Pilborough, Marcia's husband and the town solicitor, who is often purposefully drunk. She observes the unhappy marriages of her middle-aged friends, particularly the endless bickering that goes on between Roger and Verity Braithwaite. Even lonely, despondent Mike Langdon confesses the failure of his relationship with his mistress, Chrissie, who eventually leaves him to return to her sheep farmer husband.
In the end, it seems that Jean no longer needs to mourn for the life she might have had, and the person she might have become, had she not allowed her fiancé to make his fatal departure for Malaya three decades earlier. She will make the best of what she has, and the way things are, in the here and now. | murder, violence, revenge, flashback, humor, romantic, storytelling | train | wikipedia | David Hare's quiet masterpiece conveys a genuine sense of alienation and dislocation while covering a great deal of social and political ground.
It never loses sight of the human story, though; the loneliness of the characters comes through in this startlingly intelligent drama which unfolds slowly, like a flower under time lapse photography.
We watch the bloom, flowering and eventual withering of the characters' bodies and minds over several decades of social discord, emotional disappointments and lost dreams.It's stunning how Hare constructs such an involving character study under the framework of a conventional mystery.
The inexplicable suicide of a young man draws the viewer in but it's the characters that involve the viewer in a greater mystery of the heart; how did these people get to this point in their lives and the history of a nation?
The military scenes are not US soldiers, but rather a flashback for Vanessa Redgrave to a love lost.
Also a fine performance from a very young Joely Richardson (Vanessa Redgrave's daughter), who now stars on FX's Nip Tuck..
His yearning to be loved by another, is very much meant as a parallel to the young and older Redgrave character - as well as to the young man at the dinner party.David Hare has a wonderful scene here that is very similar to the very end of Plenty - when we see Joely Richardson writing in her diary in 1947 or so (think of Plenty's flashback to Meryl Streep in 1944 or 1945 speaking to the French farmer).
Hare is more essentially romantic - even if he doesn't want to be - and I'd place him more with a Jacques Demy than with a Pinter-Mamet and their cold keen patterns of speech and behavior - though granted, he's more concerned with social and political background than Demy.This is essentially a sad movie about one who was once happy - and her wonder and self-realization about another sadder than she.
This movie also started me off on two decades of strongly favoring Joely Richardson in any role - as I had always loved Ian Holm and Vanessa Redgrave.
Besides qualms with the musical score, Wetherby has a killer script, intriguing editing, fantastic acting (Vanessa Redgrave is incredible), and a compelling idea driving the film.
It is more than a story about a disturbed young man who shoots himself in front of an aging school teacher, Jean Travers (Redgrave).
The Richardson and Redgrave clan turns out yet another great contribution to the British stage in the delightful Jolley, Vanessa's daughter in real(not reel) life, playing, you guessed it Vanessa as a young girl.
An intriguing film which plays with time in an interesting way - it is based around the bizarre suicide of a young man, and scenes are shown in no particular order, some from before the suicide and some from after.
Ahh, imagine my surprise to find a movie with such a winning cast and an intriguing plot summery at 3:30 am.Then, imagine my disappointment in finding a movie that is poorly filmed (lighting was so bad I couldn't tell who the actors were and who was speaking), dialog that was plodding and boring, a story line that was so obtuse as to be untenable.Oh, I was so disappointed.
It was filmed in Yorkshire, but let's just say it was NOT Agatha Christie's, "Hercule Poirot".OK, I got over that and tried and tried to watch it for what it was but never figured it out and kept falling asleep and having to back the film up to where I dozed off.That is not a good movie folks and believe me I've seen some wonderful movies in my 60 something years of watching.Don't waste your time, unless you want to be transported back to the 60' droll, boring, plodding scripts and filming..
Truly Vanessa Redgrave is always a good bet which is why I chose it, together with the fact that her daughter (Joely Richardson)is in it spurred me on.
The mysterious death of an enigmatic young man newly arrived in the suburb of Wetherby releases the long-repressed, dark passions of some of its residents.Roger Ebert called it "a haunting film, because it dares to suggest that the death of the stranger is important to everyone it touches – because it forces them to decide how alive they really are." That is one way of looking at it.
Others have called the film a "puzzle" with pieces out of order and perhaps even missing.I liked the idea of a man who kills himself for no reason, and everyone around left to wonder.
I agree with the other reviewers that Vanessa Redgrave's performance is the highlight of the film.
She plays Jean so perfectly that you can imagine that they plucked the character out of real life and simply filmed her in her natural environs.
The other real delight is watching Joely Richardson play the young Jean.
The next great performance is in the character of John Morgan, perfectly portrayed as a young man who is mentally ill, but not to the extent this is noticed, or dealt with at school.
As a character, he is creepy in just the right degree---subtly, so that the pieces only fit together later.I'm not sure how to interpret the events which unfold or are revealed in the last 20 minutes of the film, but however you look at it, this is a depressing, very British outlook on middle age.
The film is a story of character development and revelation.
British renowned playwright David Hare's feature film debut, WETHERBY was bestowed with Golden Berlin Bear, an honor shared with Rainer Simon's THE WOMAN AND THE STRANGER in 1985.In the centre of the story is a mysterious suicidal case, a disaffected young man John Morgan (McInnerney) has shot himself in front of Jean Travers (Redgrave), a middle-aged high school teacher he contacts only one day earlier as an unbidden guest to her dinner party with her married friends.
This premise sounds quite unrealistic in real life, but in Hare's text, everything has been subsumed into a symbolical existence, which leaves the narrative often fragmented, jump between present and past, before-or-after Morgan's blunt action, achieved by a rapid editing modus operandi.
Ellipsis and lacunae, abrupt plot devices, implicit dialogues, those are the weapons in Hare's possession to challenge viewers' understanding and assimilation of the whole myth, which also renders his social criticism of its era unobtrusively rapier-like.The suicide's repercussions evoke Jean's buried memory of her youth (play by Redgrave's daughter Richardson, who is brilliantly elegant in her very early screen presence) in 1950s, when she lost her lover Jim (Hines) who volunteers to fight in British Malaya instigated by some airy-fairy nationalism.
She never marries, her life has been perpetuated in the rut ever since, but Jean is not a disillusioned soul, she loves teaching and is beloved by her pupils, she enjoys the company of her friends, particularly, Marcia (Dench, who earns a baffling BAFTA nomination since she is barely required to do anything special here), her best friend since teenage years, and Stanley (Holm), Marcia's solicitor husband, he and Jean would meet in bars for some drink, have a tête-à-tête or simply enjoy the comforting silence.Yet, in the eyes of this reticent John Morgan, she shares the same loneliness that has afflicted on him for a long time, to a point he is mulling over the option of suicide, but again Hare's elusive approach only leaves hints, no exposition, we sees Morgan, a college student, follows Marcia with unrevealed motive and it is through her, his interest alights on Jean eventually, and Hare rebelliously disrupts the narrative thread with sporadic flashbacks until finally discloses what has happened between Jean and John that night, alone, and defiantly, that offers no direct satisfaction to audience either, but trickles of clues might or might not account for John's decision.The great Vanessa Redgrave, engages in a palpably compassionate rendition of Jean's weather- seasoned inscrutability spiked with a tinge of singular vim and vigor, there is a certain modernity in her character which makes her an almost indestructible entity, not even decades of loneliness, that's where she differs from John, she is a real trooper who admirably holds sway of her own life.
Tim McInnerny (mostly remembered as Lord Percy in BLACK ADDER TV series), is consistently nuanced in his feature film debut, John's pain has never emerged from his blank veneer, but he intrigues our attention every time he materialises.Saddled with lugubrious dirges and symphonic longueur, WETHERBY is an oddly beguiling film, delving into the mystic vicissitude of human's mentality with its oblique syntax and an absolutely fascinating lead performer..
"Wetherby" is an intriguing wake up call to each one of us to pay more attention to life and the events surrounding it, before it gets too late and we're forced to face the facts, to see the importance people have in our lives in its quietest and small moments even though we think they're not important or they can't affect us.
With luck, you'll know how to react.In the suburb of Wetherby a casual dinner took place having as participants some upper class members, an enjoyable evening in the house of teacher Jean Travers (Vanessa Redgrave).
The following day one of the guests, the mysterious John Morgan (Tim McInnerny) returns there, exposes that he wasn't known of any of the attendees - to Jean's surprise who thinks this was impossible - and then he kills himself in front of her.
Such fact triggers down alternate ways: a police detective (Stuart Wilson) becomes obsessed with this strange case and decides to get some clues on why Morgan acted this way; Karen, a colleague of Morgan (Suzanne Hamilton) visits Jean informing her about the very few she knew about the young man, but she's just mysterious as he was, doesn't reveal much about herself; a minor impact on the lives of Mrs. Travers friends (Ian Holm, Judi Dench and Tom Wilkinson); and Jean remembrances of her past with her involvement with a soldier, a life changing experience.
But this in a psychological way and this movie is perfect when it comes to those terms.The good points: pay attention to the details and you'll love how most of it was carefully constructed but be warned, there's no easy answers and sometimes there's no answers at all, we're left to take our own conclusions about the character's actions.
Redgrave and Wilson were excellent, very insightful and very believable when it comes to present a genuine state of shock, his trying to find reasonable explanations and her after seeing the tragedy (although the movie downplayed and hid her reaction after the fact, awkwardly cutting to her past without further notice).
It's a puzzling and provocative study on the human perceptions and why they're more important to some (John Morgan) than to others (almost all the other characters).The bad points: this was close in being a great work but so close that is a little saddening to present the following upsetting remarks.
I can't complain about the story and the deep connections between different characters, times and space we have to form to understand the whole, however I felt Hare shouldn't be the one to direct this or at least he should tone down a little easier on the technical aspects.
The time leap between the two events was really odd to see, it looked like seeing another film strangely cut to later get back where it stopped, and even experienced viewers will find this problematic.
There is something extremely shallow about this film: I guess if you want to make something about despair and keep it really boring, really empty, voila, then people can read about what they want the full extent of their own despair and loneliness into it.
Hare, however is certainly his own man, very determined fellow to lead us nowhere with some kind of minor supine surprise at the end, to let us think we have solved the Rosebud mystery of this movie: like Kane, another jigsaw puzzle of a movie.Even Kubrick's The Killing, another scrambled movie, though hardly on this scale, would have been better told straight forwardly.
This baby shot past them on quiet rails in the dead of night, because it was just too tortured for its own good.As for a great performance by Redgrave, well, sure.
Love the flashbacks and the way the puzzle and mystery slowly forms.
All of the different themes and characters add up to a potent emotional cocktail and comment on life, growing up, growing old, dreams and expectations, the search for meaning in our lives.
I love it when Vanessa Redgraves character feels as if the young guy's spirit is pulling her down and the detective tells her she needs to fight.
This is the most confusing, self-indulgent and pretentious movie ever made.It looks like it was written and shot by the evil spawn of Fellini, Woody Allen, and Wes Craven.I defy ANYONE to explain what this movie meant and what all the sub-plots were.Vanessa Redgrave is fun to watch no matter what, but I bet she is ashamed to have made this movie.Dark, depressing, violent and indecipherable, this movie will leave you wishing you had believed this review.It could be a good object lesson in what not to do.Basing a film like this in Yorkshire is blasphemy..
Redgrave gives one of her best performances in playwright David Hare's first film..
Vanessa Redgrave gives a breathtaking performance in this extremely well written and executed 'puzzle' movie.
Many of the initial reviews of this film in 1985 pointed out Redgrave's great performance but failed to appreciate the overall quality of Hare's direction and screenplay.
Redgrave plays a single teacher who is shocked when a young stranger enters her house and for no rational reason commits suicide in front of her.
As she, her best friends (well played by Judi Dench and Ian Holm), a sympathetic yet slightly obsessive detective and a young woman from the dead man's past (a remarkable performance by Suzanna Hamilton) all struggle to discover why the young man chose this woman to witness his death, we are drawn into a beautifully nuanced philosophical examination of the meaning of life in a time of negative social change (Thatcher, Reagan and the spectre of Richard Nixon haunt the film's characters).
The examination of the young man nihilistic choice to kill himself is reflected in the seemingly growing alienation of the students in Redgrave's class and her struggle to remain proactive as a teacher and a human being despite personal tragedies and the political/social chaos of the Thatcher years.
(possible spoilers)I agree with the above comments almost entirely with the small exception of the importance that the 80's political scene played as any kind of thematic backdrop for the story.On the contrary, the WWII era, if anything, was to be the backdrop for the contemporary happenings within the plot.I think the above commenter is reading too much into the mention of Nixon in the film and possibly projecting his/her own political leanings - obviously anti-Thatcher/Reagan - onto those of David Hare, the writer and director.
In terms of Richard Nixon, who is mentioned in an anecdotal way at the outset of the story, Ian Holmes' character appears to sympathize with the former president when discussing a rumour about Richard and Pat's early courtship.
These are not the words of people suffering from "negative progression" as stated in the above comment.The characters played by Redgrave, Holmes, Dench, not to mention the key character of John Morgan, are all in one way or another involved in academia.
(though Holmes plays a barrister.) They live quite comfortably and somewhat happily - within the confines of the plot and theme of loneliness, and aloneness of course.
The story is about normal people, somewhat lonely, in the upper middle class regions of society living their lives, waxing philosophy and working at their jobs, when a young stranger (youth is an important aspect of the theme) appears and upsets their lives with his dramatic actions.
Changes the daily talk, the daily complaints to something a bit more meaningful.It is a common misconception to interpret films as a 100% reflection of the political climate of the time.
A scary monster movie with no monsters.Overall, Wetherby is an excellent film with noteworthy performances by the cast.
So, as I've stated, I think the above commenter made an almost perfect review of the film aside from the perceived importance of the political background at the time of shooting.
The plot was far too drawn out and it bludgeoned us with the following themes: books and education, loneliness in love, Nixon/Thatcher, and lack of human understanding.
But the problem is that everyone is so stupid and hapless that certain themes (like lack of human understanding) seem to stem from their own stupidity.And how many policemen spend so much time on a case that isn't a crime, brooding away with their mustaches?.
There seems to be a good bit of confusion from some viewers of this film, confusion probably because the screenwriter, in order to demonstrate that our actions, both simple and complex, not only affect our own futures, but the futures of our friends and relations, sometimes for decades, has not headlined his message.
This film is worth watching simply because of an outstanding cast, legends before they were legends--Vanessa Redgrave, Ian Holm, Judi Dench and Tom Wilkinson for starters.
And there is a scene early on in the film both graphic and shocking; many reviewers of this film seem to think it has nothing to do with rest of the story except as a plot device which fails to work.
So this reviewer is not going to lay out a spoiler except to say that this complex, well-thought out film makes complete sense once the actions of the characters are made clear; notice particularly the strange young woman who comes to stay with Redgrave after her first unasked-for guest shocks us. |
tt0495034 | Golmaal: Fun Unlimited | The storyline was inspired from the 2001 Malayalam film Kakkakuyil. The story revolves around the lives of Gopal (Ajay Devgn), Lucky (Tusshar Kapoor), Madhav (Arshad Warsi) and Laxman (Sharman Joshi) (hence the name GoLMaL).
Laxman is an intelligent student who is diverted from doing well in college by his mischievous band of friends Gopal, Madhav, and Lucky. Lucky is a mute in the movie. The three friends use Laxman's hostel room for their mischievous activities. Laxman is peer pressured into running a series of scams to earn himself and his friends some money and is punished by being thrown out of college. The naughty foursome then finds refuge in the bungalow of a blind couple, Somnath (Paresh Rawal) and Mangala (Sushmita Mukherjee), who are waiting for their grandson, Sameer, to inherit his paternal grandparents' treasure chest hidden in the old couple's house. Gopal pretends to be Sameer returning from America, and enters the house, while the other three friends sneak in hidden, even though the real Sameer, along with his parents, were killed in a car crash after his father and mother angrily left with him for India to meet his grandparents; Sameer's father's parents, after learning that Somnath and Mangala were permanently blinded in a lethal accident. Somnath goes to America and lights the pyres of his son, daughter-in-law and grandson, the ashes of whom he later kept in an urn, as per the Hindu tradition.
A cat-and-mouse game unfolds as Laxman's body and Gopal's voice make up Sameer. Each time the blind Dadaji comes amidst them, hilarious situations arise. Enter Nirali (Rimi Sen), the saucy girl-next-door, and the group now have time, place and 'resources' to fall in love. Their individual efforts at winning the lady's heart fail. Apart from their amorous interests, there is a quest for the chest. There is also a gangster named Babli who wants to steal the chest from the couple's bungalow. All his attempts are unintentionally and unknowingly thwarted by the foursome.
By the end of the film, Somnath reveals about Sameer's death to Laxman, Gopal, Madhav and Lucky after the foursome find the chest hidden behind an old painting in the house, despite Laxman pleading not to open the chest. Mangala is shocked to hear the stories, breaks into tears and condemns her husband for lying to her all those years and not allowing her to cradle her grandson or light the pyres, and she also condemns the foursome for tricking her and hurting her feelings. Babli then arrives with his gang and later reveals that he hid the diamonds in the urn Somnath was carrying his grand returned to India and arrived at an airport. Panducharang, an assassin previously sent by Babli as an undercover servant later joins Gopal's team and fights the gangsters off, with the fight finally ending with Gopal being accidentally stabbed by Babli in his behind with a knife, falling unconscious soon after, but not before warning Madhav, Lucky and Laxman to not touch the knife, leaving the three friends in laughter. Babli also falls unconscious after seeing blood flowing from Gopal's behind.
After being admitted to a hospital, Gopal finally has the knife removed, and Babli is arrested for his crimes. Laxman, Gopal, Madhav and Lucky are then rewarded with ten percent of the original value of the diamonds for arresting Babli. Nirali then chooses Lucky as her husband-to-be, saying that she found true love and loyalty in him and him alone, leaving the remaining three disappointed. | romantic, flashback | train | wikipedia | After a string of pathetic comedy films in 2006 (Tom,Dick and Harry , Malamaal Weekly, ChupChupke, Pyare-Mohan, etc.), Golmaal comes as a pleasant surprise.
Howver, it is not the storyline that clinches it for the film - it is the amazing chemistry that the four male lead actors (Devgan, Kapoor, Warsi and Sharman Joshi) share that gives the film the requisite 'kick'.
The film naturally has its share of flaws - negligible part of heroine, wastage of a stalwart like Paresh Rawal, a damp ending, but all in all, the film is a humorous treat.Ajay Devgan discovers new acting horizons with this role, while Arshad Warsi and Sharman Joshi cement their identities as comedy-specialists.
Watch out for the the black-n-white track featuring Paresh Rawal and his on-screen wife that has a 1940's feel to it..
I seems to me that bollywood have found the pulse of audience, they want to laugh and this movie certainly delivered.......Story is very typical four usual young/handsome, doing some con and end up in funny situations all the way.......Since matrix it most of action now done with multiple cameras and strings (actually in hong Kong movies doing for years.....) a lot of use of green screen, editing was excellent, couple of times felt wires/strings shows when they lift Ajey........Paresh is as usual good/funny, highly recommended for family, couple of "beeps" dialog's were original, references from movie black gave a good touch.......
Arshad Warsi has once again delivered a 100% laughable act that simply keeps you watching.
Sharman Joshi adds to the brilliance of the film and makes himself a now perfect man for comedy.The storyline has both greatly witty and serious scenes.
What Golmaal actually offers is a story of 4 good for nothing pranksters who end up conning their way into the mansion of a blind couple.
It is a film that has its comical moments do the talking more than anything else.There are some classic comedy scenes in the movie.
Arshad and Sharman trying to get at Ajay is hilarious.The funniest scenes have to be the valentines day scene when the boys all gift something to Rimi and the Black parody.
Four ex-college students get kicked from their college(yes they are still in there college for 10 years) and while on the run from a gangster hides in a house of a blind couple.The story is good but its not perfect and has its loopholes.
But it provides the laugh and the fun factor a comedy promises.Performance wise, i thought the performance of the underdog Tusshar Kapoor was the best among the four.
Sharwan Johsi, Arsad Warsi and Ajay Devgan suited their role and are fantastic in this film.
Rimi Sen didn't have much to do expect look pretty and dance on numbers.The music is very good.
Love to watch this movie again and again its fully comedy
#AjayDevgan discovers new acting horizons with this role, while Arshad Warsi and Sharman Joshi cement their identities as comedy-specialists.
In the end you just hope that the director has showed a better casting acumen by casting someone other than the hapless Tusshar Kapoor (needs to revisit the acting school) , as the mute #prankster.Vishal-Shekhar's music is trendy ..
Really this first part I really loved apart from the rest three parts.The comedy was awesome funny and enjoyable.The direction was awesome from Rohit Shetty.He really directed this very well.The screenplay was nice.The editing was good.The locations and cinematography were good.The dialouges were hilarious funny and comedy.So what else do we expect from a g9od comedy movie.And bow comes to the acting.
Ajay Devgan acted really well.He played his role very well.Arshad warsi,Sharman Joshi and the rest of the actors also acted very good.So guys if U are a true comedy movie lover you will definitely like this one.Go for this..
You must be liking movies like houseful and tees mar khan if you didn't like Golmaal Golmaal is a complete fun, and if you observe each scene it's going to make you laugh more :D The Movie is worth watching a number of times Arshad Warsi, Sharman Joshi and Tushar Kapoor have played the characters perfectly I lol'd a lot watching the movie.
I enjoyed watching the movie and even laughed out loud in parts.
But you would have to pay me something in 6 figures and in £'s to make me see it again.Its just a lot of gags strung together, without a storyline to really bind them together...also, to my distaste, the film-makers (continuing a long-standing bollywood trend) opt to take the easy route to laughs by making fun of people with physical disabilities...(one of the 4 friends is dumb and the couple whose house they run to is blind).Most of the actors are wasted in the movie...barring Arshad Warsi (usual spontaneous self) and Sharman Joshi (i saw him for the first time and was really impressed)..
I rented Golmaal's DVD just because Ajay Devgan is my favorite actor.But after watching this movie,I was shocked by his choice of signing his movies.He has portrayed quite a number of substantial roles in the past and continues to do so,but I haven't really figured out his judgment in selecting his commitments till now.
Anyway,Golmaal is a good slapstick comedy,meant for time-pass only.Arshad Warsi,as usual,stands out in this movie too.The surprise package is Tushar Kapoor who delivers a praise-worthy performance too as a vocally-challenged person.Sharman Joshi leaves a lot to be asked for.His best performance still remains his portrayal of Sukhi in "Rang De Basanti".Ajay Devgan is flawless,but these kinds of roles don't really suit him.
We know that mindless comedies still do work in the subcontinent.This movie is a perfect example..
A movie starring comic actors like Paresh Rawal, Arshad Warsi, Sharman Joshi and Tushhar Kapoor for that sake (Kya Kool Hai Hum), I expected Golmaal to be good if not great but the movie falls flat.
Ajay Devgan is sad and Rimi Sen needs to try out something different than doing movies in which she's the only beauty in the entire world and guys get engaged in a cat-and-mouse game to impress her (Deewane Huey Pagal???), its irritating now.The music of Golmaal is decent but it cannot rescue a movie this bad.
Rohit Shetty tried so hard to make a scene look funny but that's all that this movie is, a wannabe.
Even the worst of the comedy genres do have scenes which'll make you laugh but Golmaal is just sad.
not at all happening a very bad comedy film and some very silly jokes are used and the songs are rubbish as ever so don't watch it bcoz u will not like it i just wasted my time watching it in the hall.
after the role of circuit in munnabhai i could not believe that arshad warsi could have been in this film.
i feel sorry for arshad warsi to be in this film.
so my advice to everybody not to watch this film and watch good comedies like malamaal weekly and hera pheri but just don't disappoint yourself by watching this film..
Making a sequel of golmaal-fun unlimited is like asking for a 'life long migrane' after having just recovered from a bout of severe headache!!!
This movie is a disgrace in that the film maker even dared to (ab)use the same title as its cult-classic namesake (old 'golmaal')because he clearly knew that by doing so, he would at least manage to get the audience to the theatres because of the respect and credibility associated with it for over 3 decades now!
Rohti Shetty after action films made a copy GOLMAALThe film is typical type of comedy we have seen before The start is quite funny and then when they reach Paresh's house it gets funnier and the film keeps you entertained at least for onceThe film is loose though and gets boring and the scenes get repetitive towards the 2nd half and the pr-climax flashback though riveting is too long and the climax is badThe film also has spoofs on NEAL N NIKKI which is goodThe comedy isn't too laugh riot type throughout and makes you laugh only in parts The comedy is trite too often too and the Manoj Joshi parts are too loud If you are a Goan you will see how they have manipulated the locations Like the college shown is actually Old GMC building and then they go for a ride on a bike and show us they reach a different location in the first initial scenes and reach the same place Rohit Shetty does an okay job Music is good Camera-work is fab, Goa looks fabulousAjay Devgan suits for such goon type roles and it comes easy to him but when he attempts to be funny in a slapstick manner he looks uncomfortable Even age is showing Arshad Warsi is good too Sharman is the life of the film, He is superb Watch him in the scene wherein Paresh catches him and Ajay cooks an alibi and Sharman's expressions makes you catch all attention on him without saying one dialog Sharman is natural to the core Tusshar is funny but his slapstick gets irritating at times Rimii Sen is as usual Paresh Rawal is good in his part Sushmita irritates Manoj Joshi gets to the nerves with his shouting The rest are okay.
It was about time the Hindi film industry produced a good comedy.
The rapport between the three jests of the movie is good with Ajay Devgan trying a comic role, Sharman Joshi(RDB guy...Sukhi) playing the innocent scapegoat to perfection and of course Arshad Warsi playing a role in his "home ground" .
Paresh Raawal was wasted in a serious role and not taking anything away from him since he played the role of the blind old man to perfection along with Susmita Mukherjee (u must have seen her in many TV comedies) playing his wife very well.
All in all if u you are not in total aversion to slapstick comedy you will have a great time and will laugh your stomach off through out the movie.
I'd say go watch the movie if you are bored and want something to cheer you up because you will be in splits for most of the movie but if you are looking for a comedy of the caliber of Namakhalaal and Hera Pheri, well you can pass.Rating: Acting: 6/10 Comedy: 8/10 Plot : 5/10 Climax: 0/10 Overall : 7/10.
in the movie he is one character who holds it and keep it alive others specially Tusshar Kapoor and Sharman Joshi are speechless in acting , but circuit arshad varsi is graceful in the movie and has capacity to keep audience happy specially with his tapori kind of role Ajay Devgan -action hero fits into comio role to some extent and keep the movie running the verdict of audience is that this movie is worth watching as good entertainer , please don't look for story bye.
What you can expect from this movie is perfectly visible in the the 1st 5 mins of the movie.Another movie that starts with a song, all the titles are in English (spends 2 mins abusing them for that).........sheesh i don't know how Good this movie is going to be............wait what is that is that 10-15 hot scantily clad women i see..........hmmmm i like....but wait Isn't this song totally copied from a bunch of hip-hop songs including The steps..........more hot girls in exotic locales Hmmmm................but wait why is Ajay Devgan dancing like a total Jackass and have coloured hair and look like he has a drinking Problem.....
Hey the songs over and Arshad Warsi is dressed hilariously As a college boy haha......Hmmmm................but wait why is Ajay Devgan dancing like a total fool and have coloured hair and look like he has a drinking Problem.....
Hey the songs over and Arshad Warsi is dressed hilariously As a college boy haha......Needless to say this movie is inspired, copied, plagiarized from at Least a dozen films by the bane of Indian comedy Mr. Neeraj Vora who is Absolutely unoriginal and ....................a complete genius.His stories are ripped of everything from Hindi movies (Govinda Especially the theme is directly copied from another Hindi movie can Some one mail me if they know), Hollywood, British industry etc etc, no One is safe as long as he is out there, but his genius lies in the fact That most of the times it guarantees entertainment for all and Especially for the less exposed moviegoer (which is most of India).The acting is very very good given the limited premise of the movie, Paresh Rawals talent is wasted in the movie but at least we get to see Him in a different role.
Like i have said every time is think Tusshar Kapoor and Sharman Joshi (of rang De Basanti fame) may not be ready for single hero films but Have great futures in multi-starers.The soundtrack is very boring, save for the spoof song which is Brilliant but was wasted in the second half because it was met with Mixed reviews when it started.(although halfway through the song Everyone loved it....i see a promising trend where the Indian audience Are rejecting that songs that don't move the plot in the second half).Direction and cinematography was half baked with way to much focus on Technology and using computer enhanced visuals most of them especially Those used in the song clearly gave away the amateur attempt but the Crew.Ajay devgan looked hideous and danced even worse his dance made the Boring songs even more unbearable, Rimmi Sen was sour eye-candy she Looked ordinary even bad post Dhoom she is yet to look good in any Movie i think its time she shed her clothes again or worked on her Looks hehe.The movie is rated UA but has clear references to r@#e and Madar....
However it has Been tempered with some really sad jokes that bring the tempo back to Normal.The movie moves in such a way that every time you are down and about to Be disgusted, they will give you another inspired but totally hilarious Scene to get you interested................and just when you begin to Love the movie another stupid scene or product commercial will start.
This movie is a perfect roller coaster which will leave you satisfied At the end.But there is a catch.You have to forget that you even had brains if you do that you will not Be guaranteed a masterpiece but great fun nevertheless.
Superman, corporate definitely this is you Best bet lets see how this movie copes with pirates of the Caribbean Though which is being released in a big way in Hindi.So given the current choice i would recommend you leave your brains at Home don't expect to much as go have a guaranteed good time.+s great jokes, acting, and Tusshar and Sharman, one great song +/-s song in the second half, Rimmi Sen -s Ajay Devgan (he looks 45+ and is supposed to be 34 max), inspired And unoriginal, absolute detachment required.Total 6/10 (on absolute terms this movie is a 4 but i laughed a lot and It would be unfair to give it a lower rating..
I thought this movie was pretty good but hilarious.
My brother was laughing like anything and too bad my dad missed this movie.
There is not a great deal of sophistication in the plot which features four guys who manage to get into the home of a blind couple by pretending to be their grandson.
It sounds incredibly unrealistic and it features a number of silly scenes.The actors don't have a lot to do but I guess they manage to play their roles well with Paresh Rawal being especially good as a blind guy.
However, the cheap laughs, gravity defying direction and a laughable plot makes this movie quite unbearable for someone looking for a sensible story.
Golmaal directed by Rohit Shetty is a boring fare.God Alone Knows how this became a super hit?I mean the movie is so painful,that I was cursing myself why I wasted my money on this crap.Promos were amazing and the movie turned out to be amazingly horrible.The story is childish.The screenplay is a yawn.The music is average.Talking about the comedy,the film has loads of comedy but unfortunately most of jokes are kitsch.Performances-Ajay Devgn is average.Tusshar Kapoor irritates.Paresh Rawal is a disappointment.Rimi Sen is bad.Sanjay Mishra,Manoj Joshi and Vrajesh Hirjee ham.Mukesh Tiwari!What can I say about your acting.The only thing that came in my mind when you appear was why is this fool hamming.
The movie was fabulous and a great entertainer which is full of excitement and comedy.
I liked the performance of Tusshar Kapoor, Ajay Devgan and above Paresh Rawal.
Arshad Warsi's performance was too good.And Rimi Sen looked sexy and hot.
And my favorite song is Golmaal.Sharman Joshi was quite good and hope to see him in more powerful roles than this..
Before writing anything else, let me tell you, this movie is a comedy all the way from start to end.
No need of that, because if you go with your brain you may start ask questions and that is not good.Plot 4 college friends (Ajay Devgan, Thushar Kapoor, Arshad Warsi & Sharman Joshi) take every chance to loot many to spend their lavish life in the hostel and to repay a big loan they have taken.
Circumstances land them to the house of a blind couple, played by Paresh Rawal & Sushmita Mukherji.
The story ends where all things are sorted out and Rimi express her love interest and the blind couple punishes the 4.
It is up to you to watch out for more.Plus Points Very good dialogues, competent acting, some excellent situations where comedy executed in it's beauty and laugh a minute comic scenes in rest of the body.Performance The Comedy King of Today, Paresh Rawal is restricted to an average role, without any chance for him to do the comedy, where rest of the comrades took the challenge. |
tt0424890 | The Choke | Victor Mancini is a sex addict who works as a reenactor of life in Colonial America. He works with his best friend, Denny, who is also a reformed sex addict. To support his hospitalized mother, Ida, Victor cons others by intentionally choking at restaurants to get money from his rescuers.
When he visits his mother one day, he meets Dr. Paige Marshall, who takes care of her. She tells Victor that his mother's condition is worsening and that they could try an experimental stem cell technique that would require harvesting cells from the umbilical cord of a newborn baby with Victor's genes. She convinces Victor to have sex with her so she can have his child and save his mother.
Victor never knew his father and is anxious to obtain the information from his mother, but she never recognizes him when he visits. He asks Denny to pose as him and ask her questions. Denny agrees and reveals that Victor's mother kept a diary. Victor finds it, but it is in Italian. Paige tells Victor she can read Italian and agrees to translate the diary.
Victor and Paige try several times to have sex, but Victor cannot maintain an erection. After discussing it with Denny, he realizes he loves Paige. She then reveals to him that his mother may have fled Italy because she stole Jesus' foreskin, and used its cells to conceive Victor, making him the Second Coming. He is reluctant to believe but, in the end, accepts Paige's assertion. However, his mother finally recognizes him and tells him that she stole him as a baby and she has no idea who his real parents are. As she tells him this, he feeds her chocolate pudding and accidentally chokes her to death.
While Paige tries to resuscitate Victor's mother, a hidden band around her wrist falls into Victor's view, revealing that she is actually a patient in the hospital—not a doctor. Paige then reveals that she was admitted to the hospital years ago, in a catatonic state, and fell in love with Victor through the stories his mother told her about him. As she was a former medical student, the nurses allowed her to wear a white coat, as it calmed her down. Paige, a voluntary patient, checks herself out without saying goodbye to Victor.
After his mother's funeral, Victor boards a plane. He goes to the bathroom and the door opens to reveal Paige joining him. | violence, murder | train | wikipedia | I'd rather choke to death than watch this again....
At the time of writing this review it would seem that over 50% of IMDb voters had given this film a rating of either a 10 or a 1.
They say that given enough monkeys and enough time and enough typewriters, those monkeys, just by random proddings at the keyboard, would eventually type out the complete works of Shakespeare.
However, I seriously doubt that given the same number of monkeys and time, you could find a single one to give this movie a rating of 10.I patiently watched the first half, foolishly assuming that the film would, on some level, develop either the plot or the characters, or maybe make some kind of social comment or provoke barely intellectual thought.
Failing that, I was quite prepared to accept action, suspense, comedy, horror or even gratuitous sex as a way of holding my attention.
And speaking of cartoon characters, the acting abilities of the various cast members varied between acceptable (at best) and embarrassingly poor with Brooke Bailey's portrayal of the freaky, death obsessed pseudo goth, London, being so bad I almost felt sorry for her.I would have liked to have finished on a positive note but even the soundtrack, a second rate feast of contemporary punk rock, failed even to entertain, let alone serve to enhance a very poor flick..
Released on DVD in the UK as Axe, The Choke is a teen slasher that fails in pretty much every department: the story is almost non-existent, resulting in a film which comprises mostly of people wandering around a dark building; with the exception of two characters (who are quite obviously destined to be the film's survivors), everyone is thoroughly objectionable, meaning that the viewer couldn't care less when they get slaughtered; the deaths aren't gory enough (unless a brief shot of a pound of minced beef covered in fake blood turns your stomach); and the gratuitous sex scene features next to no nudity (an unforgivable mistake to make in a slasher flick!).The wafer-thin plot sees members of a punk band locked inside what appears to be the world's largest nightclub (there are endless abandoned corridors and rooms, unlike any club I've ever seen) where they are picked off by an unseen assailant.
For a low budget effort, the production values are okay, and the cast are all seem to be fairly capable actors, but with not nearly enough genuine scares, a reluctance to get really messy (this is a slasher, so where's the graphic splatter?), way too much dreadful dialogue (particularly from the not-dead-soon-enough drummer) and some ill advised use of tacky video techniques in an attempt to add some style, the movie quickly becomes extremely boring..
a great direct to DVD movie.
i can understand why people hated this film but it really isn't that bad.
sure the acting is a little over the top but the suspense and that twist is pretty good in the movie.
i liked how they used the wonder bread factory for some of it cause it gave it more mystery.
the gore isn't that over the top either, it's mainly left to the imagination and some after sides of the deaths but nothing all that bad.
if your looking for a movie to watch on a Saturday when your bored out of your mind, give this movie a try, you'll either love it or hate it..
i personally thought it was a decent direct to DVD hit.
Even though I am writing this review 12 years later for new readers and people looking to gain a new horror film, I hope they stumble upon my review so they can take into consideration that this is actually a really good horror film.
First things first, yes I know...the acting may not be as best and it may take a while to get into but it keeps you guessing until the very end.
Thirdly, the fact that the killer is not shown at all until the very end makes it all that much more enjoyable.
And forthly, as my finishing conclusion to this review is that I definitely recommend The Choke.
It's a very different horror film with rock n roll as well as a very unique plot twist at the end!
Mas (among others) directed "The Coroner" from 1999 they will understand that I almost decided not to watch "The Choke" after knowing Juan A.
The Choke is a good suspense packed film with a nice twist to it.
I give this film 5/10 - and I wish Mr. Mas and all involved in this the best.
This was an entirely entertaining movie with an enjoyable soundtrack, fine acting and good camera work.
The building it is filmed in was almost a character itself.
Some of the gore was unrealistic as well as some of the manners of death, but this movie also never took itself too seriously.
I am surprised at how bad some of these reviews were and I wonder if they are truly impartial.
On top of all of that, I was truly surprised by the ending "twist." This was well worth the rental..
I love this movie!.
Yeah, basically I liked the movie a lot, and thought it was rather entertaining.
It is a you either love it or you hate it type of film.
This movie keeps you guessing throughout the entire thing.
The acting is not the best in my opinion, but I think that adds something to the movie.
The Choke is a "slice 'em dice 'em" movie, but you are not going to be grossed out by a lot of gore.
I would definitely recommend people watch this movie.
I watched this film not really expecting much, I got it in a pack of 5 films, all of which were pretty terrible in their own way for under a fiver so what could I expect?
and you know what I was right, they were all terrible, this movie has a few (and a few is stretching it) interesting points, the occasional camcorder view is a nice touch, the drummer is very like a drummer, i.e damned annoying and, well thats about it actually, the problem is that its just so boring, in what I can only assume was an attempt to build tension, a whole lot of nothing happens and when it does its utterly tedious (I had my thumb on the fast forward button, ready to press for most of the movie, but gave it a go) and seriously is the lead singer of the band that great looking, coz they don't half mention how beautiful he is a hell of a lot, I thought he looked a bit like a meercat, all this and I haven't even mentioned the killer, I'm not even gonna go into it, its just not worth explaining.
Anyway as far as I'm concerned Star and London are just about the only reason to watch this and with the exception of London (who was actually quite funny) it wasn't because of their acting talent, I've certainly seen a lot worse, but I've also seen a lot better.
Best avoid unless your bored of watching paint dry..
The Choke starts as a rock band known as The Choke prepare for a gig at a nightclub called 'Club 905' owned & run by Guy Johnson (Andrew Parker).
Lead singer Dylan (Sean Cook) & guitar player Mike (Jason McKee) plan to tell the other band members, bass player London (Brooke Bailey) & drummer Nancy (Tom Olson), that they are both going solo & their services won't be needed any longer.
Then just as the band think things couldn't get any worse they find a dead body in the cellar, that all the doors have been locked so they can't get out & that they can't trust anyone as a mysterious killer begins picking them off one-by-one...Produced & directed by Juan A.
Mas The Choke is a standard by-the-numbers teen slasher that really doesn't have anything going for it.
The script by Jessica Dolan & Susannah Lowber (not too many horror films out there penned by ladies...) has some surprisingly good character's in it & some nifty dialogue but while it's much better than a lot of modern shot on a camcorder type horror in that respect it's so slow & boring that even a few interesting character's can't come anywhere close to saving it.
As one would expect all the usual teen slasher clichés are used, from the isolated location the victims can't escape from, the cast of good looking teenagers who keep splitting up, a few murders & a really poor twist ending that tries to mimic something like Scream (1996) & be surprising but doesn't make a whole lot of sense when you think about it logically (they couldn't have done some of the things they were supposed to) & to make matters even worse I guessed who the killer was fairly early on & even though I don't want to boast I was spot on.
Then there's the fact that the makers of The Choke felt that it's audience would be entertained by showing endless (well it feels endless while watching it) scenes of teenagers walking around dark corridors doing nothing in particular, I am sorry but there is only so many scenes like this that I can take before it starts to become tedious.
The kill count is low, at first they all decide to stick together (good idea) but then they all just randomly decide to split up & go their separate ways (bad idea when there's a killer on the loose), the pace is lethargic, the kill scenes are unimaginative & to top it all off the twist ending is poor.Director Mas does alright, the film looks OK for the most part although there are the odd occasions where he uses some annoying post production editing technique like slow motion or frame skipping.
The gore levels aren't really up to scratch, there's some blood splatter, a guy with a hole in his chest, a few dead bodies & someone impaled on some metal poles.
Most of the kills happen off screen with the axe kill at the end a good example of the film not actually showing anything.
Since the film is about a rock band there's quite a rock orientated soundtrack with some truly horrible, horrible rock songs used on it.
It's not scary, there's no real atmosphere & the lack of blood & gore is just inexcusable when the rest of the film is so bad.With a supposed budget of about $1,000,000 The Choke is well made with reasonable production values, it looks cheap to be sure but not as cheap as many low budget horror films look.
The acting is one of the films strongest points as it's generally pretty good all round, I mean no-one is going to win an Oscar but it ain't half bad.The Choke is a throughly routine Scream style teen slasher that has one of the weakest twist endings ever & a criminal lack of blood, gore, violence, nudity & dead bodies.
I mean if a slasher hasn't got any sex or gore then what's the point?
Those are the only things that the average slasher is worth watching for, right?.
THE CHOKE (aka AXE in the UK) is a slasher produced supposedly as a straight-to-DVD movie.
I say "supposedly" because the title of the movie does not have the "V" in brackets to indicate that it was a made for DVD movie (even though it does have the appearance of one).The plot is simple a band is holding a gig in a former meatpacking factory and they are killed one by one.I think most would agree that the movie was never going to be a masterpiece, but this does not excuse the faults here.
Even straight-to-DVD movies such as BACHELOR PARTY MASSACRE (which has a very low IMDb rating) have a lot of redeeming qualities and sometimes come off as being one of the so-called "so bad, they're good" movies.
However, THE CHOKE falls far short of being either a serious slasher (such as HALLOWEEN) or being a "so bad it's good" movie (such as THE NAIL GUN MASSACRE).The movie does start off good with a character killed using a drill.
The blood effects were very cheesy but understandable given the very low budget.
But, from there onwards, it's downhill all the way.There are so many faults in THE CHOKE that I could spend all day talking about them.
But, a few obvious ones stand out and I'll go into them.The aforementioned gig that the band holds seems to start off with around 50 people present but after the music stops, there seems to be only around 8 people left (and yet they're all meant to be locked in!).The characters in this movie are not likable at all.
The highlight of the movie is the presence of a homeless man who seems to regard the meatpacking factory as some kind of church (seriously!).
But sadly, even his presence can't save the movie.There are too many scenes of people walking around and talking without any characterisation.
Around 65 minutes of the film is spent watching characters walk around talking.
Characters disappear for long periods of time without explanation.
As in other straight-to-DVD movies such as CROCODILE and GRIM WEEKEND, the characters spend a lot of time swearing at each other aggressively without any provocation at all.
And more to the point, we have all seen this done a thousand times before (usually to much greater effect).The movie is totally devoid of any suspense at all.
The dead bodies serve to provide the only indication that the characters are in danger.
A maniac is running around loose and yet the characters just behave like total morons.
There is no one seen stalking the characters at any time.
In DRIVE-IN MASSACRE, this served to make the film funny (unintentionally of course), but here it is not funny at all.And, as another reviewer has pointed out, the soundtrack includes music that is very bad, even for those who like punk rock.
The score (at the end, there is no music at the beginning!) consists of a band of Sugarbabe wannabes singing some very bad song that is completely unrelated to the movie.Don't misunderstand the points made in this review.
This reviewer likes bad movies (such as THE NAIL GUN MASSACRE and BACHELOR PARTY MASSACRE) as much as the classics (such as HALLOWEEN and Friday THE 13TH).
And even as straight-to-DVD movies go, this is a poor effort.On a positive note, the film does contain some fairly good gory murder scenes.
But, when the surviving characters do not take the situation seriously, these scenes lose their importance quickly as the intensity they provide disappears into oblivion.Fans of the traditional 1980s B-movie slashers should take steps to avoid this movie.
Having just watched this movie, I almost feel like having wasted 2 hours of my life, but I guess there is some good in everything:If I was to rate this as any other movie, it can only receive 1 or 2 tops, but if I grade it like a low budget ind.
movie, it may get 3 or 4.
That is a movie is supposed to be 'complete' and without too long passages of boredom or waste of time.
This movie isn't.
They also manage to build some characters, this however takes me to what they should leave out in their next project, because the character building takes too long, since it is mostly irrelevant for the movie plot.
Neither should the long spaces of time dedicated to walking around be continued in the next project - whats the point?
I guess this movie tries to be a little bit of everything (building characters, suspense and a plot), and ends up being nothing (not a lot)This movie tries too much and too hard, and I guess it should have been cut to a short film.
I could easily manage to find one hour of walking around or pointless dialogue to cut from the movie.There is too much irrelevant things going on in this movie.
I know there is supposed to be some mystery in this movie, but a slight surprise to who the killer is, doesn't make a mystery.
The story behind the "mystery" receives almost no attention during the film, which leaves the final "point" as a quick an unsatisfying wrap-up.
Therefore I would like to say this movie was a nice try, but I cant.
Therefore I would like to say this movie was a nice try, but I cant.
I hope the directors learn from their mistakes, and produce a better product next time.If you don't have an interest in bench learning from producing low budget movies, there is no need to watch this - not even too see why everyone thinks its bad.As others have stated I am pretty sure the many 10's given to this movie are from people somehow involved in the movie.
This movie could not receive a "10" judging from any remotely objective standpoint..
Pretty damn good actually..
After seeing this I can happily say thats there is a direct to video horror flick that 80's slasher fans can enjoy.
Everything that a person hoping to find a gem in the rough is present in this movie.
Over the top characters, Well done gore effects, Teens locked in some type of building, and a surprisingly not so obvious killer.
This movie is really cheesy but in a good way, I'm glad I gave it a try.
Far far better than most direct to video horror flicks.
However like Iv'e said about some other movies, this one should be watched solely by people who are fans of campy slasher films and not someone looking for a movie that will actually scare them.
And the special feature is pretty fun to watch too. |
tt0443649 | 10,000 BC | At about 10,000 BC, a tribe of hunter-gatherers called the Yagahl live in a remote mountain range in the Urals and survive by killing woolly mammoths. The camp is led by a hunter who has proven his bravery by killing a mammoth single-handedly, and taking the White Spear. The people also strongly venerate an elderly woman, called Old Mother, who has shamanistic powers. As time goes by, the mammoths that supply the people start to dwindle, and the chief of the tribe finds a young girl with blue eyes named Evolet who survived a massacre of her village, perpetrated by what Old Mother calls "four-legged demons" who will come when "the Yagahl go on their last hunt". The chief of the village, not believing in Old Mother's prophecy and desperate to feed his people, leaves and gives the White Spear to his friend Tic'Tic, who also watches over D'Leh, the chief's son. As Tic'Tic alone is entrusted to know of the quest, all the others in the tribe including D'Leh's rival, Ka'Ren, believe that D'Leh's father was a coward and fled. Over time, D'Leh and Evolet fall in love and become close.
When the mammoths finally come, D'Leh and the other men of the tribe hunt them under Tic'Tic's leadership, and D'Leh manages to kill one by luring the beast into impaling itself on his spear, inadvertently winning the White Spear. He also wins Evolet in marriage. However, consumed by the guilt that he did not earn the White Spear fairly, he gives the White Spear up and by effect, forfeits his marriage to Evolet. The next day, Horse-raiders attack the camp, enslaving Evolet and several others and killing many of the tribe. D'Leh, Tic'Tic, Ka'Ren and the young boy Baku set out to rescue Evolet and their fellow Yagahl, but she is recaptured with Ka'Ren and Baku during an attack on the slavers by Terror Birds. Tic'Tic is wounded by the predators during the battle. D'Leh and the injured Tic'Tic continue on. When D'Leh is out hunting, he falls into a pit-trap. When he wakes from the fall, he rescues a Smilodon trapped with him in the pit and then escapes himself. After Tic'Tic recovers, they make their way to a village nearby and learn of a prophecy from the Naku, a tribe they meet: whoever talks to a Smilodon that they call the "Spear-Tooth" will help free their people. D'Leh realizes the prophecy is about him when the sabertooth refuses to kill him when they next meet. They also learn that D'Leh's father, the chief of the Yagahl, was a guest of the Naku and learned from them until the slavers took him captive and Tic'Tic finally reveals to D'Leh why his father left.
Several tribes agree to form a coalition to pursue the raiders that stole their families with D'Leh as their leader. They soon find the ships holding Evolet and their companions. However, with no means to follow the ships, they journey through a vast desert, eventually discovering an advanced civilization similar to ancient Egypt, ruled by an enigmatic figure known as "The Almighty", where Evolet, Baku and the other kidnapped Yagahl are forced to work as slaves. There, the warlord who kidnapped Evolet tries to coerce her into loving him, only to be arrested by The Almighty when they find he has taken her without permission. During a night scouting raid, D'Leh learns of the Almighty and the fate of his father, who perished as a slave. However, the guards see them and attempt to warn the Almighty. Tic'Tic dies from injuries sustained in the fight that follows with the guards, though not before killing them before they can raise the alarm. The Almighty's priests also meanwhile come to believe that Evolet is destined to kill The Almighty, based on the whip scars on her hands matching the stars they call the "Mark of the Hunter" and an ancient prophecy foreseeing their civilization's downfall. The Almighty realizes that Evolet is not the focus of the procephy, but the hunter's (D'Leh's) herald. D'Leh then starts a rebellion among the slaves, killing many of the Almighty's forces, though Ka'Ren is killed.
The Almighty offers Evolet and the other hunters to D'Leh in exchange for abandoning his rebellion. D'Leh feigns acceptance of the deal but throws a spear at The Almighty and kills him. During the ensuing battle, Evolet dies at the hands of the warlord before he in turn is killed by D'Leh, but is restored to life by the Old Mother sacrificing her own life with her powers. With the Almighty and his people dead and his civilization destroyed, the Yagahl bid farewell to the other tribes and return home with seeds given to them by the Naku people to begin farming and start a new life. | romantic, murder | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0778661 | Daddy's Little Girls | Monty James is a mechanic with three daughters: 5- year old China, 7 - year old Lauryn and 12 - year old Sierra, who dreams of owning his own shop. His children have been cared for by their maternal grandmother Kat Jackson for years, but she dies of lung cancer. His ex-wife, Jennifer, disrupts the service, demands her daughters live with her and sues for full custody of them. Monty accepts help from Maya, an employment agency worker, who recommends he works as a driver for Julia Rossmore, an attorney in Atlanta.
Julia’s friends, Brenda and Cynthia, set Julia up on a blind date with Byron - a dimwitted, middle-aged rapper. She also ends up on a blind date with a guy who she thinks is perfect for her until his wife and kids expose him as an unfaithful married man. When Monty and Julia meet, she insists on having everything done on schedule. Meanwhile, Sierra accidentally starts a fire in his home and she and her siblings end up at the hospital where Social Services are notified and the children are sent to live with their mother and her boyfriend, Joe. Julia goes to the hospital to demand Monty to take her home, but sees Social Services sending his children to live with Jennifer. Monty returns to his day job as a mechanic and finds the owner Willie has been injured in a robbery. Willie offers to sell the shop to Monty for a $10,000 deposit. Monty later goes to Julia for help, which she does during the court case.
Julia finishes Monty’s case preparation and discovering it is her 32nd birthday, takes her to his favorite jazz club, where they dance. As they are traveling home, Julia kisses Monty and asks him to spend the night. Monty is willing but Julia is too drunk and vomits in the bathroom. Julia changes her mind and tells Monty to go home. Over the next few weeks, Julia begins to feel confused. She goes to Monty's apartment to meet his daughters during his visitation right. When they're at the aquarium, Julia sees one of her friends there and gets reminded that she has to be conscious of decisions which impact her career. Monty overhears Julia’s friend and is hurt.
At the child custody hearing, Julia argues that it would be in the children's best interest for Monty to be awarded custody. Jennifer’s lawyer says that Monty is irresponsible due to an earlier conviction of statutory rape. Julia feels betrayed because she didn’t hear this information from Monty earlier; she leaves, telling Monty that custody will be awarded to Jennifer. At 3:00 am, Monty's daughters arrive at his house and inform him that Joe has abused them, proving it by revealing that China's back is bruised. Monty drives away and crashes into Jennifer and Joe's car, after which he physically assaults Joe and a crowd gathers. Joe's thugs arrive and begin to attack Monty, but the crowd defends Monty against them. Julia sees a report on the incident, in which Monty is identified as having been "falsely convicted" of rape.
Jennifer and Joe are facing drug charges in court, because cocaine and marijuana was found in Joe's car and house, while Monty is to be charged with assault. Julia represents Monty, apologizing for not hearing his side of the story. The witnesses testify against Joe but refuse to testify against Monty, so Jennifer and Joe are jailed without bail while the case against Monty is dropped. Monty tells Julia that he loves her. His daughters greet him and Julia at the auto shop that now bears his name. Monty and Julia kiss, and the neighbors celebrate Monty's success. | flashback | train | wikipedia | And lets be real here - your typical 14 year old freshman in high school kid is not gonna spend $6.75 on a movie called "Daddy's Little Girls", am I right?
But Tyler Perry's movie's are known for real life day-to-day struggles and how to overcome hard times.
I liked the fact that Tyler Perry omitted the Madea character this time, nice change.
I cannot complain Mr. Perry did a pretty good job and I am looking forward seeing another movie or play.
Daddy's Little Girls is my favorite Tyler Perry film so far.
Tyler Perry works hard to make his films feel real and he never disappoints.
With her help he might be able get his daughters back and maybe find someone to love just as all hope seemed lost.This is probably one of Tyler Perry's most realistic films.
The audience I saw it with loved it.That got me thinking why can't you see Perry's work in the UK other than at the BFM Film Festival.
Why not release the films on DVD, any visit to Dalston/Brixton/Harlesden in London will tell you that's there's a great illicit trade in Perry's films.Anyway, if you like a undemanding and somewhat unoriginal romantic drama this is just the thing for you.Black Narcissus.
Tyler Perry's Medea-less tale of a father trying to raise his daughters but finding trouble from the girls mother who has taken up with a drug dealer.Good little movie with a nice sense of place.
(I'm left to wonder if Perry's rather busy dance card will hurt his film out put since with a TV show and now several films a year I have to wonder if he will be able to craft films that stand out, or will they be like this good, but forgettable?) Worth watching- though odds are you'll forget you've ever seen it..
one thing that makes Capra films (as well as Anthony Mann films) so good is the cast of secondary characters who act as foils to the protagonist, as well as offer comic relief.
My wife and I went to check out "Daddy's Little Girls" not knowing what to expect, seeing that this Tyler Perry production did not have his outrageous Madea character in it.
We came away pleasantly surprised with what we saw.The problem that some moviegoers have with this film is quite simple: they're trying to be movie critics.
With pretty much any Tyler Perry movie, a huge majority of those who watch them are there to either be inspired, to gain insight and maybe a lesson or two on life, or to see what Madea will say next.
And again, many non-movie critics understand this.Idris Elba does a great job stepping away from his more well-known Stringer Bell persona.
Gabrielle Union does a notable job as the female lead, and Lou Gossett, Jr.'s brief appearances give the movie more context and a slight bit more depth.If you are a fan of Tyler Perry's plays, you will recognize his approach and the technique to this movie, and though it does not have the cantankerous Madea giving us lessons on life, it still will probably leave a mark on the moviegoer if (s)he goes into the theater to be inspired..
Of course there are obstacles, like his trifling wife who thinks money and the street life make the best men; a thug who likes to ridicule anyone who isn't on the same grind that he is; child custody; an ill mother; and an outstandingly snobbish lawyer who he has been hired to drive around to make ends meet outside of his job as a mechanic.
The love and loyalty this movie displayed was Phenomenal and I wish Tyler Perry, much success in the future.
Yet, in this era when too many black characters are either rappers, street thugs, prostitutes or drug dealers, Perry speaks to audiences yearning to see a more positive vision of the African-American experience portrayed on screen.
This sets up a fierce custody battle between Monty and Jennifer with the three girls caught in the middle.As stated previously, it is commendable that Perry wishes to make Monty a model for young male viewers to emulate, but in order to establish Monty's bona fides as a caring father, the filmmaker for some reason has found it necessary to ratchet up the mother's vileness past the point of believability.
Indeed, she is so over-the-top in her villainy that one wonders how such a seemingly level-headed and sweet-tempered soul as Marty could ever have been fooled into marrying her.Perry doesn't do much better with the main female character, a snooty, high-priced African-American lawyer named Julia, who looks down her nose on poor working-class stiffs like Monty who takes a position as her much-abused chauffeur in order to make a little money on the side.
Thus, with the character of Julia, Perry manages to insult blacks, career women and specifically black career women in one fell swoop.The movie makes some interesting points about the role class consciousness plays in the black community, with wealthy blacks sometimes more dismissive of their less well-off counterparts than are wealthy whites.
Unfortunately, this theme is played out in the context of a fairly formulaic romance between Monty and Julia, with the "little girls" of the title reduced to not much more than walk-on roles in the story.
Idris Elba is appealing and solid as the sincere, hardworking Monty, while Gabrielle Union does what she can with the poorly written part of Julia.The narrative also suffers from what first-year screen writing students (or "Crash" deriders) like to refer to as "coincidence overload," with characters bumping into one another at all-too-convenient moments or just happening to learn crucial bits of information from news stories on TV."Daddy's Little Girls" starts off with the best of intentions, and there are certainly some poignant, touching moments to be found in the film, but the movie is so fixated on pandering to the emotions of its audience, especially in the melodramatic final reel, that most of the goodwill one brings to the project has pretty much evaporated by the time the closing credits come rolling by..
Why wouldn't children like to see a film where their father is taking care of them, looking out for their need, spending time with them and most of all listening to them.
I think that Idris Elba did a a good job of sounding like an American not the British born male that he is.
Monty (Idris Elba) is a mechanic trying to keep his ex-wife Jennifer (Tasha Smith) from gaining custody of their three little girls since she's been involved with a powerful local drug dealer.
When he convinces the smart and beautiful attorney Julia (Gabrielle Union) to assist him, sparks begin to fly.I wish I could say that Daddy's Little Girls was a good film but it barely ranks as an average one.
In one scene, Perry would be shown having a great time with Julia and then in the next scene, the three girls were suffering while living with their mother.
The underlying story that is in ALL of Tyler Perry's writings "trust God and he will never leave you" is all over this movie.
Yes, this probably my favorite Tyler Perry movie that I have ever seen, by far..
Idris Elba's Monty James is a hardworking, well-liked soul across town, known for his compassion to others and extreme dedication to his three daughters, who he is trying to provide with a better life since their mother (Tasha Smith) walked out.
All while simultaneously maintaining an honest relationship with the woman, and keeping a close eye on his girls, who are sent to live with their mother and her boyfriend after an incident at home.Tyler Perry's Daddy's Little Girls is by far the most accomplished flick I've seen by him, combining sentimentality and parental-commitment for a truly winning blend of a human story.
The basis of the story, of course, was Monty's frantic need to get custody of his 3 daughters back from his ex-wife, who's hooked up with a drug dealer and seems to be into some pretty bad stuff herself.
That leads to his budding relationship with Julia (Gabrielle Union) - a high powered lawyer who had employed Monty as her driver for a while, and finds herself strangely drawn to him both personally and professionally, as she ends up representing him.
There's a lot of extraneous material thrown in - the community's combination of outrage and impotence against local drug dealers, the wrong side of the tracks romance between Monty and Julia, the situation the kids find themselves in when they're taken away from Monty and handed over to their mother.
Sometimes it seemed as if there was a bit too much extraneous material to be honest.What I liked about the movie was the decision to make the girls' father the good guy, and the fact that the black community living in Monty's neighbourhood was shown to be diverse and mostly good, honest folk with a few losers thrown in.
I also liked the performances from Elba and Union - they worked well together - and from the 3 McClain girls (I assume sisters themselves) who played Monty's children.
Loved this movie and rate it as Tyler Perry's best.
This one and 'Why did I get married' stand out to me.Idris Elba does a passable American in this as Monty, a mechanic fighting for custody of his daughters from his ex wife, played by the brilliant Tasha Smith.Gabrielle Union is really good and for my money one of the best actresses around.
But it is the three little girls, played by real life sisters Sierra, Lauryn and China McClain that stand out in this movie, they are brilliant actresses for their ages and have personalities that shine through.Also good to see Louis Gossett Jr. in a role that really suited him.The story is a good one and you root for him to get his daughters back.Great little movie, well worth a watch..
While the movie overall lacked many things that, like many other TP movies, made it lack the true quality of a well-crafted film, the overall plot brings a sense of happiness.I think the cast was one of the strong points of the movie, especially Gabby who did a really good job of shining some light on the "smart, sexy, successful black woman who just can't find a decent man" phenomenon that I've come to find was becoming more and more common based on some research.
I really liked this movie, and it was the best Tyler Perry film yet.
And even if the movie was bad, I respect Tyler Perry a great deal for what he's done for the black community.
I missed Madea from Tyler Perry's original play, a neighborhood scene would with a neighborhood Madea would have added more comedy to the movie .
the character choice for supporting roles worked well.Tyler Perry once again put forth the idea that family,religion,honesty comes before all else.The movie was not a sleeper.There are several scenes where the good guy does win within the limits of the law..
As for Tasha Smith the mother of Idris characters kids she is like a lot of females i know of where i live.
Tyler Perry makes socially aware type movies that are intended to reach people with similar issues and sending a message saying you don't have to be that way you can over come your problem if you choose to..
This movie felt like a maturing of a black film maker.
This is the best Tyler Perry movie yet!
This is the best Tyler Perry movie yet!
When his mother-in-law dies, Monty is left looking after his daughters and takes on extra work as a driver for young, pretty and very successful lawyer Julia.
While she works with him she begins to fall for his charms despite the gulf in their social status.I want to be clear that, although I came to this film off the back of The Wire, I did not expect it to be of the same quality (or even the same genre) and I did not come to it with my mind made up or some sort of chip on my shoulder that Elba should only do projects that Wire fans somehow approve of in line with his brilliant turn as Stringer Bell.
I understand that there is an element of Capraesque community fairytale here and I have no problem with that but didn't think it excused it from being "good" in areas of writing, characters and development.The reason for me coming to the film is one of its few strengths.
Tyler Perry we need a sequel with Monty and Julia married, and the parents of a blended family.
Idris Elba was fantastic in portraying his role, i felt that some his back story was weakly written and flimsy but he made the best of it and he was believable and natural in the "here and now" of the film.If you are one who likes sentimental films about strong morals and family you would enjoy this film.
I felt that this is one of the 1st movies Tyler Perry ever did..
Beautiful father and daughter story but not up to par compared to Perry's other movies..
Daddy's Little Girls may not have been the most successful movie but I thought it was very sweet.
I felt that everyone that was in the movies acted very well I believe that Tyler Perry really brought it out of them.
I thought that the movie was really cute but should have been better especially being a Tyler Perry film..
Directed by Tyler Perry, Daddy's Little girls is one of my favorite films of all time.
Tyler Perry, known for the infamous character "Madea", creates a love story between two people who come from two totally different backgrounds.
Idris Elba has been in forty films and twenty-three for Ms. Tasha Smith.I love the stories that are set up within the movie.
After spending time with Monty, Julia falls in love with her not so typical type.By the sound of all of that, you'd think that this movie is a bit complicated, but it is not.
These are some real life issues that are very much overlooked.I think all African-American mothers and father should see this movie.
It's the first film I ever watched with Idris Elba, and he's excellent as a good man trying to make an honorable return to life.
Gabrielle Union -- whom I've long felt is the most beautiful woman in the film industry -- is excellent as the not-so-Black-acting uptight lawyer who finally finds love in all the unexpected places.
Little did he know he'd fall in love with her?I like Why Did I Get Married and other heavy melodramas from Perry, but sometimes he goes a bit too far with it.
As far as sympathy goes, Perry did the job by making his character easy to like, and I was on his side the whole way.
While I did compliment it for not going too OTT like a lot of Perry films, Tasha Smith's monstrous character as the Mom felt ludicrously contrived at points.
When I look at it today, I realize that it's good, but not as good as the previous Tyler Perry movies.
The characters are fascinating, the situations are great, it causes a lot of great conflict and drama, and yet knows when to add humor.I love the stories that are set up here: a mechanic living in a poor neighborhood, Monty, is trying to raise 3 daughters, which is no easy task because he doesn't have much.
There are a couple more plots, like a delve into Monty's past and a situation with the community coming together and standing up to Jo and his thugs.By the sound of all of that, you'd think that this movie is a bit complicated.
I have watched Tyler Perry in many interviews and his father was very abusive so this movie was special for him to put out there.I believe the actors were OK.
If you think feel-good movies are sappy, don't watch this one -- but it's hard not to feel good to see a father win his three little girls back from his pathetic ex-wife and her drug dealer boyfriend....
Now I know that Hollywood, Independent film makers, and even Bollywood would be making a big mistake if they didn't make place this man in more leading roles.Gabrielle Union is excellent as Julia, a Ivy League Lawyer who wins all her cases but lacks the street skills to get along with the little people.
Revenge violence is not the answer, and when Tyler Perry ends his movie with the car assault on his ex-wife and the brutal beating of the drug dealer, he is doing the same thing his enemies did to him.
Overall this was a sad movie with a fairytale ending just like Tyler Perry's other movies..
In order to understand Tyler Perry's movies/plays, one must be able to put themselves in the shoes of at least on character, or be BLACK (most white people don't understand and those that do, know or have been around plenty of Black people and can interpret how WE think) YES I AM BLACK AND CAN READ!!!.
I honestly feel that Tyler Perry's previous movies were much better, I felt more affection towards the characters.
There just wasn't enough like in the other films by Perry.
Rated it 5/10 Hope that Perry goes back to making movies like Diary of a Mad black woman and Madea's family reunion..
Tyler, you got the cash, rent another camera and get those all knocked out at once.If the movie were didn't have the technical issues and writing style (like a play), it would have been a higher rated films, but despite that it was pretty enjoyable. |
tt0152139 | Ram Teri Ganga Maili | Ganga lives in Gangotri with her brother, Karam. One day she comes to the assistance of a young man, Narendra Sahay, who has come with a group of Calcutta-based college students to study the source of the holy river Ganga, and to get some holy water for his wheelchair-bound paternal grandmother. Both are attracted to each other, and on the next Puran Mashi get married, and spend the night together. Narendra leaves, but promises Ganga that he will be back soon. Months go by, but he does not return. She gives birth to a son, and as soon as she is able to, she starts her journey to Alipor, Calcutta, to confront Narendra and ensure a better future for their son. At Rishikesh she is exploited by two women and a man from whom she escapes and takes shelter in a crematorium. Then at Banaras, she is molested by a Pandit, rescued by the police and given a ticket to Calcutta. When she alights en route to get water for her baby, the train leaves, and she falls into the clutches of Manilal who feigns blindness and lures her to a brothel near Banaras, where she is forced to stay so that she can provide for her son. It is here that she is introduced to powerful politician, Bhagwat Choudhary, who pays a hefty sum and asks Manilal to bring Ganga to Calcutta where he intends to keep her as his and Jeeva Sahay's mistress. What Ganga does not know is that Bhagwat's daughter, Radha, is Narendra's bride-to-be; that Jeeva is none other than Narendra's father, and that soon she will be asked to dance at his wedding reception. | allegory, romantic | train | wikipedia | Raj Kapoor at his best.
Naren is a simple man and son of an influential businessman in Calcutta.
He goes to Himalayas on vacations and meets Ganga a local Himalayan girl.
They fall in love and get married.
Naren decides to go home and gain his family's confidence before he can take Ganga home.
Naren comes back home and finds that his father has fixed his marriage with an ambitious politician Bhagwat Chowdhary's daughter.
Naren sends Kunj, his maternal uncle and his well wisher, to fetch Ganga but Ganga, now pregnant, has already left alone from Himalayas to Calcutta.
The whole journey of Ganga from Gangotri to Calcutta depicts the poor condition of women in the Indian society.
First half of the film is perfect for toilet breaks, cigarette, pop corn and probably grocery.
How long can you tolerate two bad actors that too together?
Movie begins when Ganga leaves Himalayas for Calcutta.
Ganga, traveling from Gangotri to Calcutta, represents river Ganga which starts from Himalayas and through northern plains reaches Calcutta and merges into Bay of Bengal.
River Ganga is revered by Indians as god from ancient times.
River Ganga get polluted on its way and the first bank which pollutes river Ganga is Haridwar and so Ganga (Mandakini) tastes her stint with fate in Haridwar.
By the time she reaches Varanasi Ganga loses its purity.
River Ganga flows almost like sewer water after that and that's what happens to the protagonist.
She is sold bought raped and beaten by the time she reaches Calcutta.
I find this film extremely romantic and spiritual.
It talks about the fate of millions of innocent girls sold in India and the medium it uses is mind blowing.
This film always reminds me of Bicycle thief.
Sica used a bicycle to expose post world war Italy and Raj Kapoor has used a river to expose the double standards of Indian culture.
At one point in time Ganga sleeps in a funeral house and consoles herself saying that dead ones are better than those living.
Characterization is brilliant for example Kunj visits brothels but he loud mouths about it.
Manilal is a pimp, a gray character, becomes a blind man to trap Ganga.
Raj Kapoor says a lot through Manilal's black goggles.
Some of the scenes are very bold.
In one of the scenes Ganga, in a train to Varanasi, is feeding her infant son while men look at each other and smile.
Acting wise Raza Murad and Saeed Jaffery are brilliant and soul of the film.
Rajiv Kapoor couldn't do worse.
'Mandagini' could and she did.
Music of the film is exceptional.
All the songs except for 'Sun Saiba' and 'Main Hee Main Hoon' are beautiful and meaningful.
I think it's the best score by 'Ravindra Jain' so far (better than even 'Nadiya Ke Paar' and 'Chitchor').
Lata Mangeshkar's voice is beginning to crack by this time and so male versions are an automatic preference.
This film was released in the same year as 'Tawaif' and so best Dialog and story awards were given to 'Tawaif' ( a very well deserved ones too) else this movie would have got those too other than best film, best director, best art director and best music.
I think this is Raj Kapoor's best film if not 'Prem Rog'.
Prem Rog outshines this film because of the actors (of course Rishi Kapoor in 35 mm is magic) and topic but RTGM has high points and is more dramatic.
I think Raj Kapoor should have stayed away from the nudity in this film as most people saw only nudity in this film (you can tell by the reviews only) but Raj Kapoor was a businessman too so he had to do his marketing bit.
This film was a huge hit.
Looking at the unchanged condition of India I guess Raj Kapoor was a good seller.
He sold a movie against nudity with nudity.
Reminds me of Goddard's 'Contempt' but that's how it is and will be.
A must watch for spiritually bent Indians..
Analogy drawn.
Undoubtedly one of the finest films made by the original and only Showman Raj Kapoor.
Clearly the showman has adapted to changing times and yet manages to captivate the audience interest with his master story telling skill.The showman has moved a level up since Mera Naam Joker and his subsequent movies like Satyam Shivam Sundaram, Prem Rog and RTGM (with an expectation of Bobby) clearly depict the subtle message encoded.
You would require more than one viewing in order to see understand the underlying message of how the purity of the river Ganges originating from Himalayas gets compromised as it travels through the strata's of the society until its finally reaches Kolkatta.The dialogues are very powerful and thought provoking (Saeed Jaffery gets meaty ones!!!).
Songs which are the highlight of every Raj Kapoor movies do not disappoint.
Moving away from L-P, he first time he teams with Ravindra Jain (music & lyrics) churning songs which will be remembered for years.
Lata gives her as usual her best for the showman.In terms of the casting Mandakini is an absolute let-down.
She is the main protagonist and any other actress with the potency of parallel cinema would have had this movie recognised on international levels.
Rajeev Kapoor is no great shakes either.
Its only the supporting cast which halo the short-comings of the lead performers and they are Saeed Jaffery, Raza Murad, Sushma Seth, Khulbushan Kharbanda, Krishan Dhawan and Rajesh Viveck (in a blink-and-miss role).The visuals of the beauty and serenity of Himalayas and the dirty and murky Kolkatta is captured with equal aplomb.Sadly the last movie from the greatest showman but definitely he left his mark with this movie.After reading Mr. Murali-s comments I decided to write my own opinions on this movie as the former one is extremely shallow..
All pomp and no glory!.
Raj Kapoor is supposed to be the ultimate showman of Bollywood.
He does some justice to this image by choosing spectacular locales along with some great music and photography.
However, there is nothing new this movie offers.
It's an unconvincing love story set right at the foot of Himalayas, between a rich guy and a poor girl.
How they meet, get separated and finally get united in the end forms the core of the story.Most of the Indians would remember this movie as the first one, at least the first blockbuster, where the heroine openly bares her breasts.
(Such exposure is not very common in Indian movies.)Apart from that dubious distinction, there is not much else.The music is a blast and worth listening to.
Give the movie itself a skip..
If you are an Indian, then go on youtube and watch the movie now.
It's a very emotional story of Ganga...from gangotri to the sangam.
This movie relates the story of a Girl to the holy river Ganga.
I think that it is difficult for Non-Indians to relate with movie but Indians must watch it.The power of the movie lies in it's story and emotions.
Kudos to the Showman.
Mandakini (ganga) has also done a great work.
But there was no need of nudity in such a movie.
If it was not there, then more people would've watched this movie.The movie is also reflects the black side of the Politics in India that contains people who just look for the benefit of their family.
They have nothing to do with the Country.
But their real face never comes in front of public.
It's a;so a true love story that shows that love is not the name of getting someone in your life, it is the sacrifice for the happiness of your loved ones.Please watch this movie if you are an adult and an Indian..
Loved Mandakini for the Right reasons.
Mandakini Mandakini Mandakini.
That's why the film gets a 9 for me.
The Movie is a bit nice yet a bit silly.
Raj Kapoor directed this film well and did a fab job.
The Lead Actor tries his best but some people just don't suit as a actor.Best thing about this film is the introduction of the beauty cutie pie Mandakini.
Its a shame she did not get more famous in Bollywood as she deserved.
She was good in this movie, well acted, I felt sorry for her character but I cannot deny she was sexy at the same time.The wet sari nude scene and breast feeding scene caused a stir but most men did not complain as deep down they just watched it over and over again secretly.
As you can see from my header, loved her for the right reasons, ahem.
yes I am not modest.
Getting jiggy with it..
Same old..
Typical bollywood love story.
Girl meets guy, meet the parents, there's trouble, a bad patch, the struggle, the heroism and then a happy ending, oh and not to forget the dancing and singing.The nudity side of things was simple and did'n'y need to be in the film.
there are certain situations where you can understand why it is needed but in this case they could have done the standard skin tight sari's and clothes and still got away with it.Nudity in films is not a big issue these days...well, in Hollywood, but bollywood, film makers need to be abit careful on their target audience.
the younger generation would have an open mind and will be more susceptible to this but the older and the majority of the target audience for bollwood films would not be.I personally don't mind the nudity.
a movie ahead of its time...in terms of sex in Indian cinema.
this movie could be called a typical Indian love story...rich boy poor girl, cannot marry!
but at the time of the release created a lot of controversy simply because of the sexual content in the movie.simple acts such as a mother breast feeding her baby were frowned upon which showed that the Indian public was not ready for such boldness just yet.
in another scene the lead actress was shown bathing under a waterfall...in a flimsy white sari and nothing underneath.
this was typical of the director Raj Kapoor who wanted his actresses to look glamorous i.e. sex symbols.I will not take anything away from the movie in terms of acting as every one did a superb job..
A grand epic - Raj Kapoor style......
What looks like a standard rich boy, poor girl love story with the basic formula of boy meets girl, they fall in love and have to face several hurdles before being reunited is actually much much more.
The movie itself contains an important social message about faith, hypocrisy and the distortion of religion for personal gains.
Bold for its time.
Raj Kapoor introduces newcomer Mandakini in an extremely powerful heroine oriented role, causing controversy with the now infamous waterfall scene where her breasts were visible, through a flimsy white sari.
The story follows the journey of Ganga, a girl from Gangotri (the source of the Ganges),who starts out as pure as the Ganges itself, and as the events unfold She follows the course of the Ganges and reaches Calcutta tainted just like the sacred Ganges.
The performances on the whole are excellent.
Raj Kapoor extracts some fine acting from all the star cast, even his son Rajiv who shines despite his limitation.
The way the dramatic scenes are executed are sheer brilliance, and you are kept almost at the edge of your seat.
Raza Murad stands out as the most memorable character and plays his part with utter conviction.
The soundtrack is also worth mentioning as the beautiful music by Ravidra Jain, with voice's of the legendary Lata Mangeshkar and Suresh Wadkar is simply sublime with its mix of classical and modern film music.
The cinematography for a Hindi film of its time really stands out (especially the songs) in and era where films were rather technically poor in India.
The only low I would have to say is the ending.
We reach the pivotal climax beautifully executed.
What follows is a quick lets get over with this and finish the film with the usual commotion, fighting and over dramatisation.
The ending is rather abrupt and you are left with a feeling that the story has not been fully resolved.What stops this film from being one the greatest stories ever told is the inclusion of certain unnecessary scenes which make the first half less gripping than it could have been..
Certain plot lines such as the Murder of Ganga's brother are left uncompleted.
The fight scene where Ganaga is accused of theft is not necessary and just seems to prolong the story.All in all a great film that could have possibly been even greater.
do watch it if you can get hold of it on DVD..
The Showman's triumph.
Raj Kapoor again directs a great film.
The story starts with the the boy meets girl syndrome(Naren, played by Rajiv Kapoor meets Gunga, played by Mandakini).They start loving each other and get married.
But when Naren goes back home, he finds that his marriage has been fixed to another girl.
Kunj, his maternal uncle goes to fetch Ganga, but they had already left for Calcutta with a son.
The film draws an analogy between the protagonist "Ganga" and the river Ganga.
Ganges starts from Gangotri and merges in the Bay of Bengal, it is pure in the starting, but becomes polluted during its way.
The protagonist is the living embodiment of the river.
Along the way, she is trafficked, raped and beaten.
By the time she reaches Kolkata, her purity had gone, just like the Ganges.
This movie seemed to be contrast to his 1962 classic "Jis Desh Mein Ganga Behti Hai".
That film boasted about the country and the Ganges and optimistic in tone.
While RTGM denounces the evils present in the country and raises its voice against it.
The music of the film is quite good, especially the title song.But the film takes a beating at acting.
Mandakini is average while Rajiv Kapoor is just plain bad, he can't convey emotions properly.(Quite strangely, the movie is (in)famous for the nude scene.
Do watch it.
You won't be disappointed.) |
tt0226919 | Krocodylus | The film opens with John's vision of screaming people in the water and being killed by something under the water. A plane full of people getting psyched up to try Blood Surfing at some remote island known for its sea surfing locale lands on water. A documentary is planned on the blood surfing exploits of Bog (Dax Miller) and Jeremy (Joel West) who is known for extreme sports, with camera operator Cecily (Kate Fischer) and her boyfriend/producer Zack (Matthew Borlenghi). As the film progresses Cecily's interest in Bog develops.
After arriving the group decides to head to shark rich waters by a remote island, so they contact local guide John (Duncan Regehr) and his girlfriend Arty (Taryn Reif). John at first refuses to go, but then relents and accepts the job on the condition his sail team come along, including the young Lemmya (Maureen Larrazabal) who is attracted to Jeremy. The group heads out to the shark zone, despite John being plagued by visions of screaming swimmers being devoured by something in the water. Clumps of meat is thrown in to attract the sharks while Bog and Jeremy suit up, slit their feet, and begin surfing among a group of sharks. While taking a break from the shoot, at the beach they saw a shark is eaten by something gigantic and fills the ocean water. The group wisely call it a day.
On another part of the island nearby Jeremy and Lemmya have sex, as her parents Melba (Susan Africa) and Sonny (Chris Vertido), are devoured by the crocodile and the boat wrecked. Lemmya heads to the water to bathe without realizing the danger and is attacked. The remaining crew go back for the boat but find it wrecked. Bog went underwater for the camera. They are chased by the crocodile that came out from under the water. As they escape to the beach on the other side of the island they are taken captive by local pirates.
As one of them is trying to have his way with Cecily the crocodile jumped out of the water and ate him. In the ensuing chaos Bog with Zack and Jeremy throws the bandits into the sea. The pirate leader shoots and hits the boat's fuel tank, forcing Bog and company to abandon ship. They are picked up by John and Arty. In revenge for the deaths that happened sometime in his past, John goes back for the creature. Zack wants to film the killing, but John denies him. In the chaos when the crocodile is harpooned, Jeremy gets eaten. John beaches the ship on a coral reef while trying to outrun the beast.
John wires the boat to explode. The beast attacks before he can finish, tearing him in half, The surviving pirate leader knocks out Arty and then tries to rape Cecily. Cecily starts talking dirty saying things like "I want it" to trick him. Cecily deliberately steps on the line that triggers a spear trap that John left behind killing the pirate. Then she goes to wake Arty. The girls walk further inland and find a temple on the island, with no sign of any predators. The beast comes to attack them. They jumped into the nearby river and since they are in freshwater, the beast would not go near them.
Bog recovers the explosives from the wrecked boat, and is reunited with Cecily and Arty. He baits the beast to an unstable wall and uses the explosives to bring the wall crashing down on the creature. Arty believing the beast is dead starts kicking it and in a swift move it opens its mouth devours her. Bog and Cecily starts running with the beast in close pursuit until the beast leaps and gets impaled through its stomach by a sharp protruding rock, ending its reign of terror. Bog and Cecily rest on the other side of the river bank and starts kissing as they celebrate, the camera slowly pans over to reveal the flowing water along the river. | violence | train | wikipedia | I enjoy monster movies as much as the next guy,and 'Blood Surf' is one of those movies that I enjoyed.But I have seen other movies about a giant man-eating crocodile that were slightly better.Examples of these would be 'Crocodile' and 'Lake Placid.'And there are some croc movies that are worse,such as 'Supercroc.'Anyway,I thought that 'Blood Surf' was a very entertaining monster movie.But why did this movie get a rating as low as a 3.Come on people,what's wrong with you?Don't you find people being ripped apart by a giant reptile in a horror movie a little enjoyable.Sure,I know that the croc kinda looked fake but just sit down and have a good time..
Bad enough to inspire me to join IMDb. If you have ever seen a porn movie you would have understood that it contains appalling acting, direction and storyline, only to provide a thin backdrop to the sex scenes - it's kind of sad really.
This film is not good at being anything and is rare, not only in being moronic, but in actually making its audience feel embarrassed for the people who made it,Imagine years of clawing and scratching your way to being a 'professional' actor or director, for this to be the result.
Flawed Fun. The premise (modified from the box description): Follow an MTV style filmmaker as she and her crew shoot an expose of the latest, most dangerous craze in extreme sports-bloodsurfing, or surfing in shark infested waters while intentionally trying to attract the creatures.
The quality of the film is a mish-mash of a too-confusing script with more than its share of holes, some pretty hokey dialogue, and some decent direction, editing and performances, with surprisingly good cinematography, occasional moments of tension, and the requisite beautiful actresses.The biggest problems seem to arise from the script, which isn't very straightforward about what bloodsurfing is, why it is popular, what the relationships are among the principle characters, who some later characters are and why they are taking the actions they're taking.
Characters are so cliché-ridden, that you can play a game of "Guess who ends up as a monster meal" after less than ten minutes into the movie, and probably get every single one right--including the order that they will get devoured.
I could almost hear rim shots.Overall, OK, if you have 90 minutes to waste, and you want to laugh at a so-bad-it's-good-movie.
Blood Surf shamelessly joins the list of stupid, redundant pulp-horror titles about ridiculously big animals that want to turn the food chain upside down.
Blood Surf is every bit as bad as these other films and on top of that it likes to exaggerate tremendously.
During the film, he amuses himself by devouring a bunch of utterly stupid surfer-dudes & dudettes who came to seek new thrills by surfing in a shark-congested area.
Early in the film, one of the characters refers to Jaws as being a 'mechanical toy' but the croc here looks at least 10 times less real than Spielberg's great white shark.
You guessed right: Blood Surf is a very bad film.
Arriving in Australia to shoot a documentary piece, the crew and the locals find the shoot has attracted the attention of a monstrous crocodile and must try to get away from the deadly creature before they become victims.A strangely fun entry, as there's very few solid points about this one that should make it as good as it really is.
Probably some of the worst special effects I've yet seen, though the head and jaws looked cool when it was on land.As always with a low budget horror film, there's a couple of topless scenes, couple of sex scenes and plenty of tight tops and cleavage.
Which is no bad thing in my book.I won't ruin the ending, but I nearly cried it was so funny.To sum up, stone cold sober analysis of this flick won't reveal it to be a Citizen Kane, but then that isn't what the film is trying to achieve.
It still isn't the best crocodile movie i've seen but enjoyable for the sport of surfing on shark infested waters and staying trapped in an island with a giant crocodile.
And why all that porno stuff was it to entertain or to only burn time in the film to look like a long movie.
Lets face it, how many films are you ever going to see where two talentless (well, acting wise) actresses, flash their excessively well proportioned boobs at a killer crocodile ahead of the classic line "Hey, we'd better stop croc teasing!"Still, what would you expect from the film's (supposedly fact-based) premise.
A group of doco makers (included the two miss boobs) set out to film a group of blood-surfers who cut themselves deliberately in the water to attract sharks in an effort to jazz up proceedings.
And there are a lot of similarities to "Jaws" throughout this entire movie."Blood Surf" is about a group of young people traveling to a tropical island in order to make a movie about surfing in shark-infested waters.
They soon find themselves prey for a monstrous saltwater crocodile.If you have seen "Jaws" then you have essentially already also seen "Blood Surf"; except "Jaws" was impressive and good, "Blood Surf" wasn't.As for the acting in the movie, well, let's just say it was as to be expected for a movie of this type.
That being said, don't get me wrong, I am not saying it is bad, just don't expect any extravagant performances.If for nothing else, then there are some pretty nice locations throughout the movie that are nice to look at.There was a very unnecessary lovemaking scene which just sleazes up the movie in a very pointless way.
The plot throws in everything but the kitchen sink in its attempt to entertain; and the croc, when finally seen, is laughably fake-looking.The pitch-meeting for "Blood Surf" possibly went something like this: The pitcher excitedly describes the basic plot: "A couple of radical surfers go to a tropical island known for shark attacks so they can capture themselves on camera 'blood surfing' -- cutting their feet to bleed and wildly surfing the shark-infested waters." When he gets a silent reaction, he adds, "Okay, um, let's see...
(And I'm not at all mocking flat-chested women since I don't mind women with small or no breasts, I even used to be involved with one; I'm talking about nigh-anorexic women with zero curves).The film runs 84 minutes and was shot in the Philipines.BOTTOM LINE: "Blood Surf" is not a good movie in any way, shape or form, but you gotta respect its exuberant attempts to amuse.GRADE: C- (but with solid entertainment value, IF you're in the right mode).
This role will serve to keep the boat from listing to one side." While everyone seems to want to pick on the croc, I actually got the biggest grin watching the fake sharks and dorsal fins around the surfers.
The idea caught my attention, some adrenaline junkies looking for a thrill decide to chum the water in order to attract sharks to boost the extremes of surfing.
RE: "Blood Surf": Could someone PLEASE let me know: the filipina Maureen Larrazabal, whose character Lemmey (is that spelled correctly?), the 17-year old native girl who makes love to the blond guy in the lagoon; when she gets attacked by the croc, it that scene actually shown in the movie, or is the audience supposed to just figure it out?????
If not for the scenery--both topographical and feminine--this would easily be in the running for the WORST MOVIE EVER.Bad acting, stupid plot, inane characters...
This misses out on all fronts.A bunch of young people -- women with heaving breasts and continuously wet T-Shirts, naturally -- go to film "blood surfing" and end up running into a 31 foot crocodile.Not only was the croc obviously fake, but some of the props [notice the boat hitting the reef in particular] look like they've come out of thunderbirds!No good, from start to finish.
Now that we have the housekeeping chores out of the way, let's get on with it.In Cliff Notes version, here's the story (don't worry, I'll try not to give anything away)...A film crew travels to a remote island to film a documentary about two surfers (established cute boy and his buddy) who surf with sharks.
With Alligator and it's sequels, Lake Placid, Crocodile, and now Blood Surf, it now looks like "over-sized crocodile/alligator" movies should now get their own category at Blockbuster.
With Ed writing the scripts, and a room full of monkees creating crocodile special effects on a computer, all we'd need would be a cast of crocky fodder with Russ Meyer breasts and Ren Hoek pectoral implants.While Tobe Hooper's crocky opus referenced his own movies, Blood Surf chose to dish out a bunch of aging themes from the chum bucket of other movies.
The plot, in itself, is so astoundingly stupid as to be riveting, in a morbid way: two idiotic thrillseekers who surf in shark-infested waters and the filmmakers committing their exploits to celluloid disturb a gigantic crocodile in the area.
How can someone make this film, watch it back and then actually say "Yeah, thats a good movie.
For instance lets look a particular scene when a mad hungry for revenge captain is fishing for the big croc, well the cast have managed to get of the boat and are wading their way to shore (BTW they were miles out to see), one of them thinks its a good idea to get on a surf board and "surf" to shore.
Even the stupidity of this film couldnt save it.Altogether, Poor plot, Poor acting/cast, Poor special effects, avoid this film, i can think of many things you could do in 2 hours then to sit down and watch this.No score, its off the chart..
Sometimes I rest my head and think about the reasons why movies about killer sharks and/or crocodiles are still getting made these days.
Krocodylus (Boy what a stupid title) or in other words "BLOOD SURF" had to be one of the craziest films i have ever seen.The plot goes something like this.
Around 5 people go to the South Pacific to go Blood Surfing- This is surfing of where the surfer makes himself bleed, so Sharks can come after him in the water.Instead of them dissing some sharks, they come across a monster...a "31 foot Crocodile"...Wow!
Trust me..It isn't.The Crocodile does not appear in the film until half way, and BOY does that Crocodile look fake or WHAT, i havent seen such cheap CGI effects in my life.
The movie definantley is NOT original, its steals EXACT ideas from films like JAWS, INDIANA JONES and more.But wait....Its a crocodile, and this film does have alot of deaths, so it must be Gory or scary right?
Who the hell bothered reading the script and actually MAKING IT?The producers must have thought that adding ALMOST porn like sex in its film and gratautious nudity would make us forget...Well even though the sex scene was interesting, the acting was miserable.
A man is on board his ship which is at least 15 foot high, and this giant TOTALLY FAKE looking crocodile (that appears bigger than the mountain backdrop) jumps up, and grabs the guys head and jumps back into the water.Also where is this film met to be set in?
I thought it was Australia, yet all of a sudden they are attacked by Mexican Guerrilas, and then they say that they are in the Phillipines, when there are many Chinese people around, and alot of the cast are American..WHAT???This film simply relies on its good looking cast to go running around bouncing their flesh Baywatch style, this film lacks style.It starts off okay, and then it just gets HORRID, its actually SO funny.The characters in this film are so STUPID.A character jumps into the water where the crocodile is stuck in a noose, she swims near it with a camera, and then it lets itself loose.
The crocodile looks like a cardboard cut-out in strings, its hilarious.I give this movie 1 star out of 5, but i also want to give it a 5, no film has made me laugh so hard, when it had no intention to.PLEASE watch this movie, you will understand what i am talking about.* - 1 STAR out of (5).
A group of kids filming a documentry about a new, but dangerous trend called Blood Surfing are terrozied by an oversized crocodile.
It has no idea what it should be, or more important, what it even wants to be.A full hour ellipses by the time we really start on the plot with the crocodile and by that time, the tone of the movie has undergone a one hundred-eighty-degree turn.
Blood Surf AKA Krocodylus is a fair film that has an okay cast which includes Dax Miller, Taryn Reif, Kate Fischer, Duncan Regehr, Joel West, Matt Borlenghi, Maureen Larrazabal, Cris Vertido, Susan Africa, Archie Adamos, Rolando Santo Domingo, and Malecio Amayao.
but i actually thought that it was reasonable.It was about a group of people that went to do blood surfing but they got trapped on this deserted island and were being hunted by a 40 foot something crocodile that sometimes looked like a cardboard cut out and the porno sex scenes they put in to fill space, i mean what was the need?But i generally liked the film, it wasn't brilliant but i wouldn't say it was bad either, it did have some good scenes and lines.i decided that i liked it the second time i watched it, as then i had decided to take it as a comedy and not a horror, i laughed for ages.
Then i toldmyself i liked the film and it was really good and i now have it on DVD and watch it the occasional time.So would recommend it to people that want a laugh, because believe me it really is!i give it 6/10.
its about a group of people who originally wanted to do blood surfing which is where you make yourself bleed to attract sharks!
i think the film is quite good actually, but you'd have to be real strange like me to appreciate it they way i do!
If you want to see a good fake crocodile watch Lake Placid.
The acting isn't half bad either, and Kate Fischer looks good.
The location was beautiful and the movie start good with some nice surf scenes.
it does'nt cut it, does it!If you WOULD like a cool movie about a big reptile that is actually very, very good, well-played and funny: go rent Lake Placid!
The only real highlight in the movie is the death of the sniveling guy and the reaction of the surviving characters to it.In every other way, this film is a very lame rip-off of Jaws, Lake Placid, and Alligator, with a little bit of Godzilla (1998) thrown in.As is standard for a 1990's-style horror movie, the two non-starring females each take their clothes off at least once.
The whole movie surrounds the filming of a really dumb extreme sport called blood surfing, in which surfers cut themselves and surf in shark-infested waters.
Its about a crocodile that attack a view tourists as they are filming a documentary about "blood surfing".
A Movie about a bunch of some kind of filmmakers, who want to make a documentary on a new kind of surfing in shark-infested waters.
If it were only for the lack of talent between the actors, the embarrassingly stupid dialogs and the hilariously stupid crocodile, it would be at least worth a laugh, but it gets worse: I'd guess, the people in charge of this movie noticed how weak it was, so they though up the old idea of "sex sells"...
At the time, I thought it was pretty silly given the lack of a good script & some pretty mediocre visual effects (the crocodile looked pretty fake).
Well, yes & no.Blood Surf is a horror film for surfers.
The film even goes so far as to acknowledge its inspiration – "What's the name of that killer shark movie?" one surfer asks; "Jaws".
This film's first act is quite good.But once the crocodile begins attacking, Blood Surf quickly falls into the tired Jaws templater that it was billed as.
Here are the problems with "Blood Surf" -- 1) the killer crocodile looks like a kid's model with a retractable jaw.
There are a couple of redeeming qualities of "Blood Surf" -- the actresses are pretty attractive and Matt Borlenghi gets eaten by the croc towards the end of the movie.
Eccentrically plotted, unusually acted rip-off of any 'monster under water' film you could think of, from Creature from the Black Lagoon, to, well, Jaws, Piranha, Lake Placid, whatever.
they're all so generic) surfs right into the giant crocodile's mouth (no, that's not a spoiler - believe me, you'll see it coming from a MILE away), the other characters' reactions are so throwaway, so blase - it's as if they just saw someone they didn't like step in a pile of dog doo, instead of getting killed.
The scene where Zack surfs into the crocodile, the attack on the LaFrance¡¦s boat, and the whole love plots in the middle are so stupid they should have been completely dropped from the film.
A group of documentary filmmakers head off to an island in order to film a documentary about surfing with sharks or blood surfing.
However, this is not the case as the blood surfing part of the movie is minimal due to the fact that their documentary is interrupted by a rather large salt-water crocodile.The script is absolutely terrible.
What probably seemed like a good idea at the time suffered from a terrible script and an overwhelming sense of low-budgetness which all served to create a truly awful movie. |
tt0041796 | Reign of Terror | Already the most powerful man in France, Maximilien Robespierre (Richard Basehart) wants to become the nation's dictator. He summons François Barras (Richard Hart), the only man who can nominate him before the National Convention. Barras refuses to do so and goes into hiding.
Meanwhile, patriot Charles D'Aubigny (Robert Cummings) secretly kills and impersonates Duval (Charles Gordon), the bloodstained prosecutor of Strasbourg, who had been summoned to Paris by Robespierre for some unknown purpose (which Robespierre's enemies want very much to ascertain). Neither Robespierre nor Fouché (Arnold Moss), the chief of his secret police, have met Duval before, so the substitution goes undetected. Robespierre informs D'Aubigny that his black book, containing the names of those he intends to denounce and have executed, has been stolen. Robespierre's numerous foes are kept in check by the uncertainty of whether their names are on the list. If they were to learn for certain that they are, they would band together against him. He gives D'Aubigny authority over everyone in France, save himself, and 24 hours to retrieve the book.
D'Aubigny meets Barras (Richard Hart) through his sole contact, Madelon (Arlene Dahl), whom D'Aubigny once loved. However, he was followed, and Barras is arrested by the police, led by Saint-Just. D'Aubigny finds himself in an uncomfortable position, but manages to allay the suspicions of both sides that he has betrayed them.
He goes to visit Barras in prison, and informs him that three of his best men have been murdered. Strangely, their rooms had not been ransacked to search for the book, leading D'Aubigny to surmise that it was never stolen in the first place, and that Robespierre is using the alleged theft to distract his foes. Saint-Just, still suspicious, sends for Duval's wife to identify her husband. Through quick thinking, Madelon pretends to be Madame Duval and extricates her former lover just before the real Madame Duval arrives.
Before news of his impersonation gets out, D'Aubigny returns to Robespierre's private office to look for the book. There he encounters the opportunistic Fouché, who is seemingly willing to sell out his master. When D'Aubigny finds the book, however, Fouché tries to stab him. D'Aubigny strangles him into unconsciousness and escapes.
He and Madelon hide out at the farmhouse of a fellow conspirator, but their location is extracted through torture. A nighttime chase ensues. D'Aubigny gets away, but Madelon is caught, taken back to Paris, and tortured. She refuses to talk.
As the Convention is about to convene the next day, Fouché shows up and offers to trade Madelon for the book. D'Aubigny turns him down. The book is passed from hand to hand among the delegates. Thus, when Robespierre arrives to denounce Barras, the crowd turns on him instead. He nearly brings the mob to heel with his golden words, but Fouché has his henchman shoot Robespierre through the jaw, silencing him. Robespierre is taken to meet Madame Guillotine.
D'Aubigny searches Robespierre's office, finds a secret room, and rescues Madelon. Fouché falls into conversation with an army officer as the crowd celebrates the death of Robespierre. Fouché, about to take leave of the officer, asks his name. The man replies, "Bonaparte. Napoleon Bonaparte." Fouché, unimpressed, still promises to remember the name. | action, murder | train | wikipedia | This exciting and very interesting period drama makes very good use of its setting in the French Revolution, blending history and fiction together in a believable fashion.
The atmosphere is particularly effective, with the dark photography and claustrophobic settings helping to establish the rampant fear, uncertainty, and paranoia that characterized the era.At one time, the French Revolution (and the subsequent Napoleonic era) captivated numerous novelists and film-makers alike, and they could comfortably assume that their readers and audiences were familiar with historical figures like Robespierre, Danton, Barras, and the others of the period.
The story is well-written, combining action, intrigue, and some Hitchcock-like touches with Robespierre's "Black Book", on which the fate of so many lives depends.
Only the lack of a first-rate cast keeps it from being one of the best movies of its time and genre.The best performances come from Arnold Moss, who is excellent as the slippery, conscience- free Fouché, and Arlene Dahl, who is appealing as the ex-lover of Cummings's character, with whom he has to work closely.
The great Anthony Mann takes a film that would probably play mostly as a colorful, sweeping, epic piece dealing with the French revolution and turns it, with the help of cinematographer John Alton, into a dark, shadowy and claustrophobic film noir/adventure/spy/suspense tale period piece featuring excellent performances from a cast that includes Robert Cummings, Richard Basehart and Arlene Dahl.
The great Anthony Mann takes a film that would probably play mostly as a colorful, sweeping, epic piece dealing with the French revolution and turns it, with the help of cinematographer John Alton, into a dark, shadowy and claustrophobic film noir/adventure/spy/suspense tale period piece featuring excellent performances from a cast that includes Robert Cummings, Richard Basehart and Arlene Dahl.
There isn't anything happening in the plot to this little gem that hasn't been seen in at least 6 or 7 other films dealing with this time period.The difference,however,lies in the treatment.The other movies usually paint the protagonists in bold colors,emphasizing their dash,flair,attractiveness,and nobility,while the leaders of the reign of terror are seen as savage,cruel,inhuman,bloodthirsty,and psychotic savages.Well,they still are in this film,but the hero and heroine also show some pretty dark,sinister aspects as well.So,the good guys aren't the kind we're used to seeing.
Out of the chaos and carnage of the French Revolution, Anthony Mann fashions not a sweeping historical epic à la A Tale of Two Cities but a tight and shaded suspense story.
His gifted collaborator is director of photography John Alton, whose preference for the murky suggestively limned with light was never so evident as in his work here, in country inns and the cellars of bakeshops and the cobbled pavements of torchlit Paris.The plot centers on Robespierre (a peruked Richard Basehart), who has embarked on a spree of mock trials and executions of his rivals in preparation to having himself proclaimed dictator; he's just disposed of Danton.
With the aid of proto-Bondgirl Arlene Dahl, Cummings races the clock in a round of near-fatal wild goose chases.Reign of Terror remains a costumed adventure a chase movie but Mann paces it swiftly and slyly.
Anthony Mann's THE BLACK BOOK (aka REIGN OF TERROR) is one of its finest examples, a costume thriller set in the French Revolution, and somehow managing to create the visual style and emotional mood of true film noir in a completely atypical setting.This is a film to watch for its cinematic, visual brilliance...
Anthony Mann's taut and claustrophobic work (rather at odds with the usual French Revolution epic, and with Mann's later work in other genuinely epic-scale costume dramas) draws a compelling parallel between the atmosphere of fear in post-revolutionary France and in mid-20th century McCarthyite America..
Robert Cummings, Richard Basehart, and Charles McGraw are standouts.Thank goodness for Turner Classic Movies...
But with a few well-placed ornate props, and some smart lighting, creating lots of shadows - the small budget never calls attention to itself.Don't forget, Anthony Mann shot this shortly after the noir classics T-MEN (1947) and RAW DEAL (1948).
A French film, "Danton", deals with his duel to the death with the great moderate and orator (played by Gerard Depardieu), and how Danton warns the country of the dangers of Robespierre's policies and personality but is unable to avoid being proscribed and executed.
Robert Cummings and Arlene Dahl, with a cynical assist from Arnold Moss (as Joseph Fouche, Napoleon's future secret police chief) demolish Robespierre by getting the book into the right hands.
This is the only true 'costume' noir I can recall, but that French term was neither in existence nor even thought about when Anthony Mann was making this film.
Some ill-advised comments have been made here about the two leads, but Robert Cummings, although he excelled in light and sometimes silly comedy, had a solid grounding in excellent dramatic work - between 1942 and 1954 he was also the star of KING'S ROW (yes, he had the starring male role, not Ronald Reagan), Hitchcock's SABOTEUR, then FLESH AND FANTASY, THE LOST MOMENT and SLEEP, MY LOVE, and also as co-star of Hitchcock's DIAL M FOR MURDER, not to mention taking a lovely turn as an angel in a movingly bittersweet and still little-known comedy-drama Western called HEAVEN ONLY KNOWS, where he comes to Earth to escort a little boy's soul back to Heaven, but finds him still alive; the rest of the film's lightness of heart is burdened by the fact that while we get close to the little boy, both we and the angel know he must die; Cummings makes it all work in what can only be termed a near-angelic performance!
(Mann also used, more than once, the somewhat similar Dennis O'Keefe, an excellent dramatic lead who was also a phenomenally good farceur - even better than Cummings - when given the opportunity.) Low budget or not, they had to borrow Arlene Dahl from M-G-M for this one, and I'd strongly suggest that anyone who thinks Ms. Dahl could provide only beauty to a good acting cast has obviously never seen her as the two-timing and grasping lead of NO QUESTIONS ASKED or as Rhonda Fleming's psychopathic bad sister in SLIGHTLY SCARLET.
A load of top-flight character actors - Arnold Moss, Norman Lloyd, Charles McGraw and Beulah Bondi - take turns at almost stealing the film, but the leads hold onto their characters and do full justice to their best reputations, most especially Basehart (an actor who, despite a near-profound acting versatility, never seemed to quite find his niche in movies, which probably says more about us than it does about him).
This early effort from Anthony Mann (who went on to direct suchclassics as Winchester '73 and The Man from Laramie) containshis typical fast-pacing as well as an alternation betweenextraordinarily wide landscape shots and extreme closeups, plushis trademark fight and horse scenes, but played against theunlikely backdrop of the French Revolution's Reign of Terrorperiod.
Rather than drown actors such as BobCummings and Arlene Dahl in period accuracy that wouldoverwhelm their expressive range, the performers--the entirepicture, in fact--seems to be winking at the fact that it is crammingthe entire Terror into 87 action- and intrigue-packed minutes.(Dahl-watchers will be especially delighted by her campy, vampyhijinks as a potential double agent who can impersonate everyonefrom the most elegant marquise to a chicken farmer's wife withjust a rearrangement of a few fashion accessories.) Indeed, RoT packs all the familiar faces of the Revolution into theaction for their respective fifteen seconds of fame: the Marquis deLafayette, Danton, Robespierre, Saint-Just and even good-oldNapoleon, who shows up at the end for one of the picture's silliest,most sublime moments.To that end, pay special attention to Richard Basehart's portrayal ofthe infamous tyrant Robespierre.
Robert Cummings (D'Aubigny) goes undercover to end the reign of terror that has gripped France after the revolution in the C18th.
The story is strong, the sets realistic (since 1949 I've been to France maybe 30 times), the dark cinematography brilliant.Searching on Netflix for the 2007 film "Black Book" the search also brought up "Reign of Terror" under the alternate title of "Black Book." I said to myself, that's a good one.
Robert Cummings and Arlene Dahl, two people you would never suspect to appear in a movie like this, are quite effective as the leads.
A gorgeous dramatization of the French revolution in its dying phase with all the leaders going down, Danton, Robespierre and St. Just, with Robert Cummings as a kind if French pimpernel working for Lafayette to unsettle the revolutionary establishment that has derailed into terror.
Directed by Anthony Mann, with a screenplay by Aeneas MacKenzie and Philip Yordan, this noirish fictionalized historical drama focuses on the time period just after the French Revolution dubbed the 'reign of terror, when silver-tongued Maximilian Robespierre (played by Richard Basehart) used the people's confusion and nearly became France's new dictator.Robert Cummings plays Charles D'Aubigny, who impersonates a foreign executioner named Duval that was summoned to do some necessary dirty work by Robespierre.
Arlene Dahl plays Madelon, a Barras ally who knew D'Aubigny previously (and romantically), which is (at times) both an asset and a liability for the country's 'savior'.Arnold Moss play Fouché, the untrustworthy head of Robespierre's secret police, who has his own agenda and desire for a power grab.
Beulah Bondi plays Grandma Blanchard, the matriarch at the farm where D'Aubigny and Madelon temporarily receive refuge while hiding from St. Just; a very young Russ Tamblyn appears uncredited as one of the Blanchard children.The film begins with Robespierre having his previously trusted friend Danton (Wade Crosby, uncredited) sentenced and convicted as an enemy of the people, to give one a sense of how crazy the post- revolution environment has become (and the power of Maximilien as accuser).
Shortly thereafter, Duval (Charles Gordon, uncredited) is killed by a mysterious man that turns out to be D'Aubigny, who'd received a ring from the exiled General, the Marquis de Lafayette (Wilton Graff, uncredited) to prove his true loyalty to the people, and Barras.Near the end of the film, a brief reference is made to France's future when Fouché speaks to a soldier claiming to be Napoleon Bonaparte..
Robert Cummings, Richard Basehart, Arlene Dahl, and Norman Lloyd star in this excellent little tense thriller set during the French Revolution.
Robert Cummings is looking for a certain book, obviously, to bring down Richard Basehart, who's in power and control over the people.
It's funny to watch how Hollywood treats French history .Historically this terror evocation leaves a lot to be desired .Nothing for instance concerns the reason why the terror was instituted:at the time the country had to fight two enemies :the foreign countries and the royalists .At the beginning ,the terror was "useful" ,although they killed a lot of innocents (including the genius Lavoisier who virtually invented chemistry ,the poet Chénier and the suffragette Olympe de Gouges ,one of the first women to claim sexual equality).In the movie,Barras ,who played a prominent part in the fall of RObespierre has a minor part ,except in the final scenes .Instead we have a chivalrous noble (Robert Cummings) and his gorgeous mistress Madelon (Arlene Dahl).For good measure they hint at the unfortunate late Marie-Antoinette and Bonaparte appears in the flesh towards the end ,as the messiah (?).PLus "La Carmagnole" "AH CA Ira!
The Black Book (AKA: Reign of Terror) is directed by Anthony Mann and written by Aeneas MacKenzie and Phillip Yordan.
It stars Robert Cummings, Richard Basehart, Richard Hart, Arlene Dahl, Charles McGraw and Arnold Moss.
But there is hope in the form of a resistance freedom fighter named Charles D'Aubigny (Cummings), if only he can locate the secret Black Book belonging to Robespire then he can curtail the tyrant's plan.Before he would make his name in Adult Westerns and Period Epics, Anthony Mann made a considerable mark on film noir.
Now, I've read several books on the French Revolution, but there are a bunch of things I learned from this supremely stylish film (Anthony Mann).
Mainly, that The Terror occurred at night in noirish lighting (John Alton) with a great supporting cast of Basehart, Moss, Lloyd and McGraw; that the art guy who designed Paris (Cameron Menzies) cast all sorts of nightmarish shadows over the city; and that not even a well-meaning lightweight like Robert Cummings could spoil these inspired events.
As a result, the movie is a visual Terror that really fires up the imagination, history books or no.But I especially love it when that bewigged fop Robespierre is led into the Assembly near the end, and this raucous wall of faces fills the screen.
The beautiful Arlene Dahl is working for another member of the National Assembly with similar aims and they join forces.If Reign Of Terror had been done at a major studio like MGM or Paramount we might have seen a full blown color production.
In doing that it gives Reign Of Terror a noir like quality that is the second most effective thing in the film.
Robespierre was a man who disdained the pleasures of the flesh and the world had recently been dealing with another fanatic named Hitler who was the same way.If you discount the silliness of Robespierre actually keeping a written list somewhere, Reign Of Terror despite its cheap production values, does effectively capture the mood of France in the middle 1790s.
The Black Book/Reign of Terror has the style of a gangster movie fused with the screenplay of a classic spy story, which is set in an anarchical post-revolution France.
a filmed play, which seemed to be the prevailing style at the time.All and all with its adequate story and its unique visual style, the Black Book is worth a viewing...if you can find it.
Unfortunately, the disc I have of this is a very poor print, and the dialogue was so fuzzy I missed a lot of it."Reign of Terror" is a 1949 film directed by Anthony Mann and stars Robert Cummings and Arlene Dahl.The time is May 1794.
Duval, however, has been replaced by Charles D'Aubigny, a patriot who wants to bring down Robespierre.This filmed moved quickly, and Cummings and Dahl certainly made an attractive couple.
However, under Mann's direction, he does a good job.Basehart is wonderful as Robespierre, and Arnold Moss, who looks like he could have been Adrien Brody's father, is an effective Fouche, who became later the head of Napoleon's secret police.France continued to have a tough time after the monarchy was brought down.
They got Anthony Mann to direct and the incomparable John Alton as their cinematographer for this thrilling noir about the French Revolution.
The supporting cast is better than the leads, especially Arnold Moss as Fouche and Richard Basehart as Robespierre.I'm surprised this picture doesn't have a better following, with just a few hundred votes, so if you see it you can count yourself among the lucky few..
It's up to secret agent Bob Cummings to find it and convince everyone of the danger the nation faces.There have been some exceptional films about the French Reign of Terror (in the 1790s), such as THE SCARLET PIMPERNEL, A TALE OF TWO CITIES and DANTON.
Overall, it's pretty much just a time-passer and an actor I usually love in films (Richard Basehart) is pretty bland as is the lead, Bob Cummings..
ROBERT CUMMINGS and ARLENE DAHL are improbably cast in a grim tale of the French Revolution during the famous reign of terror following the storming of the Bastille.
RICHARD BASEHART plays the treacherous keeper of "The Black Book", Robspierre, seen in powdered wig, a man with a twisted mind and soul, who declares that "the Revolution has abolished God." JESS BARKER is an equally treacherous henchman, a soldier of the Republic assigned to find the man who stole the infamous book listing the names of the enemies of France.The low-key B&W photography hides most of the sets in deep shadows, giving the impression that it covers the low-budget production values and at the same time gives the story a film noir ambiance.Cummings and Barker, usually cast in more lightweight material, are fine in some sketchily written roles and Dahl is her usual attractive self, little more, as a woman of mystery.RUSS TAMBLYN has a minor early role and BEULAH BONDI has a small part as a woman who knows the whereabouts of the Black Book.It ends, of course, with the downfall of the evil Robspierre and his cohorts.Summing up: Fairly interesting, but Arlene Dahl's make-up and hairdo is strictly from a modern era.
Boy was I wrong to do that.Loved the look of the whole production, I'd swear that John Alton lit the entire film with the refection of a lit cigar off a quarter.Robert Cummings and Richard Basehart headline with great support from, Arnold Moss, Beulah Bondi, Charles McGraw, Arlene Dahl and Richard Hart.
Look close and you can see long time bit players, John Doucette, Dabbs Greer, Dan Seymour and Royal Dano.The story is about a group of patriots out to stop the evil Robespierre, played by Richard Basehart.
I didn't think I'd enjoy this film given the description on the DVD sleeve and it's setting during the time of the French Revolution, but it quickly got my attention with it's darkness and intrigue.
So it was rather comical to me to see his reaction to the Lady Madelon (Arlene Dahl) impersonating the wife of the man Cummings is himself working undercover as.The story of course is not a comedy, in fact it's full of espionage and intrigue about the historical Robespierre (Richard Basehart) and his attempt to become dictator of France while eliminating potential opposition named in his personal Black Book.
Robert Cummings gets one of his best roles (yes, he CAN act) as the guy who goes undercover to retrieve the black book, in order to topple potential dictator Richard Baseheart.
Fidel Castro worked his way down to mailmen.As far as I can tell, this is a fictional story of Robert Cummings posing as an imported German executioner and detective working for the evil Richard Basehart as Robespierre, the chief rebel, who wanted to become dictator. |
tt0216487 | Invincible | During the 1970s decade, chaos reigns in the city of Philadelphia as southern portions of the city protest the shutdown of several job sites while their NFL team, the Philadelphia Eagles, endures a string of losing seasons, along with irate fans.
In 1976, Vince Papale goes to a sandlot one night and joins his friends playing a pick-up practice football game against another group of young men. After the game ends, Papale goes home and finds out that his wife Sharon is disgusted with his alleged failure to provide proper support.
The next morning, Papale goes to the high school where he works as a substitute teacher. In a short, unexpected meeting with the principal, he is told of his layoff. Later in the day, there is a report that the Eagles have hired a new head coach named Dick Vermeil as shown in a formal televised conference. That night, Papale goes to the bar where he works as a part-time bartender. The bar contains die-hard Eagles fans, who are watching TV about the hiring of Vermeil. The news story concludes with the announcement by Vermeil that he is staging open public tryouts for the Eagles. The men in the bar encourage Papale to go to the tryout. When Papale returns home, he finds out that his wife has left him and a note from her saying he will never be anything in the world. Distraught, Papale thrashes the few remaining belongings that Sharon left behind.
When Papale goes to the bar the next night, he meets a new co-bartender, Janet Cantrell, who is a Giants fan. Desperate for income in the aftermath of his wife's departure, Papale receives support from his friends and attends the tryout hosted at Veterans' Stadium. Out of several hundred Philadelphia residents attending the training facility, Papale performs well during the workouts. After the camp is over, Papale fails to start his car and Dick Vermeil comes by. He is impressed by Papale’s actions at camp and invites him to training camp to compete for a roster spot with the Philadelphia Eagles. Everyone at the bar becomes excited about the TV announcement that Papale will be joining the team. After work, Papale has an interview with a newscaster.
The next day, Papale exercises by jogging in the city and stops by at the empty home he tore up, where his former wife Sharon lived; then he interacts with his friends, telling them about joining the Eagles. His father, meanwhile, offers to let Vince stay with him. The following day, he goes to his first training camp with the Eagles. As the days of training camp progress, Papale endures a life full of hard work and disrespect from the other players. Papale goes out on a date with Janet one night, but didn't think he'd still be on the team. He says he's not sure he can start a new relationship at that time because he's focused on trying his best to make the team and she claims she didn't know it was a date. She goes to help out at the bar and he leaves. As training camp ends, the final roster spot is down to Papale and a veteran. Against his assistants' advice, Vermeil decides to give the spot to Papale.
As Papale’s career with the Eagles begins, the team loses all six preseason games and their regular season opener against the Dallas Cowboys. Papale plays poorly against the Cowboys and Vermeil faces pressure from the fans and media for the poor start. After the team returns to Philadelphia, Papale goes to the sandlot where he played with his friends several months before. He is invited to play, but he declines because of his upcoming Eagles game and watches for a few minutes. A rainstorm begins, and then Papale does join his pals and plays against another sandlot team to help his friends. During a wet and dirty game, Papale ends the game by throwing a touchdown pass. When he runs into Janet later, they speak briefly before passionately embracing and tumbling into Vince's home.
During the home opener against the New York Giants, Eagles fans are enraged about Janet’s appearance in a Giants shirt. In the locker room, Vince looks again at the note Sharon had left and tears it up. Papale opens the game by solo-tackling the kickoff returner inside the 15-yard line. After an up-and-down game, Papale gets downfield during an Eagles' 4th quarter punt to tackle the returner, forcing a fumble that he recovers and takes into the end zone for a touchdown, giving the Eagles their first win in Papale’s career. Eagles fans go wild with joy. As the film's end credits appear, media and actual footage show highlights of Papale’s career with the Eagles. Papale plays for the team for three seasons and eventually marries Janet while Vermeil succeeds in turning the Eagles into a winning team, culminating in an appearance in Super Bowl XV. | humor | train | wikipedia | They were only producers, but you wouldn't know it by the extent to which their names were featured.I thought the film looked good back then - some kind of "Matrix"/"Highlander" clone, maybe, but it still looked kinda interesting.
Well, I was wrong.From the opening - with this angelic warrior being pursued by, and then fighting, Billy Zane - the film only becomes worse and worse.
It copies "The Matrix" mercilessly - from the wannabe philosophy that stems throughout every scene to the slow-motion sword fights.Billy Zane gives an embarrassingly dull performance and the rest of the cast - mostly B-movie actors or TV actors - don't help any.The plot is silly to begin with.
The Shadow Warriors are trying to bring an end to the world - replace "Shadow Warriors" with any other bad guy name from another psycho-baddie movie and you've got the exact same plot.Billy Zane assembles together a group of warriors to help defend earth against the Shadow Warriors.The ending of the film is so laughable it's almost painful to watch.
OK, if you've got the chops to put "matrix-like action" on your movie poster then you either have a really incredible martial arts film or you have "Invincible".
At no point during this movie was there anything that even remotely resembled "matrix-like action" and the actors who play the martial arts studs all look like Ralph Macchio could probably stuff them in a locker.
Like most "martial arts" movies the plot is stodgy at best but this is hidden by the fact that the special effects were created by hamsters.
I rented Equilibrium and saw the previews for Invincible, and I said to myself, "Wow that looks really good!" Wow was I wrong, terrible acting, poor lighting, sad fights and the supporting roles made me want to vomit!
It isn't original but it looks pretty and the fight scenes adequate for a TV movie.
The whole "love will overcome all" is a good idea, but Os runs it into the ground to the point that he comes across as one of those fake happy lovely-dovey Mormon missionary types that makes most people nauseous.Judging from the commercials and the packaging, I expected this to be more of a martial arts movie.
The fighting relied a lot on wires, which is okay for a fairy-tale or a wuxia movie, but it just looked silly here.
Also, it wasn't hard to tell that the actors trained just long enough to pull this movie's few fight scenes off.
Mel Gibson I can forgive for being involved in this silly movie, but Jet Li ought to know better.
I caught a preview for this movie on TBS and vowed to watch after I saw Billy Zane starred.
I guess the story is really well known: There is a hero named Os played by Billy Zane (yes, it is astonishingly true, that this truly second rate performer was allowed to play the opponent of Leonardo Di Caprio in the worldwide blockbuster "Titanic"), who concentrates some comrades-in-arms to rescue the world and the human race from the evil namely the demon Slate.
Evil" movie, replete with characters you know virtually nothing about, Eastern philosophy & mysticism, & a healthy dose of (admittedly stunning) martial artistry & SPFX, yet for some reason, it works in spite of itself.That reason is BILLY ZANE.Zane portrays "Os", a "Shadowman" who renounces his Immortal life of Darkness & Evil when he is shown The Way.
The main point of conflict comes in when the two former friends must face-off against one another in mortal combat.As I stated earlier, despite the fact that this film is filled with cliches & either over-the-top or forced performances, Zane's gentle portrayal of Os somehow makes everything gel rather nicely, holding any absurdities together like a well-woven garment.
I honestly don't think this guy's capable of turning in a bad performance, regardless of the material he's given.Not necessarily a "must-see" movie, but an entertaining popcorn-muncher for a cold night in..
They have six days to stop Slate.The fact that this movie was produced by Jet Li and Mel Gibson is apparent from the beginning.
Non-stop action, incredible special effects and a story right out of the comic books make this a very enjoyable piece of movie mayhem.
(But both would eventually learn) The story is a very Asian style of telling, but was released at a time when Western culture still split "Asian" as either Bruce Lee or Karate Kid with no middle ground between them, and a total ignorance of everything else about that entire quarter of the world.If you have even a slim understanding of the Asian style of storytelling (AKA you know more than Naruto and wire-fu) you can find it to be a mediocre flick; the obvious cutting that would have been filled out in a series become glaring.pity; Zane had the skill and really took to the character well enough to make it a fun role..
The film also seems to have stolen ideas from the likes of Highlander, Mortal Kombat and even a little bit of Tomb Raider.I wouldn't usually get this upset about a bad movie but after reading some of the other reviews for the film I discovered that my American Brethren got to see it for free on TV, were as here in England the gits brought it out on DVD and I paid £3.75 to watch it.Stay away from this film, all that preaching about love and how it will set you free seems to encourage violence.I thinks that all I have to say.
One could assume that Jet and Mel met on the set of Lethal Weapon 4, except that Jet Li didn't speak a word of English untill almost six months later.Yet another thing: Billy Zane as a wise, sword-weilding martial artist?
The dialogue is thin, the directing os comepltely off the wall, and the plot seems to just go by the wayside as the director seems to think you just don't need some vital parts of the story explained to you.Overall I think this films prooves chos theory, there was no way one could predict this twisted masterpeice would even be produced.
Thank God he shaved it for the rest of the film.Luckily, that wasn't the worst thing about this film, although luck may have very little to do with this.So, you walk into a video-store and see "executive produced by Mel Gibson and Jet Li".
But i'll get back to that.You stick it in your DVD or video and low and behold : you're thinking : "WTF is going on up in here?"Granted the fight scenes are nicely done, although the slo-mo actions gets old after the fifth fight and you can actually see a little Jet-Li style stuffed in there ( dudes walking on walls and stuff).
Obviously Gibson and Li had little to do with this movie and their name got stuck on the box because the studio gave them money for it, it is NOT the best Martial-Arts Action Movie Ever like the box claims it to be, Billy should pick his projects better, Levy should stick with Dark Angel and all the other staff should get jobs at Mickey D's.On second thought, maybe Zane's haircut in the beginning of this film was the best bit..The critics were right.
just a bad rip off movie, i am always amazed how much money people have around to waste it on crap like this.
This has to be one of the most horrible TV Movies I've ever seen.OK, so, Os, this Shadowman turned Good by the White Warrior, and has to round up a few people to "Save the world", and each of them has some kind of element.
Pretty much the whole movie is just Os (played by Billy Zane) talking about love, and how love is going to defeat the Shadowmen...
In this film there are a few fight scences although they make up abou three minutes of a film that seems never-ending.If you are a Billy Zane fan, please, please do not watch this film, you will end up hating him.
Even though it had some empty scenes and the female character wasn't much of an actress, it covered it up with cool special effects and fantastic Jet Li action kung fu.
Even though Jet Li wasn't in it (he produced it along with Mel Gibson) I highly recommend this movie if you are a kung fu fan..
"Invincible" is an amazingly bad made-for-television movie, filled with poor acting and amateurish direction.
You'd think that the likes of Jet Li and Mel Gibson would be enough to propel this turgid mess into something better, but their producing credits are worth nothing more than screen time.
If you are fan of good martial arts movies, stay REALLY away from this one.
Billy Zane does a terrible job, I highly recommend not watching this movie.
Oz, played by Billy Zane (who's always fun to watch) has a unique outlook on the bad guys as he WAS a bad guy for the first few minutes of the movie.
I got up to the dream sequence with Ohs and Slade arguing philosophy like two slightly drunk college sophomores before I turned it off.The movie starts with a hackneyed "conversion" fight, all-too-short "gathering of the heroes" sequences, inexplicable bicycle rides, quasi-Buddhist/Christian philosophy, bad dialog, bad editing and bad acting from everyone but Billy Zane who came off as rather natural despite the unnaturalness of the part.You will watch and be amazed that the film got made and how Mel Gibson and Jet Li ever became associated with it.
The fighting scenes were really bad, using corny effects to create a feeling of "coolness", I swear this movie was just about looking good.
And that's not even the worst of it...Billy Zane tries gamely to make some of the junior school Zen, Love & Understanding dialogue sound like it's supposed to be all postmodern and ironic, but he's not fooling anyone.
But at the end of the day, nothing and nobody could make this script work.Let me put it this way: I watched Invincible in a double bill with Ticker, and left thinking Ticker was actually pretty good..
People shouldn't not like this movie for bad acting or whatever.
I don't need to know the ending to the film to give an accurate review mostly because the plot doesn't matter and it's clear that watching more would only sour my opinion more on it.So here's basically the breakdown: The acting's terribly ham-fisted at times.The fight scenes could have been worse but show pretensions clearly beyond the budget.The storyline, while vaguely interesting, is executed in such a way that hurts the teeth just to look at it.Almost everything in the film has obvious pretensions towards being a much better film than it was ever capable of being.What is good about this film is that there certainly was some potential to be a decent television Sci-Fi movie if handled properly.
Rather than either making the plot less mystical, or adjusting the tone of the movie to be more of a drama, the film tries so hard to approach films that far surpass it (Scenes directly echoed crouching tiger, the Matrix, and I'm sure many other films).Rather than taking the action into the realm of minimalism, the film decides to use special effects that only serve to further exclaim how little money this film was made for.
At least he seems to enjoy himself though, which is more than can be said for anyone unlucky enough to be watching this movie.The real problem with invincible is it's supposedly a martial arts film with little in the way of Martial Arts fight scenes.
To be fair though, there is a bit of sword fighting at the beginning and some kicking later on but these don't come as often as you'd like, interspersed with long, dull scenes of training and one very confusing and incredibly dull dream sequence where Zane pulls as many clichés as he can from every crevice of this butt hole of a film.
Yes, we're talking about the old "love conquers all" adage.The fight scenes themselves are hard to enjoy, far too short and ruined by stupidly edited camera effects probably designed to cover up the bad choreography.
1. There was ONE i think decent martial artist in this film, the rest of them were slow, as was the actual fighting.
WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO FIGHT.Anyway if like me u want a martial arts movie don't see this - 3/10 If you want a compelling lively story don't see this - 3/10 If u want to add this to 'films i have seen' then see it 3/10 for sheer underachievement and boredom.
The very first scene in the movie is that of the incredibly cheesy `white warrior' descending from above into the life of a bad guy to transform him into a hero; like we haven't seen that a thousand times before.
As one might guess, by the end of the movie (which came none to soon let me tell you) good does triumph over evil, and the world is made safe for mortal men.
It looks good from the television preview trailer, and they managed to instill enough interest for me to watch the film all the way through.
If you've never seen Crouching Tiger, Matrix, Highlander, Mortal Kombat, various hong kong kung-fu flicks, various action anime titles or John Woo movies, you MIGHT think this is a good movie.
All the film trailers made the movie to look better than it was.
Mel and Jet - what on earth were you thinking?When I saw the ads for this movie, I was thinking that it would be a good action flick with some great special effects.
It fell far short of my expectations.It was as if they were trying to imitate both the Matrix and the Highlander not only in the fight scenes but also in the story line as well.
If it was - shame on them, because it was poorly done.Two immortals, one good, one evil, but of course only one can exist - was much too reminiscent of "there can be only one" from the Highlander...And Billy sort of had Sean Connery's role in this movie.
Just like getting together with a whole bunch of inherently good guys to banish the evil one by learning to defeat him using hand to hand combat training (ala Matrix)...And they end up being the "ones" left to fight the "good fight" for all of human-kind because they hold the secret power - LOVE...nope, this just didn't add up.The combination of the two different movies just didn't work....Billy had the worst dialogue out of all the characters - it was completely contrived and hokey.
It was hard to get through.I definitely expected better from Mel and Jet. Sorry, but this was a bad movie all around..
Billy Zane gave a decent performance, but the plot was too big, and some of the exposition was too trite to save the movie.
Which is too bad because I know at least Byron Mann has martial arts experience, you would figure the other actors could have been of similar material, it's not like they were pulling a lot of big names for the "secondary" roles.
I don't know, maybe it was too ambitious for a TV movie, it seems like they just needed more time to get the fight scenes right.
The problem with the plot reminded me of the fatal flaw of Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within, and the fight scenes reminded me of badly done Matrix, like a superficial Hollywood attempt of the Hong Kong style, most of the look with none of the feel..
The storyline seemed interesting as well, combining my favourites of action and make-believe.The overall theme of Good and Love overcoming all evil is, one might say, an overused plot line but this had great potential.
"The Hangover") "The Invicibles" is the movie worth watching and +1 is for Billy Zane's good job.
Where they fight Bad guys with children's toys, poser acrobatics and sissy slaps, and wag-your-finger, spiritual blocking moves.Before-seen special effects permeate this arrangement of b-movie or otherwise unknown actors as they hunt for evil in search of the doomsaying "Tablet." Billy Zane puts on The Matrix's Morpheus' shoes and finds them impossibly big to fill out, seeking would-be heroes to assist him on his journey to retake the Tablet from Slate, whose performance in the movie could make one wonder why her never said "Mr. Anderson!" I've seen scripted scenes of martial arts sparring between friends that have been submitted on YouTube with more credibility than what this film could offer, and while those submissions generally contained no plot, they at least did not deceive me by having one like "Invincible's," that grazed so un-elegantly across the movie's surface.Terrible acting, useless karate gimmick poses, effects reminiscent of the early 90's, and I don't even have the heart to finish this sentence...
Now a soldier of good, he must fight the bad guys ("Shadowmen"), with the aid of the "Elements", who have come into the possession of some "Tablet" and threaten to destroy the Earth.If you're older than 6 and that sounds like potential...
Spoilers AheadWhen I saw the poster of an action flick with the names of Mel Gibson and Jet Li, I wanted to see the movie, and when I finally did, I was very disappointed.
I expected to see a film closely related to Mortal Combat, and it appeared to have some of those elements, i.e., Fantasy martial arts, Good vs.
I liked this movie the first time I saw it on TV. |
tt0954914 | Athidhi | An orphan boy, wanders through Delhi looking for a job. When selling balloons, he sees a girl whose name is Amrita and gives her a free balloon. A few days later, during a storm, Amrita finds the boy getting soaked and gives him an umbrella. The umbrella blows into a place nearby, where the Amrita's parents are headed. The boy stops their car and tells them about the dangerous path ahead destroyed by the storm. As the boy has rescued Amrita's parents, he gets adopted by them. They name the boy "Aditya"
One day, while driving Aditya to a hostel, they are stopped by a teenager, a psychopath, who mugs them, and shoots the parents. In his rage, Aditya lunges after the teen and manages to take the gun. Nearby witnesses see Aditya with a gun, and Amrita's dead parents, and think that Aditya killed them. The police arrest Aditya. Amrita also thinks that it was Aditya who killed her parents and starts to hate him and thinks that she will never see him again.
Fourteen years later, Aditya (now Mahesh Babu) gets out of jail, and goes in search of the psychopath murderer, and the girl. In Delhi, local goons are feared by Aditya, as he becomes a hurdle for their illegal operation. Once he runs across a girl named Amrita (Amrita Rao) chased by stalkers from her college. Amrita and Aditya meet many times. Amrita starts to like Aditya, but has to go back to Hyderabad before she can confess her love. When she tries to tell him that she is leaving, Aditya gets annoyed. He continuously tells her to leave him alone, and when she keeps asking to get some coffee, he slaps her. She runs away crying. Later Aditya goes to Amrita to apologize, but only finds her friend. She tells him that Amrita just wanted to tell him that she's leaving. They go to the cemetery to look for her. Amrita's friend then explains that a boy adopted by Amrita's parents killed them when she was young and Amrita goes to the cemetery to see their graves all the time. Aditya realizes that she was the same girl that he met in his childhood and leaves for Hyderabad to find her.
When Aditya also arrives in Hyderabad, and decides to stay with Amrita's family, he learns that a Mafia leader and kidnapper named Kaiser is feared there. Later, Atithi realizes that this was the psychopath teen who killed the girl's parents. Aditya stops two attempts by Kaiser to murder Amrita.
Meanwhile, Officer Ajay (Murali Sharma) is trying to track down Kaiser. Ajay dies in an explosion in his house, which was planned by Kaiser. Aditya figures out that Ajay's real name is Kaiser. Before Kaiser's house blew up, Kaiser managed to escape. When the MLA realizes that Ajay and Kaiser are the same person, the MLA, after succumbing to shock, dies from a heart attack. Aditya manages to kill many of Kaiser's men. Kaiser kidnaps Amrita and her little niece, and he then kills the little niece. Kaiser leads Amrita to a dungeon, calls Aditya, and tells him that he will kill Amrita if Aditya doesn't rescue her in 12 hours. Aditya kidnaps Kaiser's brother, and trades him for Amrita. Amrita is severely cut and stuck in a certain air tank, but is rescued. Kaiser is killed. Aditya and Amrita unite, and she realises he wasn't the one who killed her parents. | revenge, murder | train | wikipedia | cute couple, messy story. Manesh was looking gorgeous in this movie, but unfortunately it was a bit lame. I found the plot a little hard to catch on to, but it had some interesting twists. It was fast paced but I thought it was more exaggerated than the usual Telugu films - Telugu movies are already exaggerated (especially the fights), but this one was a little overboard, the hero had both too much intelligence and too much strength. And one thing I hate seeing in movies is then endings in which either the hero or the heroine (or in this case, both) is (are) badly injured but the couple starts to walk somewhere like their love is really enough to totally heal them physically. Kaizer mentioned that Amrita is about to die and she really looked like it, but then all of sudden she was fine when the story ended. That was the last drop of exaggeration for me. As for the love story, it was a nice one. Amrita and Manesh looked sweet together. The songs were enjoyable.But I wish I would have picked another movie instead of this one. Watch it at your own risk. You might feel your time was wasted.. Shot to waste money!. This movie has been based on a few lines of script stretched into three freaking whole hours of useless boring crap. Had it not been for Mahesh I would not have bothered to watch it to the end.Btw, Mahesh Babu looks horrible with his new hairstyle or whatever. I guess they tried to bring out a raw look to him which failed.Most of the characters in the film lack true reason. Again, this shows poor script at hand.Comedy, involving Brahmanandam and Sunil cannot be called so, since they don't even remotely tickle your funny bone.Its obvious throughout that the people behind the movie tried a mix of Pokiri and Athadu. We even see the same Pokiri villain in a ridiculous avatar. Added to that is a large pool of actors from bollywood, which includes the heroine. I gave this movie 3 only because of the excellent cinematography, and the songs (video+audio)Watch it only if you are an ardent Mahesh Babu fan. Such a waste of remaking Hollywood classics. People of TFI don't admit that their movies
are based on Hollywood scriptsit's just badly implemented remake of the usual suspects.
The name kaiser itself is from that moviekaiser soze .... |
tt1816705 | Vanished | Sara Collins vanishes from a dinner held in her honor. She was a teacher, and wife to Senator Jeffrey Collins. She had previously told her husband that she had a secret, but disappeared before she could reveal it to him.
The investigation into her kidnapping starts to probe secrets from the main characters. While Senator Collins is clean and desperately wants his wife returned, even payment of the ransoms demanded will not get her back. He paid both $5,000,000 in cash (plus public humiliation), then voted to confirm a Supreme Court nominee he hated, because he knew the nominee seduced under-aged girls.
What he did not know was that one of them was his daughter, Marcy, who may (or may not) have been pregnant by him. Marcy's secret was that she had been having an affair with the judge. She cut it off after being caught by Sara, but was later raped by him. Marcy believes she was poisoned to induce a miscarriage at the end of the series. The justice in question is compromised later, overruling the conviction of a Dead Sea scholar sentenced to death for murdering his wife, thus leading to the translations the conspiracy wanted.
Senator Collins' son, Max, had gotten into trouble over underage drinking. Sara urged Jeffrey to put him in a rehab facility. There, Max expressed a hatred for his stepmother, which was used against her by the conspiracy (his counselor was Quinn, who was a conspiracy member). The facility was one Sara had been checked into by her parents, and she escaped from, preventing a brainwashing. It was suggested that Sara was the only person who ever escaped the facility without brainwashing, and it might have been a factor in her kidnapping.
Senator Collins' ex-wife had confronted Sara over the birth of her child, who was being raised by her parents as a sister, instead of a granddaughter. She worked her way back into Jeffrey Collins's life via her children. She was dead broke and took a bribe from Collins' chief of staff (to help her daughter bail her boyfriend out of jail), but despite her hatred of Sara, never revealed the truth.
Sara went through torture and manipulation when she was in captivity. She was fed certain information, and was played with good-cop/bad-cop. The conspiracy fed her half-truths and statements taken out of context to make her believe that Jeffrey Collins took her kidnapping as opportunity to advance his career. Circumstance and the lies led her to flee to the one place she felt anonymous - the same place she fled the rehab facility once before, a small seaside town in Massachusetts, Gloucester, where she met a man on a fishing boat, who fathered her child.
FBI Agent Graham Kelton solved many aspects of the kidnapping, and even managed to contact the mysterious person leaving St. Nathan prayer cards. He found out that the person wanted the conspiracy undone more than Sara's rescue. He eventually solved the real ransom demand of the conspiracy, but after stopping the vote with a bioterrorist attack simulation, was shot and killed by one of the co-conspirators, before he can give any details.
FBI Agent Lucas takes over, and tracks down more leads, leading to a raid on a conspiracy site where dead sea scrolls were being photographed. However, while he gets very close to Sara a few times after she escapes, he is unable to unravel the false trail Sara left behind her as she escaped to her safe place with Peter Manning.
Ben Wilson, the boyfriend of Marcy Collins, was released on bond from Marcy, who believed his story. He still believed he was the father of Marcy's unborn child, and despite his innocence over prior events, was enraged by the rape of Marcy. He murdered her attacker in the end. If he got away with it is unresolved at the series end.
Peter Manning is a man searching for the love of his life, who one day vanished from Massachusetts, where he worked on a fishing boat. He sees her again as the wife of Jeffrey Collins. He still loves her, but his lead is classified as low priority. He embarks on a mission to find her. He finds his child, but can't find a way to make things right. He gives up in the end, and returns to his boat to find that Sara is there. It's the place she ran to before; where she could be anonymous and find love.
Judy Nash has faith in her story about Peter Manning fathering a child with Sara, but is cut off as she doesn't have the proof. While Peter got her proof that he was the father, there is no proof about the mother. Without Sara, there is no story.
The series ends with Jeffrey Collins in a family dinner with his ex-wife and his two children. Sara Collins, meanwhile, appears in the final scene aboard Peter Manning's boat. She says "I didn't know where else to go", and begins to explain about why she disappeared twelve years ago, and how she never wanted to go. Peter interrupts her, and says, "none of that matters now. You're home", and they embrace. The news shows no hope for the Dead Sea scholar, who the justice who Collins confirmed as part of the ransom being scheduled for execution (Collins compromised another justice). The Dead Sea Scrolls will not be interpreted (the main motivation of the conspiracy, who was after his release; they had kidnapped his wife as well). The FBI is left with no leads. | suspenseful, murder, paranormal, flashback, psychedelic, revenge | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0091642 | Nobody's Fool | Donald "Sully" Sullivan (Newman) is a worn yet spry hustler living in the peaceful, snowy northern New York state village of North Bath. He free-lances in the construction business, usually with his dim-witted friend Rub (Vince) by his side. He is often at odds with Carl Roebuck (Willis), a local contractor, suing him at every opportunity for unpaid wages and disability. Sully's one-legged lawyer Wirf (Saks) is inept, and his lawsuits are repeatedly dismissed. As a way to irritate him, Sully flirts with Carl's wife Toby (Griffith) openly at every opportunity (which she enjoys). He is a regular at the Iron Horse Saloon, where he often has drinks and plays cards with Wirf, Carl, Rub, and the town sheriff.
A running joke is the repeated theft of Carl's snowblower. Sully steals it to get back at Carl for his latest failed lawsuit. Carl steals it back, placing it in the yard at his construction business guarded by his doberman pinscher guard dog. Sully, after drugging the dog, steals it a second time. Carl takes it back a final time, and leaves the dog, who is now skittish due to his drugging, at Sully's childhood home for him to find.
Sully is a tenant in the home of the elderly Miss Beryl (Tandy), whose banker son Clive (Sommer) strongly urges her to kick him out and sell the house. Family complications of his own develop for Sully with a visit from Peter (Walsh), his estranged son who is a jobless professor at odds with his wife. While he and Sully reconstruct their relationship, Sully begins a new one with young grandson Will (Alexander Goodwin). Peter’s sudden everyday presence does not sit well with Rub, but Sully tells him that although Peter is his son, Rub is still his best friend. Meanwhile, Clive is on the verge of a lucrative deal to build an amusement park in North Bath. However, the deal unexpectedly falls through when the promoter turns out to be a con man, and Clive quietly skips town in shame since he used his bank's resources to help finance the amusement park.
After being jailed for punching a police officer named Raymer (Hoffman) who has been persecuting him, Sully's luck seems to be all bad. But his son and grandson start to warm up to him, and his fortune takes a turn for the better when his horse racing trifecta ticket wins. Even the lovely Toby expresses a willingness to leave Carl, mostly due to his constant womanizing, and run away with Sully to Hawaii. Sully realizes he can’t leave his grandson and thanks Toby for considering him, just before she leaves for the airport. In the end, Sully is pretty much back where he began, boarding at Miss Beryl's. But now he is a little richer, both financially and in his soul, he's a new dog owner, and he has become the picture of contentment. | romantic, flashback | train | wikipedia | null |
tt1374992 | Upside Down | The film starts with Adam telling the story of his two-planet home world, unique from other planets or planetary systems as it is the only one that has "dual gravity". This phenomenon of dual gravity allows the two planets to orbit each other in what would otherwise be impossibly close proximity. There are three immutable laws of gravity for this two-planet system:
All matter is pulled by the gravity of the world that it comes from, and not the other.
An object's weight can be offset using matter from the opposite world (inverse matter).
After a few hours of contact, matter in contact with inverse matter burns.
The societies of the two worlds are segregated by law. While the upper world (Up Top) is rich and prosperous, the lower (Down Below) is poor. Up Top buys cheap oil from Down Below and sells electricity back to Down Below at higher prices. A person from Down Below going Up Top (or having contact with anyone from Up Top) is strictly forbidden and can be punishable by incarceration or death. People from Up Top regularly visit Down Below to experience novelties like dancing on ceilings. The only physical connection linking the two worlds is the headquarters of the "TransWorld" company.
Adam lives in an orphanage in Down, having lost his parents in an oil refinery explosion. The only living relative he has is his great-aunt, whom he visits every week. His great-aunt has a secret recipe for flying pancakes using pollen from pink bees which gather pollen from both worlds. The recipe has passed through generations and will be inherited by Adam.
As a child, Adam secretly climbs a mountain that gets very close to Up. There he meets Eden, a girl from Up. Years later in their teens, they are in a relationship. They meet on the mountains and Adam uses a rope to pull Eden towards Down, and they head to the woods for a stroll. They are later discovered, and while Adam frantically releases Eden back to her world, he catches a bullet in his arm and drops her. Helpless, he watches Eden lying motionless on the ground as blood oozes from her head. When he returns home, his aunt Becky is arrested and her home is put to the torch.
Ten years later, Adam is now working on creating an anti-gravity product using his great-aunt's recipe. The recipe allows matter to feel both gravitational fields at once. Adam is developing it as a cosmetic product for face-lifts. Then he sees Eden on TV and learns she is alive and works at TransWorld. He finally works out his formula and gets hired by TransWorld to develop the face-lift cream. Adam's plan is to find Eden in TransWorld. In his office he meets Bob, a TransWorld employee from Up who becomes his friend after he helps him obtain rare stamps from Down. Bob offers to help him contact Eden.
With the help of Bob, Adam meets Eden by putting Up-material in his clothes to disguise himself as a worker from Up, using Bob's name as his own. But Eden doesn't recognize him because of amnesia from the accident as a teen. The Up-material in Adam's clothes starts to burn so he has to return to Down. Later on, Bob is fired but as he leaves, he secretly gives Adam his ID to help him exit the TransWorld building and into Up. Later, by calling Eden through Bob's phone, Adam manages to get a date.
Meanwhile, his cosmetic cream becomes of great importance to the company. While Adam is doing a presentation of the cream, Eden enters the lecture hall and discovers his true identity. After she flees the auditorium Adam runs to find her but Bob's ID, having been terminated, lands him in trouble. He escapes to Bob's house. He shows him that mixing liquids from both gravity fields can make a hybrid solution that resists both gravitational fields and simply floats between the two. Adam then reveals that he didn't give TransWorld the main secret ingredient of his compound, leaving the company unable to manufacture the product without him.
With Bob's help, he goes back to the restaurant where he met with Eden before and finds out she has begun to recover old memories of him. But the police arrive and he has to run. Upon returning to his planet he goes to the mountain top where he met Eden. Eden comes to find him and they meet again as they did long ago. But police are on their trail and, as they fail to escape, Eden is arrested while Adam falls the remaining distance between worlds. But he survives because of a vest containing inverse matter which he still had strapped to his torso. TransWorld agrees to drop the charges against Eden if Adam gives them his formula and never contacts Eden again.
Now Adam has gone back to his old life, believing he will never see Eden again. But Eden, not so easily dissuaded, goes to Bob for help. Bob finds Adam and surprises him by showing he can stay Down without the help of the opposite-matter accoutrements; Bob has been able to use Adam's methods to create a way to negate the effect of gravity. Bob tells him he had purchased the patent of his beauty cream before TransWorld attempted to do so. He finishes by informing him that Adam also has a "date" with someone.
The film ends with Eden revealing she has become pregnant with twins, and the camera zooms far out to reveal towering skyscrapers on both sides, showing that both sides have become prosperous, as well as children from both sides interacting by playing basketball. | romantic | train | wikipedia | Since it's main point of drama was in the romance and even THAT was awfully put together, all in all, it was flop.However, it was an okay watch and again, the visuals of such a disorientating world totally threw me off whack.
For the next ten minutes after the movie, I felt like things should be floating upward and I should be upside down...it was weird but showed that I actually did get immersed into the world.My recommendation?
Of course, with fantasy films like this that operate within its own set of rules, you usually have to ignore the implausibilities and just go along for the ride.However, the story is a whole different matter.
With the film's over-reliance on narration, "Upside Down" leaves little time for its characters to develop which consequently makes the story as a whole feel contrived.For example, the love interest that grows between the film's two main characters comes out of nowhere.
Furthermore, the film lacks any real climax, so the last 20 minutes where everything should build up to a resounding resolution, instead, just fizzles out to an anti-climatic, deus-ex-machina-like ending as if the story didn't know how else to end."Upside Down" has a great idea that should have been a lot better than it ended up being.
The film's setting is magnificently beautiful, there are a lot of stunning ideas and images and the main story is good enough to make the two-planet world look real.
It would still be worth watching if you're one of those people who doesn't care about the story even if its flaws are inevitable, but it still deserves something better.Upside Down is visually breathtaking but it didn't go beyond that.
This film is a love story set in a world where there are two worlds separated by different gravities.On the surface, "Upside Down" is about a man from down below falling in love with a woman from the world above.
Were it not a visual masterpiece, I would have turned off the film within the first minute.Upside Down also veers into Candyland many times where things get so sticky schmaltzy sweet that I had to fast-forward to avoid having to inject insulin.
A lot of time and effort is sunk into explaining this concept, which seems like wasted effort because not only is it mostly self- evident, but the finer laws (like the idea that matter from one world bursts into flames after an hour on the other) are often broken without consequence as the plot gradually develops.
Of course, Adam, the poor orphan kid from Down Below that seems to come straight out of a Dickens' novel, meets Eden, the posh girl from Up Top. Just looking at the two characters' names, you realize that there is still a lot of work to do before Science-Fiction finds scriptwriters worthy of it.
This movie is a plagiarism of the award-winning short of similar story except it adds on tons of ridiculous cheese elements and found two good looking actors for the main character.
It doesn't explain itself from a physic stand point and it doesn't feel romantic because it is simply too long to play the cute idea card - besides because the movie really only use the idea as a plot, not the center piece (which in the short it is a metaphor of relationships - that often bounds two very different persons together), and since the world is so big, too much distractions are involved, questions and conflicts become about life and death, instead of cute and romantic - the drama is too intense, and makes no sense.
Furthermore, Jim Sturgess and Kirsten Dunst both give excellent performances as the star crossed lovers, never letting the in addition to a lovely turn from Timothy Spall.
The plot makes no sense and if you are more than 5 years old, knows that planets aren't flat and that to have a sunrise/sunset they need to rotate in some way then this movie is definitely not for you.
I consider myself pretty tolerant to the artistic expression, reasonably open minded and full of good will toward movies that try to be something different and approach well exploited story lines from different angles.In this case, "Upside Down" seemed like a very interesting piece, presenting the concept, of two planets orbiting like siblings, in their direct vicinity.
You can come up with any idea and actually sell it to the viewers, providing, that you put enough work into it to make it plausible and logical.In this case, "Upside Down" script writers decided they don't need anything else than the initial concept of two worlds being opposite to each other.
Even though, it is impossible even to think about two planets not colliding with some magnificent support of gravity, I truly enjoyed the concept.Now, the story is kinda weak but it appeals and aptly complements the concept of Upside nwoD.Jim is extraordinarily charming, Kirsten is okay but sweet and Timothy's character is very adorable.
Upside Down is nothing more than Gattaca meets Romeo & Juliet with unforgivably bad special effects.Of course the film, because the screenplay is original, didn't stand a chance to be brought to life by a studio with their endless resources, so being a high-concept sci-fi, it's going to lack great special effects.
At the end of the day, this type of things makes you think about the whole world and the universe, even in the love, this is the what movies are all about, leaving people think at the end of the movie, the other people that think a waste of time and money, I think they are crazy....
This is a movie you definitely have to see on a big screen to appreciate the outstanding images of that world.Overall, if you are tired from all violence and action and want something original with some nice romance (thank God they didn't overdone with the romance), you have to see "Upside Down" 2012..
I can not say that the film is completely lived up to my expectations.Think of all the visuals will love movies, because each frame is similar to an independent picture, and it is no exaggeration and sarcasm.
Its hard to not love this film when the visuals do such a great job making up for the holes in the story.
This is one movie that was completely fresh and unique, sure the love story has been done hundreds of times but the setting in which they do it is the first time I've seen anything like that.
I won't tho because the scifi concept and visuals were used to just the right effect.So whilst i knew i was watching a romantic film, i still got sucked in and whilst i will agree with the previous review that the dialog isn't 120%, to me it really didn't matter as the 'mix' of music, dialog, story and effects were almost spot on.If you're more of a scifi fan than a romantic fan then this will pull the two worlds closer together.
Overall taking out the visuals, you just end up with a poor boy meets rich girl love story, and that has been told at least a thousand times over..
If one moment before - during the short Adam's monologue when he said he want to do the best he can in his world - I was starting to believe foreseeing sort of metaphorical meaning of the movie, this impression vanished immediately when Eden make her announce...
The story, however, we have seen a thousand times.The only difference with this take is that Kirstan Dunst and Jim Sturgess struggled to make the love story feel real - even though the CGI and effects team worked their hardest to seamlessly blend the cinematography into something believable.Perhaps it was the writing, or the actors themselves, but without the human element the love -> lost -> love story just seemed to go through the motions and I didn't feel any emotional attachment to either character, nor really cared about what happened at the end.
I even found myself skipping fast forward through some of the scenes, as my interest was waning.So in summary, the special effects and unique world wasn't enough to make this movie shine, the story is nothing you haven't seen before and the actors struggled to show any real connection to the audience..
And Jim Sturgess plays the love swept dreamer equally wellI just think it's refreshing to see a film go back to the roots of story telling, so we can all just relax and enjoy a great movie that leaves some welcome room for our own imaginations.
And conveniences are what Solanas enjoyed most in his film when he discovered he'd soon be found out, that the logic he placed didn't become the opportunity for a special tale to be told, but an albatross around the neck.Jim Sturgess plays Adam, the man from Down who falls in love with Kirsten Dunst's Eden from Up, whom he met when they were young kids atop their respective mountain peaks, and breaking multiple rules just to hang out together.
The special effects will set to wow, especially when it remembers that Adam has a specific career requirement in the development of an anti-ageing cream, with a key ingredient that will be crucial to the plot.Jim Sturgess and Kristen Dunst didn't need too much time to make it believable that they could be lovers separated by distance and social standing.
But Solanas' handling of the story, and film, left too many gaping narrative gaps that would short change the audience, especially its ending when the director felt that pulling the plug on a tale he has no idea how to finish, would be the best move.
But his main reason for being there is to reconnect with the woman he loves (and don't think the two characters don't wind up living up to their allegorical names in the end).Written and directed by Juan Solanis, the French/Canadian "Upside Down" is one of those rare science fiction films that actually expands the limits of one's imagination.
And even amidst all the dystopic "Brave New World"/"1984"/"Fahrenhiet 451" - style tropes and trappings, Solanis has managed to create one of the most thoroughly captivating love stories we've encountered in quite some time.A movie not to be missed, and, when once seen, never to be forgotten!.
Maybe I missed something in the cheesy, over dramatic narrations.At any rate, if you're in to overly cheesy, mushy, sentimental love stories then you'd probably like this movie.
In all honesty i think the main reason why I enjoyed the movie so much was mainly because of how much I fell in love with the visuals and the concept and how it could've been better.
'UPSIDE DOWN': Four Stars (Out of Five)A French-Canadian romantic fantasy film about a world where two planets exist directly over top of each other, each with it's own separate gravity and inverted life.
The film is sort of a 'Romeo and Juliet' style love tale with Jim Sturgess and Kirsten Dunst playing star-crossed lovers, each from a different planet, who met as kids high atop their planet's mountains.
The movie is a bit of a mess and doesn't come to a satisfying conclusion but it's definitely worth the watch for romance and visual effects fans.The science of the movie makes no realistic sense at all, which is why it's better classified as a fantasy film than science fiction.
This doesn't stop our hero, Adam (Sturgess), from using inverse matter to venture over to the other world in an effort to find his lost love, Eden (Dunst), after being separated from her for over ten years.
I would say after watching this movie, i can definitely say it's got to be one of the best romantic fantasy films i have ever seen.
The director/writer Juan Solanas has done such a great job telling a whole narrative in standard movie time, where every character gets to play just the right amount of time it needs to complete the story.
They meet and fall in love across the great divide, and herein lies our story of forbidden love.The science fiction aspect is a little iffy since there are scientifically impossible problems with gravity situation as it is explained in this film.
It was nice to finally see Timothy Spall out of his Pete Pettigrew make-up (in the Harry Potter films) in his featured role as Adam's friend Bob. I think this is simply a nice little romantic movie that was tried ts best to imagine and create an original setting.
This movie makes into my list of evergreen movies, i have seen it 5 to 6 times.Ten cheers for the director, Simple concepts written in totally different way like rich & poor are upside and down below, The Graphics are Visually Stunning best of all this the reason i can enjoy watching this movie again and againDo watch this movie especially with your partner, because the movie is dam romantic and will really make you feel it.Very few movies are as good as this.I would give this movie 10 on 10.
As teenagers the poor Adam (Jim Sturgess) fell in love with the rich Eden (Kirsten Dunst) even though they are on opposite sides.
The visuals in the film are incredibly striking and just take a look at the work place and how the two sides (the rich on top, the poor on bottom) are perfectly used and the way Solanas uses this to tell the story is perfectly handled.
It just takes way too long for this thing to really warm up and often times you're wanting to know more about the two different cities and you really don't care about the love story.
A Visual Spectacular and Imaginative Sci Fi Love Story.
Unlike an older version of super-powered Superman or the Spiderman II love encounters or even the visually ground-breaking and more action-thrilled Avatar ( 2009), towards the end of Upside Side there is a romance scene that is so naturally provocative, perhaps one of the best scenes that captured the real beauty of the unique photographic magical essence of movie-making as an art medium.
Ultimately, that's where things finish.What we end up with is a pretty bog standard Romeo and Juliet-style story of forbidden love, albeit one told in a rather unique setting.So, enjoy the visuals and some solid acting, but that's really all the film has going for it.
But it is set with a very original idea and has incredibly beautiful visuals which make one enjoy the movie from the beginning until the end.
I just took it as a fantasy world where rules don't matter and enjoyed it all the way.Acting is not the main part of the movie but all actors do a great job.
I especially liked Timothy Spall in his supporting role of a guy from the upper world helping the two lovers to connect.Guess it was one of the movies people either love or hate.
but this movie did a good job at pulling you into the fantasy world of Adam and Eden.
an admirable movie for the grace of telling the story, for the precise details, for the flavor of fairy tale, for the sensibility who has in Jim Sturgess the perfect actor , for the differences between Up and Down, for memories about other films, for the hope.
Talented cast in Jim Sturgess and Kirsten Dunst who do their best here too but I still found the Romeo and Juliet-esqe romance lacking and the story itself kind of dull once the visual gimmick of opposite gravity wore off.The film sees Jim Sturgess as Adam, a man from an impoverished planet who falls in love as a teenager with Eden (Kirsten Dunst).
After being separated by interplanetary-border patrol agents Sturgess risks everything to reunite with his love, taking a job at a vast corporation whose towering headquarters connect their planets.I can see though how some people will think this movie is absolutely brilliant or life changing like Brad Pitt's weird (Tree Of Life) or that Hugh Jackman thingy (The Fountain) but it didn't work for me that way.The visuals are gorgeous and unique though and I also enjoyed Timothy Spall 12/1/15.
at its simplest, its a simplistic movie with beautiful 3D up-down set pieces and starring Hot Kirsten Dunst(tm) and Wormtailits baffling to me that people would want to argue that the scientific aspects are not consistent...the consistent part is that its a classic love story, and everything is tailored to that end...some of the visual aspects are quite memorable as wellyou might say that some of the scenes with up-and-down at the same time are unrealistic but hey, its a movie :-)in conclusion, i feel this is well worth a watch, at least for those that convey a reasonable suspension of disbelief lol...check it out :-).
The explanation of this world needed to be much clearer.The love story between Kirsten Dunst and Jim Sturgess is sweet, she is from above who met him, the boy from below when they were children.
Follow along the same line of thought when watching this movie, and I think you'll find it to be a weird but sweet fantasy of a love story; visually wondrous, and something you could watch with children, too (I would have ADORED this movie, as a kid), though maybe not children who are very, very young.I would suggest throwing the rules of 'our world' out completely, here.
Upside Down is a romance between two people of opposite worlds in a imaginative setting.The good.
I was excited to watch it.Very well produced SciFi. This is one movie that was completely fresh and unique, sure the love story has been done hundreds of times but the setting in which they do it is the first time I've seen anything like that.If you're more of a scifi fan than a romantic fan then this will pull the two worlds closer together.Saw This Movie and made your life upside down for a couple hours .. |
tt0215023 | Padayottam | The Kolathiri Raja (Thikkurisi Sukumaran Nair) is a prosperous ruler of Northern Kerala. Prince Udayan (Prem Nazir), Raja's nephew, is handsome, brave and intelligent than Devan (Madhu), Raja's elder nephew. The King named Udayan as his successor to the throne along with marriage of his daughter Princess Parvathi (Lakshmi), who was in deep love with Udayan. This has dashed the hopes of Devan, who secretly admired and longed to marry Parvathi.
On the other hand, 2 nobles of court, Kammaran (Mammootty) and Perumana Kurup (N. Govindan Kutty) were upset by Udayan's ascension. Cashing on Devan's frustrations, Kammaran made Devan against Prince Udayan. For this, Kammaran used Kompan Dacoits, who were frequent raiders in many villages, to stage a royal pardon, sought presence of Prince Udayan in his position as Crown Prince for signing the peace treaty. Without knowing as a honey trap laid by Kammaran and Kurup, Udayan drove to Kompan's camp, only to fall in the trap laid. However, news flashed in the country as Prince Udayan betrayed Kolathiri Raja and killed some of the Raja's men. This made the Raja furious, who declared Udayan as a traitor and cancelled the marriage.
Kompan instructs his men to kill Udayan. However, they decided to sell him as a slave to a cruel captain of a slave ship. Thus, he became a slave. While as a slave, he meets another slave, Kunjali (Nellikode Bhaskaran), from whom he learnt the death of Kolathiri Raja and his queen at Arakkal Ali Raja's boat camp by forces arranged by Kammaran and Kompan. Kunjali was the trusted slave of Ali Raja, who tried to save the Kolathiri Raja and his queen, but was killed by Perumana Kurup. He saved Ali Raja's daughter, Lalia, with the help of his men. However, he could not escape himself from the Kompan's men, who sold him as slave to Kapithan's (the captain) ship. From Kunjali, Udayan came to know the place where the treasures of Ali Raja and his daughter were taken to. In the meantime, Prince Devan married Princess Parvathi and became the new Kolathiri Raja. However, the Royal crown and staff were missing.
After some years, Udayan and his fellow slave prisoners staged a coup in the ship, killing the captain and releasing themselves. Udayan ran away, became a rich Arab merchant after finding the lost treasures of Ali Raja and his daughter Lalia (Poornima Jayaram). Both decided to make a return to Kolathiri Kingdom in disguise to make their revenge. They return to the Kolathiri Kingdom in a floating palace as an Arab Prince and Princess. Years made people to forget Udayan and no one was able to recognize him in his new attire and lifestyle, except Queen Parvathi, who understood him just at a glimpse.
King Devan and Queen Parvathi has a son, Prince Chandra (Shankar) who fell in love with Laila. Meanwhile, Udayan was hatching a plot to trap Perumana Kurup, after coming to know that the crown and staff of Kolathiri Raja were in his custody, as King Devan declared it missing. Udayan approached Perumana Kurup and let him know that he is interested in purchasing rare jewels and crowns, at an astronomical price. Perumana Kurup brought the crown and staff out of hiding to sell it. However, he was caught red-handed by the public and brought before trial. At the trial, he declared that the old Raja had given the crown and staff to him, for attempting to rescue the king from attack and he challenged the prosecutors that they have no evidence against him for betrayal and robbery. It was at this moment Lalia enters into court room to declare her true identity as Princess Laila – the heir apparent of Ali Raja - who was the sole eyewitness to the incident. This made Perumana Kurup to commit suicide when he tries to run away.
Udayan's second target was Kammaran. Kammaran is the new finance minister of the state. The kingdom was facing extreme financial crisis due to mismanagement and corruption. Kammaran advises the king to seek financial assistance from the visiting Arab prince. Devan commissions Kammaran to hold talks with Arab Prince. Kammaran pays visit at the Udayan's palace to seek finance without understanding his true identity. Udayan refused to finance rather says that he would finance if Kammaran becomes king. This offer made Kammaran greedy and he hatches a plan to trap Devan similar to the way by which he trapped Udayan earlier. In the meantime, Udayan double-crosses Kammaran by sending a message to the Devan directly that he is ready to finance. This made Devan suspicious of Kammaran and secretly through his spies he understands the plot his close friend Kammaran made to trap him.
Kammaran repeats the old strategy with assistance of the Kompan Dacoit who asked the king to come directly with a tribute in order to prevent an attack. Devan along with a few soldiers handpicked by Kammaran went to Kompan's camp with a treasure chest. However, much to their surprise instead of tribute soldiers were hiding inside the chest who attacked Kompan and killed Kammaran's soldiers. In meantime, a large army of Devan stormed into the place, routing Kammaran's plans. Devan's army tried to capture Kammaran, but he was rescued by Udayan's soldiers. It was in Udayan's camp Kammaran understood the true identity of Udayan and he was fired by Udayan's soldiers.
Udayan's final revenge is now against Devan and he was planning on that. In the meantime, Prince Chandran through his close friend Kannan (Mohanlal) who was Kammaran's son came to know the double cross made by Udayan. He understood it was Udayan who spoiled the relationships between Kammaran and Devan and challenged Udayan for a public duel, which Udayan accepts. That night a mysterious lady figure enters into Udayan's palace, who was Queen Parvathi, pleading for her son's life to Udayan. Udayan refuses as he said that it was Prince Chandran declared duel against him and he can't quit it. Queen Parvathi said that she understood it was Udayan in disguise and pleaded him considering her love earlier. Udayan promises that he won't kill Chandran.
Prince Chandran saw his mother coming out of Udayan's Palace, which made him furious. He questioned his mother. It was then revealed by Paravathi to Chandran that he is actually Udayan's son born to Parvathi. This made Chandran surrender to Udayan while at the duel. Hearing his son's surrender without a fight made King Devan furious who went to Udayan's palace to challenge him. It was there, for first time after his betrayal, Devan saw Udayan, which made him to fall down. When Udayan was about to kill Devan, Parvathi rushes and stops him saying that Devan has paid for his sins by raising up Chandra despite of knowing that he was the son of Udayan. This made Udayan to forget his revenge and he forgives Devan. He decides to leave. Hearing that the king has fallen, the Kompan dacoits raided the palace. As the king had fallen and attack was unexpected, the Kolathiri forces were overrun by the Kompan Army. However, timely intervention of Udayan's army killed Kompan and all his men. He took the crown and gave it to Devan and blessed all of them. When Devan asked Udayan to stay back, he said he has to go back. However, he gave his stepdaughter Lalia to Chandran who was in love with her. | revenge | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0382810 | Little Fish | Little Fish is about Tracy Heart (Cate Blanchett), a former heroin addict who is desperately trying to escape her past and achieve her goals and dreams. Tracy lives with her mother (Noni Hazlehurst) and brother in the Little Saigon area (Cabramatta) in Sydney, Australia, where heroin is readily available.
She is in need of money to become a partner in the video store that she works in, but her loan applications are repeatedly rejected by finance providers, as a result of her past criminal record, poor repayments of credit card debt, history of drug use and lack of collateral. Tracy lies to both her mother and her boss at the video store, pretending she has received the loan. This is one of the recurring themes of the movie, the casual ways people lie to each other for convenience.
Tracy is trying to help her drug addicted stepfather and former NRL star Lionel (Hugo Weaving) to kick his heroin addiction. After a four-year absence in Vancouver, her former boyfriend Jonny Nguyen (Dustin Nguyen), also a former heroin addict, has come back into her life. Jonny, who now dresses in business suits, claims to have employment as a stockbroker at a large firm and suggests he may be able to obtain the money Tracy desires through share trading. The romance between Tracy and Jonny is rekindled.
Upon visiting Jonny's alleged workplace, Tracy discovers Jonny has lied to her and is not in fact employed as a stockbroker. Jonny has become involved in a drug deal with her brother Ray, and Tracy also chooses to become involved in the deal as she sees this as the only means of providing the finance she needs to become a partner in the video store.
Tracy, Ray and Jonny set out to execute the deal, which ends in tragedy. Tracy's courage and deep love for those she cares about are notable in the climactic scenes of the film. | murder, violence, flashback, insanity, melodrama, tragedy, revenge | train | wikipedia | Tracy (Cate Blanchett) lives with the legacy of her former addiction, faced with temptation to fall back to her old ways, and constantly hitting a brick wall in her attempts to start her own business and escape her stagnant existence.
Rowan Woods' previous film, "The Boys" (1997) had a certain detachment as he examined the psychology of the perpetrators of a particularly nasty crime - watching it was like looking at bugs through a microscope, though it did feature a truly brilliant performance by David Wenham.
In this film from a script by Jacqueline Perske he takes a warmer and certainly a lighter look at some rather unprepossessing people living in the south-western suburbs of Sydney - specifically Cabramatta.Tracey is a former heroin addict, clean for the last four years but with a less than perfect credit record, who is trying to buy a share in the video shop she is working in so she can expand into the internet gaming business (hey, isn't that illegal in Australia?).
Her Vietnamese-Australian ex-boyfriend Johnny suddenly arrives on the scene after four years away and is soon involved in a drug deal with her one-legged (and rather stupid) brother Ray. The "Little Fish" of the title turn out to be those little plastic fish than come with soy sauce inside them in East Asian restaurants, recycled to contain amphetamines, but it could equally describe most of the characters.It's all very complicated and to be honest the plot is a bit of a monkey puzzle I have the feeling there might be a few holes in it - but the film is really about the struggle to climb out of the mire.
Martin Henderson is a wonderful dumb Ray.Perhaps the most impressive feature of the film is the up-close and personal photography (just about every scene looks like it was done with a hand-held camera) combined with some very imaginative fade-in and fade-out.
Director Rowan Woods and his collaborators have crafted a totally absorbing urban drama about complex homosapiens whose lives have been compromised by drugs and various addictions.Cate Blanchett is Tracy, the film's lynch-pin, a Western suburbs girl whose ambitions to get ahead are thwarted by financial and personal skeletons from her past.Scribe Jacqueline Perske manipulates a tangled web of characters ranging from Sam Neil's retiring drug baron Brad to Hugo Weaving's failed yuppie junkie Lionel.
Noni Hazlehurst, in a riveting performance, plays family matriarch Janelle, a woman so crippled by regret and betrayal, she can hardly stand upright.The tone is a few degrees lighter than Woods' brilliant "The Boys" and the Cabramatta milieu is broader, but this is still a beautifully balanced character piece with top notch performances and a restrained third act that avoids the usual clichés.Supporting turns by Susie Porter (as Jenny) and Joel Tobeck (as Moss) are exceptional.Though some climactic clarity might have been helpful, this is, nevertheless, emotionally graphic and pictorially intense cinema..
The cinematography is wonderful, the use of many washes raise the mood and tension to higher levels, tightening the atmosphere of depression.This has a stellar cast; Cate Blanchett, Hugo Weaving, Noni Hazlehurst, Sam Neill, Lisa McCune, Martin Henderson and Dustin Nguyen all give strong performances, not a single flaw in the acting.
Hazlehurst brings a performance so shockingly different, this is not the Nomi you know from 'Play School'.The only thing i felt was wrong with Little Fish is its just abit to long.
Cate Blanchett plays Tracy, an Australian woman in a Sydney suburb tempted back into the world of drug dealing after suffering a prior tragedy, years ago.
She has some friends, some family, a cute little job in a video store and generally gets on well with life following her prior excursion into the world of the 'don't go there'.But complications arise and the film begins to loose its focus around about the hour mark.
The characters in this film are cardboard and uninteresting, most of the time the film will be more interested in giving them funky sounding ring-tones than developing them beyond mere people who stand and talk for minutes on end.
One character wants to get a new floor for her apartment; Tracy herself wants to open a shop in the said area and the general plot goal throughout is to generally avoid the drugs business and stay away from the wrong people how exciting.
Jonny (Nguyen) is an ex-flame and a somewhat boring love interest that slows the film down needlessly; the scenes around Lionel and constant reminder of his past glories are old after the first time and after pottering about with Tracy for a long while whilst revolving around her past drug problem and how 'stable' she actually is, it just gets tiresome.The film throws in a lot of unneeded shots of Tracy swimming and the romantic interest of Jonny gives Dustin Nguyen an excuse to show us his muscles (the film was written by a woman, mind) but the underwater shots exist to merely force the film into the realm of the 'artistic' and the inserted TV footage is a silly attempt at getting the film labelled post-modern.
You can detest and love her, feel sympathy and disdain and find by movie's end you're aware that she could so easily be you.Included in the cast as perennials the likes of Noni Hazlehurst, Lisa McCune and Sam Neill all played sound parts but not a patch on the leads.
As Cate Blanchett said herself, 'Little Fish' is about the people between the middle class and lower class, those who are struggling with their daily lives and are largely ignored.
This film is about a woman who tries to get her life back on track after 4 years of heroin addiction.I find the plot confusing, and the story poorly told.
Hugo Weaving whose amazing performance in V For Vendetta I saw just before,Cate Blanchett who is always worth watching and admiring, Sam Neill...
Writer Jacqueline Perske and Director Rowan Woods chalk up another successful Australian film in LITTLE FISH, an intense, very personal drama about how illegal drugs affect communities, families and individuals.
The story begs patience from the viewer as it is gratefully one that does not spell everything out for the viewer, but instead introduces the characters slowly and with hints of backgrounds that bring them to the moments of crisis the time-frame of the film uses.Taking place in the Little Saigon area of Sydney, Tracy Heart (Cate Blanchett) is a recovered junkie who lives with her mother Janelle (Noni Hazlehurst) and partial amputee brother Ray (Martin Henderson), each trying to make ends meet in a life previously destroyed by drug addiction.
Everything comes to a head when 1) Tracy is desperate without her needed bank loan, 2) Tracy's Vietnamese ex-lover Jonny (Dustin Nguyen) returns from Vancouver where his family sent him to avoid the persecution of rehab in Sydney, 3) Brad retires leaving Lionel without a source of drugs or love and Lionel is replaced by a quasi-normal Steven (Joel Tobeck) who kicks the last part of the film into a spin.
There are no solutions to anyone's problems: things just happen and the characters respond in the best way they can with the ominous cloud of drug addiction shading their lives and futures.The script is terse and smart and the direction is relentlessly realistic and well paced.
Cate Blanchett gives a sterling portrayal of the very complex Tracy, and Hugo Weaving, Noni Hazelhurst, Sam Neill, Dustin Nguyen, and Martin Henderson are superb.
Hugo Weaving and Sam Neill are brilliant in roles that have borrowed much from Oz sporting and media characters, Noni Hazelhurst is convincing as a suburban mum weighed down by lack of love and betrayal.
Having all our great Australian actors coming back to make an Australian film does not automatically make a good film, and in this case it certainly hasn't.Performances by Hugo and Cate while good, did not make up for a generally average, unoriginal script and storyline..
It appears that the car was driven by the boyfriend.Nothing interesting or original or entertaining.In addition, it appears that Cate was a former junkie and who appears to be her old man wants help getting drugs because he also is badly hooked.Just crap and more crap.Good actors don't make a bad screenplay a good movie..
Cate Blanchett, Hugo Weaving, Dustin Nguyen, Sam Neill, everyone acts their head off, but to no avail.
Little Fish, the 2005 film from Australian director Rowan Woods is an intimate drama that follows the life of Tracy Heart portrayed by Cate Blanchett and her family and close friends.
Blanchett puts in another strong performance as Tracy, once again transforming into the character and letting the audience join her to the film's conclusion.
All the performances are outstanding -- but the casting (particularly of Cate Blanchett as an x-junkie) feel reminiscent of masterworks theatre version of kitchen sink working class drama.
It is not like "Requiem for a dream", but genuinely portraying stories of people who encounter the uncertainty and hopelessness of life and future.The casts in this movie are great.
Her voice fits well and builds up a great atmosphere for the movie.To sum up, it is one of the best Australian movie in 2005, and for people who lives in Australia, please support the local film industry and local talents..
The big problem is most of the dramatic action that is effecting the characters has already happened years before the film takes place, and at times when the various characters have intense moments about these long gone events it just makes the acting seem melodramatic because we haven't seen or felt the events they are talking about.
It's alright for the theme to be looking at people struggling with their lives after these big events, except there was way too much of them struggling with these past events rather than their lives now - all of the emotional and narrative action is centred around things we haven't seen and which aren't really explained clearly either.Hugo Weaving is brilliant and the film is worth seeing just for his performance alone.
There was something about Cate Blanchett's performance I didn't like - it seemed just a bit too much of a one note take on her - there was lots of hair flicking and annoyance - but the character wasn't infused with any kind of nobility as she tried to overcome the effects of her past wrongs - that would have made for a much more engaging performance and given us some empathy for her.
I was drawn into the movie because of the cast, a powerhouse trio in Cate Blanchett, Hugo Weaving and Sam Neill.
I am a fan of Australian drama having given high marks to such films as "Tom White", "Japanese Story", "Three Dollars" and "Look Both Ways" and also of many of the fantastic cast in this film (Cate, Sam, Hugo) but I have to say I found this film boring.The premise and story are interesting and reasonably original.
"Little Fish" plunges us into the middle of a series of complicated relationships strained by drug addiction.The debut feature film script by Jacqueline Perske respects the intelligence of the characters and the audience by not slowing down for explication, but lets the past that binds each interconnected family gradually be revealed through their edgy interactions.
Both Hugo Weaving and Sam Neill are almost unrecognizable surprises in very masculine roles where they use their physicality in ways they don't usually demonstrate in films.Director Rowan Woods has a few stylistic quirks, particularly whooshing close-ups.
There is a continuing visual theme of water - from swimming pools to the ocean to showers and more-- that seems more sodden than symbolic of Sydney's beach culture, particularly in a rather uncomfortable looking love scene that seems more desperate than erotic.The locations and ensemble seem to well capture multi-ethnic contemporary Sydney and the tensions and biases between ethnic groups, particularly a working class that feels left behind compared to Asian immigrants with more international experiences and ties, here Viet Namese.The continuing struggle of recovering from addiction and its echoing impact on family, particularly parents, and friends is shown very effectively that we haven't seen in many films, as in "Down to the Bone" or "Requiem for a Dream".
But at the end I am left dissatisfied.For a movie about drugs, guns and addicts you get the feeling that you finally want to see what they are actually like.
i wanted to see a movie centered around the drug use and abuse and hardships and entertaining events that a character would have to go through if addicted to heroin...
When Ray and Jonny associate to Moss (Joel Tobeck), the assistant of the retired criminal boss Bradley 'The Jockey' Thompson (Sam Neill), in drug dealing, Tracey is convinced by Jonny to join them and raise the necessary money for her business along the weekend."Little Fish" is a heavy drama, based on losers, people addicted in drugs, showing how difficult the recovery is.
Blanchett's character says to her mother late in the film that she desperately wants the loan to buy the business she works in because she must, after four years, end the merry-go-round of waiting on people and getting up and going to work-she wants to own the business herself.
Cate should have seen Woman of the Dunes from 50 or so years ago and she might have morphed her life into something less destructive.Beyond the philosophical implications of the film, the actors did outstanding work-their roles could easily be said to be individual best in all cases.
I took the film to see Hugo Weaving, instead I found a self pitying junkie.It's not that the movie was not good, or that the acting was not good, it just didn't fit with my mood and it was all dialog and a bit of crying here and there, a little anger outburst, a bit of crying some more...
Visceral could be seen as an over-used word but there is none other that could so encapsulate this film.On some level I am aware that a film is made up of many facets and that no one facet should be allowed to dominate, in the end it is the people, as portrayed, that I remember.I am not saying "actors" because Cate Blanchett, Hugo Weaving, Sam Neil et al didn't act - they metamorphosed into their parts.
There were no over-acting and histrionics in this film, and until the end, we really feel for Blanchet'ts character, and the life she is trying to keep going.
We see her at the bank when she is denied a line of credit for her business, and we feel empathy for her, can even relate to the situation.Sam Neill is also very good as a retiring dealer, and the story is not glamorized or portrayed as something desirable (unlike some Hollywood films dealing with addiction).The soundtrack is effective and haunting, the scenes at the beach are memorable and sad.
The intensity of the love between Cate B's 'Tracy' and Dustin Nguyen's 'Johnny' is riveting: you cannot look away when these 2 characters are working through their respective past hurts.
If you are into things about Australia (as I am) you might be tempted to see this movie.If you succumb to the temptation, here is what you can expect to see:* A movie full of losers with capital L's.* A movie full of drug addiction.* No discernible plot.* No apparent purpose for making this flick.* A beginning and end that seem to be totally disconnected from the middle.* People who tell lies to try to compensate for their failures as human beings.* Losers who enable each other to stay losers.* A mother who is a failure at raising and disciplining her children, presumably compensating for the lack of a father by spoiling her offspring to death and anguishing over the result.One positive note here: Cate does a wonderful job of portraying her character (Tracy), who by the way finally shows a bit of spunk at the end, though this hardly rights the wrong she committed by embezzling money in the first place.
Or maybe I remained detached because I have learned that to care about terminal losers is a waste of love and nothing in the end had showed me that she would eventually turn out OK.The only other good thing I can see about this movie is that it is a hard look at junkies and what can happen to someone who is thinking about dabbling in drugs.
I didn't even like Cate in this and I usually love her.I'm also tired of movies about drug addicts.
If watching actors nail roles is your idea of film then see Little Fish, but if story captures you, beware.
The characters are also little fish swimming in a pool of drugs, life gone wrong, fighting life's currents in a rushing stream.Tracey, exquisitely played by Blanchett, says in the third act something to the effect, "I just want the money for my business." Don't we all.
It's a cliché, I know, but there are better ways to spend your time than watching this movie -- washing dishes or doing the ironing spring to mind.Despite having some top rate Australian talent in it (Sam Neill, Cate Blanchett, Hugo Weaving) it starts nowhere and stays there right till the end.
Tracy(Cate Blanchett, brilliant as ever)has been sober from a nasty heroin habit(among other drugs)introduced to her by mum's ex-beau, a once prominent soccer star, Lionel(Hugo Weaving, who gives a haunting powerful performance).
But it makes engrossing viewing thanks to the high level of acting by the whole cast, while the excellent waif like Cate Blanchett gives one of her most rewarding performances playing the brittle Tracy, a recovering junkie as does Hugo Weaving the addicted father.
He features in Little Fish, along with other stars such as Cate Blanchett and Sam Neill.
The Australian film LITTLE FISH stars Cate Blanchett, Sam Neill, and Hugo Weaving (Agent Smith in the Matrix Trilogy). |
tt0338135 | Les invasions barbares | Seventeen years after the events of The Decline of the American Empire, Sébastien is enjoying a successful career in quantitative finance in London when he receives a call from his mother, Louise, that his father and Louise's ex-husband Rémy is terminally ill with cancer. Sébastien is not enthused about seeing Rémy, whom he blames for breaking up the family with his many adulteries. Rémy and his friends of the older generation are still largely social-democrats and proponents of Quebec nationalism, positions seeming somewhat anachronistic long after the Quiet Revolution of the 1960s. Rémy does not like Sébastien's career, lack of reading or fondness for video games.
The father and son travel to the U.S. state of Vermont to briefly receive medical care before returning to the overcrowded and disorganized Quebec hospital. Sébastien attempts to bribe hospital administration for better care, and calls Rémy's old friends about a possible visit. Upon hearing heroin is "800%" more effective than morphine, he tracks some down for Rémy from a drug addict, Nathalie.
Meanwhile, Rémy is reunited with his friends, including Pierre, Dominique, Claude and Diane, Nathalie's mother, and they share a conversation on their old sex drive and the gradual decline of their vitality. Diane is concerned for Nathalie, while Rémy, a history professor, lectures the hospital chaplain Constance on the relative peace of the 20th century compared to past centuries. At the same time, another scholar describes the September 11 attacks as historically small except as a possible beginning of modern barbarian invasions. After Rémy and his friends retreat to the countryside, they speak of their devotion to constantly evolving -isms. Rémy dies in the company of his friends and Sébastien, after a heroin injection from Nathalie, whom Rémy calls his guardian angel. | psychological, satire, philosophical, flashback | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0837791 | The Devil's Chair | The film begins with Nick West lighting a cigarette in the dark and introducing himself to some unknown audience. He proceeds to recount the events he allegedly witnessed, claiming to be a "victim". It is implied that the whole story is told exclusively through his point of view.
Nick brings the easy and filthy Sammy to the abandoned Blackwater Asylum for using acid and having sex. They find a weird chair and Nick proposes kinky sex to Sammy; however the device traps and kills Sammy. Nick is arrested and considered insane, being sentenced to the Hildon Mental Institute in spite of claiming that supernatural forces killed Sammy. Four years later, the honorable Cambridge professor Dr. Willard proposes Nick's psychiatrist, Dr. Clairebourne (Nadja Brand), release him under his custody for an experimental treatment: exposing the truth to Nick by bringing him back to the crime scene. Dr. Clairebourne opposes, explaining that Nick still has severe delusions, but in the end she accepts. Nick is introduced to Dr. Willard, who expresses his desire to write a book about West and his experiences. With Dr. Willard assuming full responsibility for Nick, Dr. Willard, his assistant, Melissa, and the students Rachel Fowles and Brett Wilson, go with Nick to the Blackwater Asylum.
West begins to feel uneasy when the group enter the asylum, but a sympathetic Rachel tells him that he can leave tomorrow morning if he wants to, promising she won't tell the doctor. The group find the infamous chair. Dr. Willard reveals that the asylum warden was known to practice highly controversial methods of treatment. The night nears, and Dr. Willard tells everyone to go to sleep to have a fresh start tomorrow. In private, he confesses to Nick that the book he wants to write isn't actually about Nick, but about the chair. He admits to believing that Nick's "hallucinations" were actually real events. Willard shows him the warden's journal, from which he learned about the chair: it was used to test the warden's theory about the existence of the human soul. Nick becomes seemingly disturbed, as he says he actually came to believe he killed Sammy, but now isn't sure anymore.
As Nick is trying to sleep, he is approached by Rachel, who wants to prove to him that there is nothing supernatural about the chair. As she sits on it, she accidentally triggers the chair's controls and disappears. She is shown to have been transported into a dark building, where she is hunted by a demonic creature. Melissa persuades a skeptical Brett to sit in the chair, after which she triggers it, sending Brett into the same place as Rachel. Nick then willingly uses the chair to transport himself, believing he can save Rachel. The doctor and Melissa are shown to have plotted this all along. The events unfold quickly as Willard betrays Melissa, forcing her into the chair. He then transports himself. The group reunites as Rachel struggles against the creature. With the rest of the group incapacitated, the doctor subdues Nick and chants incantations, hoping to turn the beast to his side; however, Nick fights him off and, smiling, says that it is he who controls the Demon. In a plot twist, it is revealed that the chair itself and the demonic forces were just a product of Nick's imagination. It becomes evident that Nick assaulted the students and the doctor in the asylum, killing Brett. He then proceeds to rape Rachel and kill the doctor and Melissa. Lastly, he kills Rachel as she tries to escape.
After the massacre, a bloodied Nick gets into the car and chats with a woman who looks like Rachel sitting inside, asking her if she minds driving off with a "crazy person". She smiles and kisses him. However, the scene is then revealed to be another of Nick's hallucinations and he is then seen driving away from the asylum alone. | insanity, violence, cruelty, murder, sadist | train | wikipedia | The cinematography in this film is interesting and the sound effects give the movie a lot more edge considering the gore is minimal aside from the liberal use of blood.
Dying ?We've already seen it all before, and this time, although the production and cast are decent (the overall sound design is actually quite good despite too many squishy noises), I just can't help but think of Brad Anderson's excellent (if flawed in its own ways) "Session 9".
Way better.Sorry, but since braincells don't work on cash, a low budget doesn't excuse a poor script.So let's make it short : if you want gore & predictable "twists" you might enjoy this one ; if you'd prefer a better film go for "Session 9".
To top it off the main character - a mental patient - continuously delivers a voice-over with a lisp which I believe he suffers from, listening to which is as thrilling as a boat ride on dry land.Believe me you've seen it done before and better (Session 9 anyone?), don't punish yourself by watching the "Chair".
The main character of "The Devil's Chair" is a drug-dealer Nick West.He takes his girlfriend named Sammy to an abandoned asylum,when they discover the devil's chair which is the gate to the dimension of blood and despair.Sammy is brutally assaulted and killed by an unseen force,Nick becomes a suspect and is taken to the psychiatric ward.After four years he is released and joins Dr.Willard and his three companions to confront his demons where the supposed murders occurred."The Devil's Chair" is clearly influenced by Clive Barker's horror classic "Hellraiser".Like "Broken" the film is well-made and extremely unnerving.The way some sequences are shot will make your skin crawl.Some scenes are truly bloody and violent as all hell.The main demon of flies which smells blood looks impressive and very Lovecraftian.I can easily say that Adam Mason and Simon Boyes are the new masters of gruesome British horror.9 out of 10..
That is, until a prying doctor decides to take Nick back to the location, along with a team, to perhaps find some answers to what really happened that day.Some people might watch this, expecting just any horror, but it's not what you get.
I'd recommend this to horror fans, but be warned, this movie is like a magic trick, try not to get fed up with it and stop halfway through..
STAR RATING: ***** Saturday Night **** Friday Night *** Friday Morning ** Sunday Night * Monday Morning Reckless Nick West (Andrew Howard) takes his girlfriend to an abandoned warehouse to drop acid, but when she sits on a weird chair, she is sucked into a demonic hole, leaving Nick traumatized.
But as members of the group go missing, it becomes clear something evil is lurking in the walls of this eerie place...When I first caught sight of this bizarre looking straight to DVD horror film, I soon cleared the sight of it from my mind, but finding it again in the bargain bin at Morrison's, I thought...why not give it a try?
While I don't feel I completely wasted my time, it does feel like a wasted opportunity in a lot of respects.Adam Mason's film is unsure whether it wants to play as a straight out mind fu*k, gore porn horror flick or a self referentializing parody of the genre, with the lead character giving voice overs saying how we'll like it 'if we saw Hellraiser or Pumpkinhead' and at one point lamenting what 'a poorly written, badly acted' film it's become, either the way the writing feels uncertain of itself and in turn loses the audience a bit.
That's not to say I thought it was a good movie, to be honest I thought it was a pretty bad movie but I still got a kick from watching it.I think as long as you don't expect a brilliant plot, you can enjoy this film.
There's a couple of overblown gore scenes but it kinda feels like a cheap 80's horror film which, if you're a fan of those, is nicely nostalgic.Because they haven't over thought the plot in an attempt to seem clever, you can tell what's going to happen from about five minutes in, but the acting in the film is surprisingly decent & the effects are pretty good to boot.
To say this film is conceited would be a massive compliment, it attempts the self aware horror take a la 'Man Bites Dog' where the protagonist psycho talks to the audience and even at one point says 'is this what you want, this badly written, terribly acted horror movie' or something of the sort and I agree whole heartedly.
Ex-mental patient Nick West (Andrew Howard) narrates the story (pausing every now and then to drop his two cents on the characters or to verbally berate the viewers of the film) of what happened when Dr. Willard, his colleague and 2 students bring him back to an abandoned asylum where Nick had seen his easy druggie girl die in a 'devil's' chair years before.
While this horror flick is interesting and has some good effects in regard to the chair itself it definitely lacks in some areas around acting and story.
I've seen a few of their horror movies and felt that they stand nowhere near Hollywood.For instance watch the scene in which the lead character's girlfriend is stuck in the chair.
They should watch films like "the others", "Exorcism of Emily rose" to learn the basics of horror movie making.I wasted my money on watching this crap on weekend.
Four years later, we see this stoner, now being released from a hospital for the criminally insane and forced to return to the scene of the incident by a Cambridge doctor who arranged his release, Dr Willaird, who looks like a cross between older Sean Connery and Mick Fleetwood, with a bit of Christopher Lee thrown in.Melissa (Louise Griffiths) and Rachel (Elize du Toit) are hot; and the rambling, stream-of-consciousness voice-overs of the lead actor are amusing to a point, but too much contempt for the audience quickly becomes tiresome.
If so, then it is the film-maker who has turned, in a final twist, insane and the movie become their demon that they do not love!
Right there, I had a problem believing such a dumb idea could actually happen.The "devil's chair" in the abandoned asylum is a sinister-looking chair with a skull, initially inoffensive, which "probes" people (creepiest effects of the movie) before shunting them off to another version of the asylum with a demon-skulled tentacled monster roaming.
The movie Devil's Chair is a decent low budget horror flick which, though suffering from several plot holes here and there and seemingly inescapable Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels type clichés, is nevertheless worth your while.
In short, if you can be forgivable to low budget horror flicks for working with what they have, and if you dig gore genre, this flick can honestly deliver several good chills down your spine, mainly by working with practical effects and cinematography, unlike the jump- scare-dependent films of recent years.
The film opens like an interesting throwback to old-school asylum horror and gradually shifts into a clever and ultra-macabre supernatural monster movie, reminiscent of the brilliant "Hellraiser" I & II, with extremely brutal violence and enormously grim set pieces.
Adam Mason's regular lead protagonist Andrew Howard (who looks a lot like a lesser muscular clone of Jason Statham) stars as junkie Nick West who, together with his blond bimbo girlfriend intrudes an abandoned mental institution for a wild night of sex and drugs.
The acting performances are more than decent, the pacing is fast, and there are a few nifty details that also contribute to the entertainment value of the film, like Nick West's brief but often very witty voice-over narration in between the regular dialogs.
Nick West has been accused of murdering his girlfriend in an abandoned mental institution.Nick West wants you to know the full story, and he is here to tell it
for the better part of 90 loooong minutes.We see the full version of the initial events, the two twenty-somethings very much in lurrrrve wandering around the vacant and run down facility.
Nasty stuff.Stuff with lots of screaming.Stuff with lots of blood.Stuff with lots of gore.Stuff with lots of profanity (including more usage of the C word than I can recall in one film).Stuff with lots of Nick West.Stuff without much of my interest.I'll give The Devil's Chair some points for trying.
The Devil's Chair follows the story of Nick west who after taking his girlfriend out for a crazy LSD induced night with in the walls of a deserted asylum, finds himself accused of her brutal murder and is shipped off to a mental hospital.
Years later a doctor who is writing a book decides to take Nick back to the scene of the grisly murder along with some other students to find out the truth about what happened that night.It's very rare that after I watch a horror movie these days that I'm totally blown away and speechless.
This movie has it all a well written and acted script, beautiful special effects, and a ending that will leave you running the entire film over and over through your mind as if it's stuck on repeat for weeks to come.It's really sad that a movie like this did not see a nationwide theater release as it would have been a very fun and intense experience on the big screen.
Dr. Willard, his assistant Melissa (Louise Griffiths) and the students Rachel Fowles (Elize du Toit) and Brett Wilson (Matt Berry) head with Nick to the Blackwater Asylum finding the dreadful truth about the devil's chair."The Devil's Chair" is an original and extremely gore horror movie that explores a dark journey into madness and pain.
When Nick West (Jason Statham lookalike Andrew Howard) and his slutty girlfriend Sammy (Pollyanna Rose) decide to explore an abandoned insane asylum, they discover a bizarre looking chair and use it as a prop for a spot of acid-fuelled sex.
But as the couple begin to go at it, their pleasurable experience turns into a nightmare: the chair—actually a portal to a hellish realm inhabited by a rapacious tentacled demon—traps Sammy, impales her with metal spikes and tendrils, and then whisks her body away.Unable to adequately explain his girlfriend's disappearance, West is declared criminally insane and spends four years residing in a mental hospital, after which he is eventually released into the care of Dr. Willard (David Gant), who, along with assistant Melissa (Louise Griffiths) and psychiatry students Brett (Matt Berry) and Rachel (Elize du Toit), unwisely takes his patient back to the scene of the crime to face his demons.According to the opening waffle from West, his story will be worth our while, but as the film ultimately reveals, he's not a man to be trusted: The Devil's Chair is a massive waste of time.After over an hour spent building a fairly intriguing story around the premise of a supernatural chair, writer/director Adam Mason attempts to pull the rug from under the viewer's feet in the film's closing moments by revealing that virtually nothing that we have seen has actually happened, but has instead only taken place in the warped mind of Mr. West.It's a hackneyed, over-used plot device from a director desperate to make sense of his very muddled movie; matters are made all the more irritating thanks to the smug nature of the script, which positively delights in the fact that us horror fans have once again been shafted by a film-maker with no ideas of his own (even his visual style is trite and unimaginative, with an over-use of nasty editing techniques—particularly freeze-frame).As well as displaying utter contempt for his intended audience, Mason also fails to deliver on a more superficial level: the movie's supposedly ultra-graphic outcome is quite bereft of satisfyingly nasty gore (there's loads of blood, but the film shies away from showing us too much juicy detail); and rather inexcusably, neither busty ex-Hollyoaks babe Elize du Toit nor tasty brunette Louise Griffiths get nekkid (du Toit strips down to her bra, but reveals nothing she hadn't already shown in the Sunday morning soap).When all is said and done, however, I should probably thank Adam Mason for making The Devil's Chair: now, rather than waste my time explaining exactly what it is that I loathe about much of today's horror output, I can simply point in the direction of this film and say 'there you go'..
I'll tell you, it is one of those horror films that has one of those stupid plot twist in the end, the kind that doesn't put anything into perspective, the kind that leaves you with such a feeling of disappointment at the fact that they had a good concept in their hands and they ruined it completely, only with this film it felt like it was more deliberate, because you have this nice little "B" movie monster thing going for while and well into the film, guess what, it was never real it was all in his head and the rest of the movie doesn't make sense.Frankly I think considering the mood the ending left me in, this film is a disgrace to the horror genre, I saw a quote on this film stating "It turns the genre on its head" this film doesn't belong in the genre, the world would be spared if the makers of this thing would not consider to do a sequel..
I know horror movies are supposed to be far fetched and most of the time it is easy to forget how silly the plots can be but I couldn't do that with The Devil's Chair.
if someone would please explain why in god's name he axe-murdered everyone t the end of the movie (well, maybe not so much why, more of how in the world the filmmakers got there from the alternate dimension of blood-eating demons) I might think better of the movie, but for now, i give it three stars for leaving me utterly confused....
I originally remembered it from when it was passingly mentioned in another review of a horror film, and merely stumbled across the title when looking for a movie to pass the time with.
Now come on, we all know that the scariest films are the ones that don't reveal the 'monster' until the end of the movie, or at all.
I suppose there is an argument for the fact that the true 'monster' isn't revealed until the ridiculous ending, but I think the opening sequence of the movie prepared me too much for what was to come.In short this movie had some very poor performances, some totally predictable twists and some of the worst monster effects I have ever seen (one guy in the forum describes it as a skull in a bin bag, very accurate).
But for me the worst thing of all was the terribly annoying voice over, which I had hoped to God would only last the first few minutes, but continued right the way through the film, getting more and more irritating as it went.Whatever you do do not watch this movie, its not scary, its not original, and its 87 minutes of your life you'll never get back.
Oh, my brothers, let me tell you the story of a film that thinks it's far too clever for its own good.
There's no subsequent twist at the end to say, "But, wait, maybe it *was* supernatural!" Add a voice-over to make the audience sympathetic with the low-rent Jason Statham clone playing the lead (Andrew Howard) and give him complete control over the narrative (the film stops for his pithy comments with maddening irregularity) to make the big switch even more of a surprise.
It has the feeling of a student film where the crew have gone into a building, shot some random scenes, made a semi-contiguous story from the fragments of footage that they had filmed, and then at the last minute (during post production in this case - see the "Making of") decided to attempt to glue the whole thing together with overacted and poorly written narration from the lead character.
Showing real ambition, Mason links the Devils Chair to an excellent Lovecraft-style monster, made up of a mix of practice and CGI, which gets axed by burning red cuts into torture horror.Firing a Guy Ritchie-style gangster in the middle of a Horror movie, the screenplay by Boyes and Mason leans too heavily on the "Mockney" narration, which ends up as sounding more obnoxious than angry.
Together with students Melissa (Louise Griffiths), Brett (Matt Berry) and Rachel (Elize du Toit), they travel to the old mental asylum in hopes of finally finding out what really happened that night.What happens next is beyond any of their comprehension.The British have a way with horror movies.
Nick breaks the fourth wall and narrates what happens, stopping the movie periodically to make fun of either the other characters or us for watching the film.
TDC is a movie that shows refreshing honesty by admitting to its own incompetence half an hour before the end, but then berates the viewer for wanting to watch the film in the first place!
It had a proper back story to this chair, who built it, and why the Psychologist, mental patient (Nick West), and why psychology students were there at the asylum.Everything fell into place, except the end.
The first was, "Was there even a chair or another dimension, or was Nick just plain bonkers?" The second was, "Did Nick plan this out when they left the asylum he was admitted to, since he was just a plain murdering psycho anyway?" Or three, "Did the chair turn him into a psychopath after he crossed?" I guess you can interpret the ending in your own way.You wont be disappointed in any of the acting in this movie.
The movie not only is an UTTER waste of time, but it also pisses on horror fans, and uses the oldest, most unimaginative plot-twist in the book.. |
tt0023856 | Bureau of Missing Persons | Brash detective Butch Saunders is demoted from the robbery division to the bureau of missing persons. Captain Webb, his new boss, is unsure whether Butch will fit in or is on his way out of the police department. Webb assigns Joe Musik to show Butch around. Gradually, Butch earns Webb's respect and trust.
Cases the bureau handles include a philandering husband, a child prodigy who yearns to live a normal life, an aging bachelor whose housekeeper has disappeared, and an old lady whose daughter has run away, among others. Hank Slade works doggedly on one particular case - a missing wife - throughout the film, only to discover that she has been working at the bureau the whole time, right under his nose.
When attractive Norma Roberts comes looking for her missing Chicago investment banker husband Therme Roberts, Butch takes the case, making no secret that he is attracted to her, even though they are both married. She, however, keeps him at arm's length. Butch is later shocked when Captain Webb tells him that she is really Norma Phillips and the man she claims is missing is actually the person she was on trial for murdering (before escaping) and not her husband at all. When Butch goes to arrest her at her apartment, he finds her hiding in a closet. Norma begs him to send the other policemen away, telling him she can explain everything. However, when he returns alone, she has fled.
She fakes her suicide by drowning and disappears, but shows up when Butch stages her funeral with a borrowed corpse. When Butch spots her, she tells him that, as Roberts' personal secretary, she discovered he had a mentally defective, idiotic twin brother, whom he took great pains to hide from everyone. She claims that, facing embezzlement charges, Therme murdered his brother and disappeared. Norma attended the funeral in hopes that he would show up as well. She points a man out. Butch and Norma chase him to his apartment building. Butch tells Norma to remain outside for her safety while he apprehends the man. When he returns, Norma has vanished. The man denies being Roberts, but Butch takes him to the police station. There, to his relief, he finds Norma, who had gone for help. Webb tricks him into admitting he is Therme Roberts, and when Butch learns his gold-digging wife Belle never divorced her first husband (the husband shows up at the bureau looking for her), he and Norma are free to be together. | suspenseful, murder | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0272283 | The Safe House | In Cape Town, South Africa, ex-CIA NOC operative turned international criminal Tobin Frost (Denzel Washington) acquires a data storage device from rogue MI6 agent Alec Wade (Liam Cunningham). After the pair is attacked by a team of mercenaries led by Vargas (Fares Fares), Wade is killed and Frost is cornered by the gunmen, leaving him no choice but to surrender to the American consulate.
Frost is transferred to a local safe house maintained by "housekeeper" Matt Weston (Ryan Reynolds), a young agent on his first low-level CIA posting. The CIA sends in a team led by veteran agent Daniel Kiefer (Robert Patrick) to interrogate Frost and bring him back to the US. Weston watches uneasily as Kiefer and his men waterboard Frost. When the power to the safe house is cut, the CIA team realize that they are in grave danger. Vargas and a heavily armed group attack the safe house, killing Kiefer and his team. Weston escapes, taking Frost as his charge. When Weston makes contact with his superior, David Barlow (Brendan Gleeson), at CIA headquarters in Langley, Virginia, Catherine Linklater (Vera Farmiga), another CIA operative, orders Weston to lie low and await further instructions.
Weston hides out with Frost and calls his girlfriend Ana Moreau (Nora Arnezeder), a French medical resident who does not know that he works for the CIA, and tells her to leave the house. Barlow later tells Weston to go to Cape Town Stadium to retrieve a GPS device with the location of another nearby safe house. He retrieves the GPS at the stadium, but Frost creates a diversion and gets away by disguising himself as a policeman. Weston, detained by the police, escapes but is unable to catch Frost. Weston goes to recapture Frost but Frost ambushes him and aims a gun at him as if to shoot him, but then tells him "I only kill professionals".
Weston is ordered to visit the nearest American embassy for debriefing. Instead he meets with Ana and reveals that he is a CIA agent. He tells her to return to Paris for her safety. Weston tracks Frost to a shantytown in Langa, where Frost is meeting Nicaraguan national Carlos Villar (Rubén Blades), an old contact and document forger. Vargas and his team attack again, killing Villar along with his wife, but Frost eludes him and his men with Weston's help. Weston brutally interrogates one of Vargas' wounded mercenaries, who reveals that Vargas is working for the CIA, which is seeking to retrieve the storage device Frost received from Wade. The device contains Israeli intelligence which contain details of corrupt officials and secret money transfers involving American CIA, British MI6, and other intelligence agencies; Weston recognizes the reference to the Mossad because the CIA accused Frost of selling secrets to them before he became a rogue agent. Weston's own superiors may be implicated. Weston takes Frost to the new safe house, where Weston keeps the housekeeper, Keller (Joel Kinnaman) at gunpoint, because he no longer knows if he can trust the CIA.
Keller attacks Weston, and after a brutal struggle, Weston breaks Keller's neck, but he is badly wounded in the fight. Frost leaves Weston, who passes out from his wounds. Meanwhile, Linklater arrives in South Africa with Barlow to collect Frost and Weston from the safe house, but on the way is shot and killed by Barlow, who goes to the safe house and reveals that he is Vargas' employer. He confirms that the file contains incriminating evidence against him, and encourages Weston to lie about what has happened. Frost returns and kills Vargas and his men but is shot by Barlow. Weston then shoots Barlow in the chest, killing him. Frost gives Weston the file and tells Weston he is better than him before he dies from his injuries.
Back in the United States, Weston meets with CIA Deputy Director Harlan Whitford (Sam Shepard), who informs Weston that unflattering facts about the CIA must be removed from his report, but that he will be promoted. He asks Weston about the file's location but Weston denies having been told about it by Frost. Whitford states that whoever has those files will have many enemies. Weston leaves, then leaks the files to the media, incriminating personnel from many intelligence agencies, including Whitford. Later on, Weston sees Ana across a street in Paris, France. She reads a note passed to her from him, looks up at Weston, and they both make eye contact and she smiles before Weston walks away. | murder | train | wikipedia | One of the best novel-adaptations I've ever seen.
At first I was very sceptical about this movie, I'm a big fan of Nicci French and I wondered if the movie would capture the tension that makes the book so great.
The answer is, it did.Geraldine Somerville did a great job as Samantha, she's exactly like I had pictured her.
You can almost feel her desperation in the climax of the movie.
The other actors did great as well.
The English landscape, the setting of the film, looks great, it really helps increasing the tension because it all looks so deserted.I highly recommend this movie to everybody who has read the book (and to everybody who hasn't), because you won't be disappointed at all..
Superb suspenseful thriller.
Excellent performances and well-chosen locations build up the tension throughout this film.
I particularly liked the eerie dark side of the character Finn.
It's a pity the actress who plays Finn is not mentioned as a cast menber on the IMDB website.I like thrillers by authors like Tim Krabbe, Elizabeth George and Stephen King.
The thriller which was shown the next day on BBC "What they did that night" was also a class apart: very tense, nice locations: comparable to "The Safe House"..
One of the worst adaptations ...
One of the worst adaptations of a novel I have ever seen: the last ten or fifteen minutes were made up by the script-writer, while the book itself left a lot of things open.
Other parts of the book were neglected which might have improved the script, but no.
And why change the name of Michael Daley into Adam Daley?
To make him different from the character in the book?.
Not great, but a good watch.
By a mistake of the broadcasting company, this film was listed as Safe House starring Patrick Stewart - so we sat down eagerly to watch this.
The Safe House kept us watching, an adequate thriller with all the trademarks of a contemporary British tv-production.
Fine acting, cleverly made, nice locations, a good watch.
Geraldine Sommerville (surely loved by all fans of the Cracker-series) does a good job, bit of a shame that her character should be so erratic.
Story is ok, with few loose ends..
Fine for 90 Minutes, but then.....
Caught this on BBC America tonight and, like most Brit mysteries it began well enough, but unlike many it ended poorly.
I won't drop any spoilers, but the ending had a king-sized flaw-or-two that left a sour taste.
The actress that played Sam did a fine job, just as she did in "Cracker".
The young lady I recall from a "Prime Suspect": she was fine in both.
Unforunately, despite the combination of two fine actresses, "Safe House" never quite rises to the heights of the better Brit television mysteries.
Actually, the last 15 minutes drag it down into "If there's really nothing better to watch..."And is anyone else getting tired of the growing 'Lifetime' feel of BBC America mystery movies?
Or have they always been that way and I'm just now noticing it? |
tt1655607 | Singam | Durai Singam (Suriya) is the honest police sub-inspector of Nallur, a small village in Thoothukudi district in southern Tamil Nadu, assisted by his bumbling colleague Erimalai (Vivek). He belongs to Nallur with his father, Soundara Pandi (Radha Ravi) having a respectable status in the village. His family business is provision stores and Durai Singam wants to join it, but he joined police due to Soundara Pandi's wishes. He resolves most of the problems in his village with non-violence and mutual counselling. He uses force only when the situation demands it, thereby gaining much reputation and love from the villagers. Mahalingam (Nassar), an industrialist in Chennai and a friend of Soundara Pandi, comes to the village with his daughter Kavya (Anushka Shetty). Durai Singam initially mistakens Kavya as a thief (when she is about to prank her cousin by wearing a tiger costume and roam around the village), accidentally slaps her. As Kavya is about to take revenge on Singam, he apologizes to her, Kavya got moved, slowly fell in love with him. After some hilarious incidents, Kavya proposes to Durai Singam. Initially taken aback, soon Durai Singam reciprocates Kavya's love.
Chennai-based Mayil Vaaganam (Prakash Raj), a big-time extortionist with shady mafia dealings who blackmails people by complaining to the Income Tax Department, is required to travel to Nallur to sign a conditional bail. He instead, sends one of his allies to do the formalities, much to the anger and rage of Durai Singam who demands Mayil sign the bail in person. Humiliated, Mayil reaches Nallur but is unable to take any revenge on Durai Singam fearing the immense love and devotion of the entire village towards Durai Singam. Using his political contacts, he gets Durai Singam transferred to Chennai to teach him a lesson.
Durai Singam, unaware of Mayil's hand behind his transfer, joins Thiruvanmiyur police station. His co-worker, Sub-Inspector Ravi (Bose Venkat), hates Mayil for his crimes but is unable to take any action because of Mayil's political powers. The assistant commissioner Rajendran (Nizhalgal Ravi), Durai Singam's senior, is on Mayil's payroll and takes care in concealing and eliminating the evidence of Mayil's crimes from the eyes of the law. The police commissioner (Ajay Rathnam) also does not help Durai Singam as there is no evidence against Mayil and the assistant commissioner and in turn, warns him to stay away from Mayil's case. Unable to take on Mayil in his stronghold, Durai Singam wants to return to his village but is stopped by Kavya who encourages him to fight against the evil and not run like a coward.
Being mentally tortured by Mayil, Durai Singam arrests Mayil's brother Vaikundam (Adithya Menon) in a fake case of illegally smuggling alcohol. He thwarts off the assistant commissioner in full view of the public when the assistant commissioner, bounded by his duties to Mayil, tries to protect the henchman. Meanwhile, Mayil kidnaps Kavya's younger sister for ransom. Rescuing her, with unexpected help from the Home Minister, Ramanathan (Vijayakumar). Durai Singam successfully traces the origins of the kidnapping racket to Mayil. Durai Singam also gets promoted to Assistant Commissioner of the specially-formed Anti-kidnapping Task Force. Mahalingam, who was hostile to Durai Singam following an altercation with Soundara Pandi back at Nallur, softens up and agrees to give him Kavya's hand in marriage.
The police officers, including the police commissioner, and the assistant commissioner, now on Durai Singam's side, decide to help Durai Singam fight Mayil. They manage to kill Mayil's henchman in an encounter at a hospital and begins to target everyone and everything related to Mayil. In retribution, Mayil starts targeting everyone close to Durai Singam, including Kavya, whom he shoots but is saved by Durai Singam, and Ravi, who is hacked to death by Mayil's henchmen. To escape the arrest warrant issued out to him, Mayil kidnaps the Karnataka Home Minister's daughter. He falsely tells Durai Singam that he is going to Pondicherry with her when actually he is going to Nellore in Andhra Pradesh to put the police off the track. However Durai Singam manages to pursue them till Gudur near Nellore, where he rescues the home minister's daughter and kills Mayil in an encounter.
During the credits, Durai Singam is seen with Kavya heading back to Nallur, and as when Durai Singam is stopped briefly by Ramanathan who offers an undercover mission, to which Durai Singam willingly agrees. | good versus evil, murder | train | wikipedia | Ideal plot for "Dabbang" sequel.
Cop-stories seem to be order of the day.
One-man army.
One honest cop against the corruption and the evils in the society.
It started with "Pokiri", "Dabbang" stamped it and now there are cop-stories are being churned out in plenty.
Just like "Dabbang", the plot is the "Ssssh" word.
Its the format, presentation and punch which rules the roost and transports you into the 70's/ 80's genre of film making where creative liberties were aptly justified when the audience taste-buds for poetic justice was satiated.
The plot is wrapped with good performance from the protagonist and his nemesis, death-defying action sequences and romance with the lady thrown in as relief moments.Surya:: This is the first Surya movie I have watched and must admit that he has a great screen-presence.
His novel mouth-ache adds to the cop character.Anushka:: Gets a few songs to shake her body and weave a romantic track around the plot.
Prakashraj:: As usual he is himself, super-confident as ever.
Ensures to hog the audience attention every time he appears on the screen.Songs are good.
Background score is engrossing.
Action sequences as mentioned earlier has a punch, though a few places it seems to imitate Rajinikanth style.
Comedy wasn't upto the mark, but passable.
I watched the dubbed Telugu version namely "Yamudu" and the make-suit has been done well..
Suriya's best acting movie, must watch.
Suriya's acting in the movie is awesome and enjoyed the movie.
Good action and nice acting by all crew.
Prakash Raj acting is just brilliant.
Singam is the man of right deeds and whole village will stand by him in case of any threat.
He replicated the same at the new place he has been sent to and hence in the hour of need, everyone was standing by him.The way he tackles Prakash is just awesome.
One cop like Singam can change a lot in society.
The movie shows that there are people in the system who want to do real good but are crushed by the wrong-doers is true and well known.I vote the movie 10 out of 10.
Good movie to watch.
I watched even Hindi version of this movie, however it is not that good compared to Tamil.I hope right people take right inspiration from it!.
The movie is an entertaining mix of reality and dramatization.
The movie is not just another movie to me but based on a simple but strong theme which the movie rightly justifies.I suggest all to watch the movie once, as it is worth..
Great Entertainment....
once again director hari and actor Surya given the movie that all mass elements added with a racing screenplay..Surya as a cop did a very fantastic role..anushka is so beautiful in the movie specially in song sequences.prakashraj asusal performance is good..devisri prasad music is treat for first benchers.vivek comedy is good..all technicians worked well for the movie.overall its pure hari film..
with great acting by Surya..deserves the best film for family entertaining movie of the year...
Furious & fast pace movie.
Lot of expectations from Surya for his 25th film, well this movie has all the masala to complete silver jubilee.
Storyline is good, screenplay is superb, this is one of the best movies of Surya till date.
He is furious in the film & is expected from the director as the title itself says singam,pace of the movie is good.
Anushka dazzles.
Vivek is OK.
Songs are catchy at times.
Prakash Raj with his starry looks is amazing.
The best scene of the movie is when Prakash Raj says to Surya that he can transfer Surya within minutes & that is what surya wants to happen so that Prakash Raj can accept his defeat.
Overall its a good 2hrs 30 min entertainment..
This movie deserves a "middle-finger" from Tamil audiences.
The kollywood film industry has yet again delivered a crap masala movie in the form of Singam.
The most important thing regarding this movies is that it underestimates the Tamil audiences.
Are Tamil audiences fools watching the same old pathetic type of masala movies?.
that too from the likes of Hari and Suriya...Tamil audiences deserve a better class of movies.Story line of the movie - What a predictable sh*t..
There is no story in this movie..There is a hell lot of punch dialogue throughout this flick..Suriya looks like a mad man shouting on top of his voice which he calls it as acting....
There is not a little bit of excitement by watching this boring piece of work.Boring music - As i recall there is not a single track worth listening, so is the visuals..
Some of the songs features Anushka in which she wears skimpy outfits..
All the songs features some lame dancing and the Suriya-Anushka pair is no treat to watch..
They look like a couple of actors who lost their senses by shaking their legs shabbily and calls it as dancing..Suriya is terribly disappointing in this movie..At first it was very exciting to hear that Suriya had done a cop role which suits him very much..
But had to change my opinion after watching this junk..
The climax is a bit lengthy which spans most of the time in second half ..
This is the period which makes the audiences very restless because this is the lengthiest climax with no twist or turn and every single person knows the ending, that "In the end the hero always wins"..
If that is the case then what is the point in making such a mediocre movie?..
This movie is absolute trash...
please avoid it because it has the same old masala story with no element of surprise..My rating is 1/10.
Irritating flick.
Story goes like this.
Villain Prakash Raj goes to a village/southern town where he runs into the hero and gets thrashed there.
Then Surya the hero and villain come to the city and continue their fight.
The fight sequences consists of doing humanly impossible feats like high jumping 25 feet, long jumping 50 feet, dodging bullets, beating up 10 guys in one go etc.
which only hardcore fans can appreciate.
Then there are stupid punch dialogs exchanged between hero and the villain.
Objective fans who can't digest unrealistic scenes will find such sequences unintentionally funny.
There is the usual drab slapstick comedy interludes by Vivek, which has nothing to do with the main story whatsoever.
Dancing and singing etc make up rest of the movie.
If you like to watch realistic and believable movie stay away from this.
Action movies don't have to be over the top and totally unbelievable like this one..
A Pathetic movie....Singam a big flop for Surya.
pathetic movie by Surya...he is not fit in action movies and his dialog delivery is one of the bore in this movie...nothing different in this movie Harri's earlier super hit movie Sammy says that all because the style and story line somewhat from that movie....Vivek comedy was not good Anushka just played her role without any over....SINGAM a big flop look at d dialogs such a waste one .
Surya doesn't know to fight he is just a party going and proposing girls every were.
he just imitates Vijay in the fight scenes....overall Surya just imitating Vijay in fight and to say dialogsOVERALL SINGAM is PATHETIC!!!!
disaster 4 Surya and sun pictures.....
Somebody stop this Maniac from action movies he so irritating......
Singam Surya's 25th movie was the worst among the worst movie of the Tamil movie in the year 2010....Hari's story was pathetic in this movie and Surya's acting is too bad in action sequences and saying dialog...Prakash raj was the villain in this movie...the movie is as usual without any difference in the story line 1st half of the movie was very boring...2nd half nothing new with illogical fights....Anushka was the actress but she had done her role without any irritating sequences....Surya was irritating with his stupid action styles and saying mass dialog that does not suit him....Surya was almost like a clown on that scenes....Vivek was the comedy hero but his comedy didn't made laugh to audiences....that too made movie bore.....even Surya fans didn't like this movie that the Singam became a Asingam for audiences....the intro scene was the worst in this scene also illogical fights and dialogs....overall it was a Clown Cop movie that made the audience irritating.......a big-loss for Surya...he can only do romance and sentiments thats well suit for him....he cant act in an mass action movie...Ayan was luckily hit because of the Harris Jayaraj music and songs...but aadhavan proved always Surya movies wont be a hit and this time Singam a big loss....overall Singam is the worst cop movie i have ever seen.....
2hr 30 min of fun.
This movie does not have a new story.
Fights are also not new.
The same village stuff.
But the director has done the filming in such a way that these flaws are rarely seen.
Many ppl are forgetting Surya is possibly the only actor to do both a classy (kk) and a mass (singam) cop story.
This movie provides complete entertainment.
One thing people should follow is that they should stop comparing mass movies.
Mass entertainers follow a formula which is basically a logic-less formula.
The main trump card in mass entertainers is the villain n the punch dialogues.
So in short similarities are inevitable.
So comparison is basically pointless.
This movie is not for people who look out for art stuff in every movie.
This gives you full value for your money if you like to be entertained.
No unwanted sentiments.
Descent punches.
Prakash n Surya meetings are good.But there r few flaws.
Comedy was not all that great.
IN few scenes Surya was found to be shouting too much.
So this movie is like going to a normal hotel and having hot tasty biriyani!
You will enjoy it if u like biriyani!.
Surya's 25th Film - Roaring Singam.
A very gud energetic and action packed movie from Surya.
The film focuses on the wisdom, intelligence of bright police officers(exemplified as Surya) against cunning criminals.
A touch of anti-corruption is present in this movie like most of the present movies.
This film starts from Nallur(Tuticorin) and ends in Nellore(A.P).
Surya(Dorai Singam) is very much energetic, serious,and audacious police inspector.
The starting song is as usual a message song.
Anushka(Kavya) is a homely girl in the same village, who falls in love with the daring Hero Singam because of his friendliness, good character and his courage.
When small issues are going on in nallur, there comes the villain(Mayil Vahanam) Prakash Raj who is expert in kidnapping and doing all sorts of corruption in Chennai.
When Surya threatens him, challenges him, and make him feel ashamed with the support of the village people, villain gets him transferred to his area to take care of him.Then how the hero and villain faces each other is the film.
The climax is different from all other films.
The film has a touch of the film Saamy.
May be bcos of the same director.
Romantic scenes are less, but the songs are very romantic.
Hats off to Music Director DSP and Baba Sehgal.Kaadhal Vandhaale song ROCKS!!!
Vivek's comedy scenes are not much hilarious.
Altogether a great MASALA film!
Special appreciation to Director Hari!.
Singam (2010).
Surya acted very nicely.
Action scenes in the movie are superb.
Songs and BGM in the movie are superb.
The movie was so excellent..
The movie was so excellent..
Racy entertainer..
Surya's 25th movie "Singam" written & directed by Hari is a treat for the action lovers.The movie moves at a breakneck speed even before one realizes the movie gets over leaving very little time in between for the viewers to think about the logic or lack of it.To his credit ,Hari has tried to make it as much plausible as he possibly can while maintaining the tempo of the movie right through except for maybe the songs which are only 4 ,thankfully.The flow of the screenplay is lucid & vivid that makes the viewing enjoyable & less strenuous.
When one enters the movie hall with a preconceived notion that it may be yet another masala potboiler nothing much to look forward to , what follows is two and half hours of engaging cinema .It is time for Sun pictures to rejoice & repeat their successful association with Surya after that immensely successful "Ayan" last year.Surya is charming & dashing as ever though he tries hard to portray the role of the ruffian police.He is clearly uncomfortable in the areas where high decibel dialog delivery is mandated.
He has improved his dancing & fighting skills .
The makers' hard work in masking the massive difference in height between the lead pair is appreciable on screen.
Anuskha has nothing much to do but to follow in similar vein as to her performance in her previous movies like "Vettaikaran".
She however sizzles in the song numbers though.Prakashraj in yet another role of a dada which he will do with ease even in the middle of his midnight sleep.Vinek does succeeds in spewing humor in couple of instances in a role which is a takeoff from that of Vadivelu in "Marudhamalai".Devisriprasad's music has nothing to note while Priyan has done a decent work as the cinematographer.Hari's career is a mixed bag with a mixture of commercially super hit movies like "Saami" , "Vel" , "Tamil" as well as duds like "Seval" , "Aaru " , "Arul"
..
"Singam " is sure to find a place in the former list.On the whole , it is a time pass movie for the commercial film lovers.Bottomline : Racy entertainer..
Has director Hari ran out of story lines?.
To say the truth, this film doesn't deserve the spoiler button.
Because under the name "Singam", you're gonna watch the director's own 2003 flick "Saamy" starring Vikram and Trisha, modified to an extent, as if to avoid any resemblance.
So by revealing the plot, I wouldn't have made much difference.
This film is supposed to be Surya Sivakumar's 25th film, so you go into the theatre expecting at least a decent movie.
But what you wouldn't have expected is, as the film proceeds you'll realize more and more that it has been influenced to an alarming level by Saamy, so that during the climax you are going to know exactly what is gonna happen.
Actually, despite this, the film could've kept you quite engaged but for the unnecessary song sequences which seemed determined to break the pace of the film.
The director has wasted the talents of the award winning actor Prakash Raj. Anushka Shetty has almost no role in the movie except for song sequences and other scenes probably present to remind you that she is the heroine.
Surya's on-screen antics (the unforgettable roaring lion appearing every time he slaps a guy, whoa!) and gravity defying action sequences makes you wonder why a comedian was ever required in the film.
And the comedian Vivek's comedies are average too.
Overall, sadly a run-of-the-mill 25th film for Surya.
But still, as many say, actor Vijay could learn a lot from Surya about acting in masala flicks..
SINGAM hailed as commercial entertainer is nothing but a Colosseum of joke.
Who ever says this movie is great ,awesome,commercial entertainer must be a fan of lead actors or else they got to be really kidding because this movie is a utter piece of crap.MY PIECE OF ADVICE- FIRST BE A FAN OF TAMIL CINEMA .Its only movies like this make us (audience) looks like fools.We are in 2010 where we have people making movies like INCEPTION,MATRIX, THE LORD OF THE RINGS,Moon(2009 British science fiction film),KATRATHU TAMIL ...But here we have people making same trash over and over again in the name of entertainment and not even attempting to do some thing even close to innovative in story,screenplay direction.And in the end of the day they say we are in the league of world cinema.Seriously, there is no way i would recommend this crap to anyone.I really wonder whether the filmmaker himself had watched the movie...regards, fan of tamil cinema |
tt0282171 | Slap Shot 2: Breaking the Ice | 25 years after the events of the first film, the Charlestown Chiefs are still languishing in Pennsylvania. Sean Linden, a former NHL player whose name has been disgraced for betting on games, has replaced Reggie Dunlop as the main protagonist — initially a player-coach, just like Dunlop, Linden also serves as the team's captain. The Chiefs struggle both on and off the ice, and violence remains their hallmark as Sean does not try to control the fighting trio of the Hanson Brothers.
Following another disappointing season, the team is sold to a family entertainment corporation called Better America, run by an executive named Richmond Claremont. The Chiefs are then moved to Nebraska and renamed the "Super Chiefs," and are also given a new female coach. Sean and the rest of the players soon discover that Claremont intends to use the Super Chiefs as a team which loses in scripted games against a Harlem Globetrotters-type team called the Omaha IceBreakers, in an attempt by Claremont to make the game suitable for a family audience.
During their first rehearsal, a fight breaks out between the Super Chiefs and the IceBreakers, which results in the Hanson Brothers getting fired. After the fight, Claremont bribes a financially struggling Sean to change the team's attitude about losing games on purpose, and then he can leave on his own terms. Sean manages to convince everyone into supporting "fake games" for higher pay and better exposure, and he prepares to leave Nebraska after faking a shoulder injury. While at the airport, he watches a panel discussion on TV about how he and Claremont are an embarrassment to the game of hockey. Realizing his love for the game, Sean returns to the team, along with the Hanson Brothers, to play a real game against the IceBreakers as the Chiefs.
Finally back to their old ways, the Chiefs use their physical brutality and beat the IceBreakers on a last-second goal by Sean. A furious Claremont threatens to sue, but he learns the team was sold under his nose to the Hanson Brothers, who recently won the lottery. The movie ends with the Hanson Brothers announcing the team is returning to Charlestown and going back to their roots of playing "old-time hockey." | violence | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0029445 | Public Cowboy No. 1 | A rash of strange cattle rustlings have occurred in which cattle are slaughtered on the range and their carcasses taken away. Sheriff Matt Doniphon (William Farnum) and his deputies, Gene Autry (Gene Autry) and Frog Millhouse (Smiley Burnette), watch over one rancher's cattle as they are driven to Box Canyon. After the sheriff and his men leave, the rustlers move in, radio the cattle's location from an airplane, and then bring in refrigerator trucks. The rancher and one of his workers are murdered, the cattle killed, and the carcasses taken away.
Newspaper editor Helen Morgan (Ann Rutherford), responding to the increased cattle raids, demands that Sheriff Doniphon be replaced, claiming he is too old-fashioned to deal with modern rustlers. Gene defends the sheriff against Helen's editorial. Having been raised by the sheriff after being orphaned by outlaws as a young boy, Gene knows the man's character and abilities. Helen, however, refuses to change her stance.
While investigating the recent raids, Gene and Frog grow suspicious of the Chicago and Western Packing Co., owned by Jack Shannon (Arthur Loft) and run by Jack and his brother Jim (House Peters Jr.). The deputies find the carcasses of some rustled cattle and demand to see the hides in order to check the brands. Lying to the deputies, Jim tells them that the cattle belong to his partner, Thad Slaughter (Maston Williams), and that Slaughter has the hides at his ranch.
On their way to Slaughter's ranch, Gene and Sheriff Doniphon discover Frog locked in one of Jim's trucks. They chase after the truck and Jim shoots the sheriff, who is not seriously wounded. Later that afternoon, Frog identifies Jim as the one who shot the sheriff. Jim is taken to jail, and Jack and Slaughter grow concerned that Jim may talk and expose their operation. That night, Slaughter summons Jim to the jail window and beats Jim to death.
The next day, many of the town's citizens demand that Sheriff Doniphon resign, blaming him for the murder and the ongoing cattle raids. Eustace P. Quackenbush (James C. Morton) and his uniformed private detectives are soon hired to put an end to the raids and restore order with their modern, scientific methods. At the welcoming party, Jack learns that rancher Bidwell's men are all in town and alerts his rustlers to go to Bidwell's ranch, where Frog and Stubby (Frankie Marvin) lay in wait for the desperados, wearing a cow costume. When he sees the rustlers approaching, Frog sends an emergency message to Gene, who then uses the radio to call all local cowboys to defend Bidwell's ranch against the rustlers. Hearing the broadcast, the rustlers attempt to flee. Frog and Stubby also have to flee from an amorous bull.
Meanwhile, on their way to the Bidwell ranch, the automobiles and motorcycles used by Quackenbush and his detectives get stuck in the mud, while the cowboys ride past the detectives on their trusty horses and quickly round up the gang. Sheriff Doniphon shoots Jack as he attempts to use Helen as a hostage, thereby proving to her that old-fashioned methods are still the best. While Frog and Stubby try to outrun a bull attracted by their cow costume, Gene and Helen ride back to town together, passing Quackenbush and his detectives who are still stuck in the mud and suffering from the effects of their tear gas grenades that have accidentally detonated. | murder | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0042338 | Colt .45 | In the town of Red Rock, gun salesman Steve Farrell (Randolph Scott) demonstrates the new Colt .45 repeating pistols to the sheriff who is impressed that the United States government just ordered two thousand of these powerful weapons for the army. The demonstration is interrupted when men arrive to transfer one of the prisoners to another jail. As he's being led away, prisoner Jason Brett (Zachary Scott) grabs the pistols, shoots the sheriff, and escapes, pretending that Farrell was his partner. Convinced that Farrell was involved in the escape, the townspeople arrest the innocent gun salesman. In the coming days, Brett initiates a campaign of robberies and cold blooded murder, with regular guns being no match for his Colt .45 pistols.
Four months later, Farrell is released from jail due to a lack of evidence. The new sheriff offers him a letter clearing him of the charges if he reveals Brett's whereabouts. Reasserting his innocence, Farrell vows to go after Brett to retrieve his guns. Farrell tracks his prey into Texas and comes across a band of Indians whom Brett has killed to provide cover for a stagecoach robbery. The only surrvivor of the attack, Walking Bear (Chief Thundercloud), tells Steve about Brett's plan. As the stagecoach approaches, Steve jumps onto the stage from a rock outcropping just in time to fight off the attack by Brett's gang with his own set of Colt .45s. The only passenger on the stage, Beth Donovan (Ruth Roman), tries to prevent him from fighting off the robbers.
After Brett's gang pulls back and retreats, Farrell stops the stage and notices a white scarf hanging outside the stagecoach window. Believing it to be a signal to the robbers, Farrell suspects that Beth is part of the gang and says he intends to take her to the sheriff. While assisting the wounded stagecoach driver, however, Beth is able to escape on horseback. Farrell does not know that Beth is the wife of Paul Donovan (Lloyd Bridges), one of Brett's associates. Beth returns to her home, which is being used by Brett as a hideout. Although she believes that her husband has been forced to work with Brett, he is actually plotting with the killer to take over the nearby town of Bonanza Creek.
Unknown to the citizens of Bonanza Creek, Sheriff Harris (Alan Hale, Sr.) is working with Brett and his gang. When Farrell arrives in town, Harris agrees to make him his deputy. Harris then rides out to Brett's hideout and reveals that Farrell is in town. Brett and Harris plot an ambush to eliminate Farrell. Meanwhile, Farrell learns Beth's identity. Harris later encourages him to ride out to her house, knowing Brett and his gang will be lying in wait. As he approaches, Brett's gang ride in for the kill, but Farrell is able to evade the ambush with the help of Walking Bear and his fellow Indians, who capture two gang members.
Back at the hideout, Beth overhears Paul plotting with Brett and realizes her husband is actively working with the gang. After she denounces her husband, Paul locks her in a store room. Later, she manages to escape and hurries into town, planning to reveal what she knows to the authorities. Just outside town, Paul tries to stop his wife, and as she rides past him, he shoots her. Hearing the shots, Farrell rides to Beth lying on the ground, takes her in his arms, and rides off seeking refuge with Walking Bear and his people. After being treated for her wound, Beth warns Farrell about Brett's plan to take over Bonanza Creek.
Soon after, the Indians discover Paul's body, shot in the back by a .45. When Farrell learns that the Indians intend to go on the warpath, he tries to talk them out of it, but he and Beth are held captive. When Beth escapes to warn the townspeople, Farrell rides after her. Along the trail, Harris and members of the gang set a trap and capture Farrell, but the Indians come to his rescue and kill his captors. Then they ride to Bonanza Creek and quietly go about killing Brett's men in the streets. The injured Harris makes his way back to town to warn Brett, who's holed up in the jail with Beth as his hostage. When Farrell and the Indians arrive at the jail, the cowardly Brett uses Beth as a shield and tries to escape, but Beth breaks away. Farrell enters the jail alone and sees Brett is out of ammunition. He puts down his .45s and the two men fight. During the struggle, Brett goes for Farrell's guns and Farrell shoots him. Afterwards, Farrell walks out into the street and is embraced by Beth. | murder | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0271111 | Perfect Dark | Perfect Dark is set in 2023 against the backdrop of an interstellar war between two races: the Maians, who resemble the archetypal grey alien, and the Skedar, reptile-like extraterrestrials who use a holographic disguise to appear as Scandinavian humans, bearing similarities to Nordic aliens. Using this disguise, they can interact with humans on Earth without looking too overtly suspicious. Meanwhile, on Earth, there is an ongoing rivalry between two factions: The Carrington Institute, a research and development center founded by Daniel Carrington that secretly operates an espionage group in league with the Maians; and dataDyne, a defence contractor corporation headed by Cassandra De Vries that secretly maintains a deal with the Skedar: in exchange for creating an AI capable of cracking an ancient alien spacecraft buried on the ocean floor, the Skedar have agreed to supply them with enough alien technology to become the biggest corporation on Earth.
The player is cast as Carrington Institute agent Joanna Dark, whose excellent scores in training have earned her the codename "Perfect Dark". On her first mission, she is sent to extract a scientist named Dr. Caroll from the dataDyne skyscraper. When Joanna rescues Dr. Caroll, she learns that he is an AI who decided to defect from dataDyne after realising that the company betrayed ethical and moral standards. After the operation, Carrington is held captive at his private villa by dataDyne soldiers and forced to tell them where Dr. Caroll has been hidden. Joanna manages to rescue Carrington, who informs her that Dr. Caroll has been taken to the G5 Corporation headquarters in Chicago because he is suspected to be a front for dataDyne. In Chicago, Joanna learns that dataDyne and their conspirators plan to kidnap the President of the United States to get access to a deep sea research vessel called Pelagic II. Despite the President being in danger, Carrington alerts Joanna that a Maian craft was shot down near Area 51 and sends her to rescue any survivors from the base. While inside the base, she rescues one survivor, a Maian protector named Elvis who is key in stopping the conspiracy.
As the President of the United States refuses to loan dataDyne the Pelagic II, the conspirators plot to kill him and replace him with a dataDyne-grown clone. To accomplish their plans, an NSA strike team led by Trent Easton invades the air base from which Air Force One will depart. When Joanna foils this strike, the NSA along with some Scandinavians take over the plane itself, which crashes after an attempt to detach a craft attached to it. Having survived the crash, Joanna eliminates the President's clone and rescues the real President. Meanwhile, Easton is killed by one particular Scandinavian known as Mr. Blonde, who is revealed to be a Skedar in disguise. Without permission from the President, dataDyne decides to hijack the Pelagic II and reach the ancient spacecraft. However, unbeknownst to dataDyne, the Carrington Institute learns that the spacecraft contains a powerful weapon capable of destroying a planet and that the conspirators are actually Skedar aliens disguised as Scandinavian humans who intend to test the weapon on Earth before using it against the Maian homeworld.
Joanna and Elvis follow the conspirators to the ancient spacecraft and eventually find a reprogrammed Dr. Caroll cracking the weapon. Joanna replaces its current personality with a backup of the original, and the restored Dr. Carroll sets the weapon to self-destruct. In retaliation for ruining their plans, the Skedar launch a strike on the Carrington Institute, capturing Joanna and taking her to their homeworld. While in their spaceship, she is met by De Vries, who has also been imprisoned due to her failure to comply with the deal. Feeling that she has been used, De Vries redeems herself by making a distraction and sacrificing herself, freeing Joanna and therefore giving herself a chance for revenge. Joanna is later assisted by Elvis and the pair manage to land on the Skedar planet. There, she defeats the Skedar High Priest, leaving the Skedar in disarray. The game ends with Elvis and Joanna leaving the planet just prior to an orbital bombardment from the Maian navy. | violence | train | wikipedia | Special Agent Joanna Dark works with the Carrington Institute.
With the lives of earth and other planets in the balance Joanna works to stop the alliance.This "sequel" to Goldeneye uses the same engine to drive it and looks similar in style - the controls being identical in fact.
However the graphics are considerably better, everything moves much faster, speech is involved in both the game and the cut sequences and the cinema scenes are longer.
With three difficulty levels on each stage (not only increasing the ability of your opponents but adding more objectives) and a range of challenges on each this will last you for a long time.
Even when you finish the level - for many if you complete it within a set time then you get a cheat (some of these are really hard).Outside of the game you have the traditional multi player game.
The degree to which you can tweak this is astonishing - you can set all types of weapons, all types of games (combat, king of the hill etc - not just games where you shoot everything in sight), time, scores and a set of 30 challenges to play against.
This will keep the game alive for long after you finish the main game and, unlike Goldeneye - you can still play it even if you're alone!The game has a gradual learning curve in both the game and the challenges, meaning that you will occassionally get stuck but not to the point of frustration.Overall this is a perfect game - I'm sure the graphics etc will be superseeded with time, but the heart of the game is strong..
"Goldeneye" was one of the first games released for the N64 and was a huge success.
The success of the game was mimicked in the years to come with more and more Bond games emerging, but none of them lived up to the originality and intense gameplay of "Goldeneye." But in 2000, Rareware (the makers of Goldeneye) announced plans for a sequel of sorts named "Perfect Dark" - based on almost identical gameplay, it would be about a female secret agent/spy, and when the game was released it was an instant success (it was also one of the first games to make use of the "Rumble Pak")."Perfect Dark" is a brilliant FPS and very unique.
The sequel is coming out soon for XBox 360 and I'm thinking of purchasing an XBox platform just to play the sequel - that's how impressed I was with the original "Perfect Dark" video game..
God dammit, the perfect game!.
After beating it (completing everything, cheats, levels and the thirty horrible hard multiplayer levels - damn proud) I have gone into some sort of dvala, just waiting for Perfect Dark 2.
Way better than Goldeneye...
This is my favorite game for Nintendo 64.
This game is basically Tomb Raider + Goldeneye + The Matrix.
My favorite part of the entire game is the Multiplayer, its so much fun to play with 4 people.
This is a great game..
Probably the best game ever..
Perfect Dark played on an N64 with the 4MB expansion pack is truly and utterly one of if not THE best video game ever.
Goldeneye was fantastic but this has took it to the next level.
Games like Quake 3, Doom 3 or Unreal Tournament might have better graphics but when it comes to sheer gameplay Perfect Dark is the king.
The graphics for it are maybe not quite as polished as its predecessor but the amount of great ideas are unrivaled in video game history.
It's over 4 years old and still beats any first person shooter by far.
Even though the sequel is to be released sometime in the future on the X-Box i doubt it will play the same as the original did.
The missions are so cool and laid out well with a good story and character interaction.
The thing that kept me coming back for more was the death matches with up to 8 players playing at the same time (human or sim) which was especially cool because there are so many modes and tweaks to make you play Perfect Dark for years to come.
Perfect Dark!.
Perfect Dark is one of the most different shoot em up video games on the N64!
The characters, the action, and the sure thrill of adventure makes this game a fun non-stop playing time!
Below is a brief look how I think the game is!
Novice gamers should have a good time here!Graphics: The graphics are wonderful.
The backgrounds are really beautiful!Difficulty: The game is easy but as it goes on you find out that it will become more difficult!Music: The music is great!
In My opinion its some of the best music ever in a video game!Sound: The sound is great.
Nuff said!Overall: I have always loved Perfect Dark!
If you like excellent adventure shooting games then I strongly recommend you play this game!To purchase this video game check out Amazon.com!.
This is one of the best videogames i have ever played.
I can't say enough good things about Rare's Perfect Dark, and as of this writing, I haven't even finished the game!Using their incredible Goldeneye engine, the folks at Rare have improved upon their success 1000% - on the technical side they've added speech, longer cinematic cuts to keep you involved in the story, and great music.
Within the game itself, FPS nuts like myself will thrill to the new weapons and gadgets.The game is not just "shoot everyone and take everything you see," however; there are many sequences where your guile and intelligence will serve you much better than a machine gun.The single or multiplayer Combat Simulator is what every FPS game from now on will use as the industry standard; the ability to tweak every nuance of your deathmatch is unparalleled, and the skills of the computer-run "simulants" will challenge even the most jaded console warrior to the fight of his or her "life."Highly recommended, Perfect Dark scores a Perfect 10..
Truly a great Game.
PD is truely a great game and deserves all the credit it receives.
A great first person shooter and combat game.
But I'd like to look back at a game that pushed the N64 to it's limits.
That game was Perfect Dark, from the makers of Goldeneye comes a game that some would call a sequel, but I wouldn't.
it's a game that uses the same engine, and the same shell of a story, but instead, the hero has 2 Perky boobs on her chest instead of hair.Joanna Dark is a 23 year old Secret agent on a mission to rescue an AI named Dr. Carroll.
But what starts as a rescue mission for a Flying computer (literally) unfolds into a much bigger story, taking Joanna to a private villa where her boss lives, Chicago, Area 51, and outer space.For the N64, The game was amazing when it came out.
if you were a fan of goldeneye at the time, you knew PD was going to rock your socks off.
the Single player mode was a vast improvement; the Guards would conversate and yell taunts while shooting at you, and their guns would sometimes Jam. They would get scared, and some would scream when they got shot.
wonder where good ol' Jack Thompson was then.) Also, you don't just read the in-game Dialogue, The characters actually Speak!
On top of that, there was a language filter, but it was more of a joke than anything, cause all it did was cut out the dialogue that had words like Hell and Damn in them, and sometimes that would cut out important dialogue to move the story along.Multiplayer was probably the biggest improvement.
and unlike goldeneye, you could actually customize Weapon Sets, Character bodies and heads, and music!
all in All, Perfect Dark on the N64 was probably it's best title.Now, for the Xbox 360 Remake.What can I say about this one?
Joanna looks downright sexy and so do the female staff at carrington institute.
Elvis lost his cuteness (I kinda thought he was) now he just looks ugly.A few more add-ons; Achievements (shooting all of Daniel Carrington's wine bottles in the villa gives you the "Act your age, Joanna" achievement.) and the addition of online play.
I haven't experimented with it yet, so i can't comment whether it's good or not, but i'm expecting it to be good.Bottom line, I'm proud that Rare created this gem, and I only wish that they could release a good new PD game.Make Joanna's Fans happy, Rare.10/10.
A perfect sequel.
When i heard that RareWare were bringing out a sort of sequel to Goldeneye i thought great this is going to be much more better.
Best game to get for N64.
The fact that the main character is a female secret agent adds a little sarcasm to the stories.
She's brilliant, beautiful and a professional with guns.I also love the fact that one of the aliens is named Elvis.
He fights by Joanna's side when in space.This game has the same controls as Goldeneye, but this game is way better.
The guns are more futuristic with maybe a couple of modern weapons like a shotgun.Personally, my favourite guns are the laptop gun and Farsight.Anyways, people who enjoy games like CS and Goldeneye, i recommend this game.
It's easy to play and fun for everyone!.
Perfect Dark is hard to review because in many ways it is the same as Rare's previous shooter, GoldenEye 007, but in other ways it is so much better.
In short, Perfect Dark is the perfect, non-official, sequel to GoldenEye 007.
Sure, the settings are different, and there are some different weapons (after all this IS a science fiction based game), but overall you can still see the loving touches the developers brought back from GoldenEye.The game is set in a well developed science fiction environment and many of the levels provide difficulties that are handled by the new features added to the character's options.
The wide range of weapons is one of the major improvements over its predecessor, GoldenEye, as well as the unique plot (after all, this one isn't based on a movie).
So the plot is an interesting one involving alien invasions and government conspiracy and does keep the gamer interested throughout its run, but without a doubt my favorite feature of this game that I found lacking in GoldenEye 007 is the actual use of voice actors.
Joanna Dark and all the other characters in this film have a voice we can link to their image, while with GoldenEye we'd have to go back to the film to recall the voices of our characters.Of course, the major improvement over GoldenEye 007 is the multiplayer feature which is fun, and do to a wider range of weapons the gamer is allowed to execute new strategies, so overall Perfect Dark really is an expansion of GoldenEye 007 as well as being a great gaming experience by itself.This is a game that is great to play back-to-back with GoldenEye 007, because you should probably learn the controls from GoldenEye before you play this game because it makes it a lot simpler (but I suppose you could play this before you play GoldenEye, but I'm someone who likes to play/view in chronological order).So if you enjoyed GoldenEye 007 (as so many other people have over the years) you should certainly dust off the Nintendo 64 and come back to this perfectly worthy successor..
This game didn't get much recognition as opposed to Goldeneye (which this was based on).
However this game constantly amazed me and the as you first start to play it becomes apparent this game is very special.The one player game starts off where Goldeneye's outstanding one-player game left off and is even better.
You play Joanna Dark (codenamed 'Perfect') investigating sinister behaviour of a megacorporation called Datadyne.
In fact, the future of the planet and maybe even the universe is in jeopardy.This artificial intelligence is brilliant, the graphics are amazing for the Nintendo 64, the multiplayer mode is great (but a little overcomplicated) and it's full of innovation from the word go.
It would be easy to get carried away on call this the best game ever made...This game starts to lose it's greatness when it gets to the later missions.
This isn't so apparent when you play it on the easier difficulties but play it on 'Perfect Agent' (the equivalent to Goldeneye's 00 Agent) and you start to realize that this game is extremely hard and success becomes a lot to do with luck as well as skill.As with all stealth games you are outnumbered, however, this game doesn't give you as many opportunities for being stealthy.
You really do have to a perfect gamer to be able to deal with the incredibly hard situations you are put in the game.
and again, and again, and again, and again, and again etc.However, despite this I still highly respect it and I hope the issues are addressed in the eventual sequel on the X-Box. Then, we could be looking at the greatest game of all time.
Interesting to note, Perfect Dark was going to feature a multiplayer feature where you would be able to scan in your face picture with a Game Boy Camera and map it onto a deathmatch character (in full-colour despite the fact the GB Camera took pictures in greyscale).
If this feature had been implemented I feel this game would have become very famous but controversial due to children being able to do this.
Superior sequel to Goldeneye N64.
What can you say about a game where you are a female agent protecting the world from alien domination?
Rare could not come out with a better sequel to Goldeneye than PD.
The plot is especially good, and Elvis is the coolest alien you ever done saw.If you don't own this game you better rush out and buy it!
One Of The Greatest Video Games Ever Made.
Perfect Dark is the long awaited sequel to GoldenEye 007 for the Nintendo 64 Entertainment System.
Following the exploits of new Carrington Institute Special Agent Joanna "Perfect Dark" Dark, who achieved a more than perfect score in her agent training.
Soon Joanna is not only fighting for herself, but for the fate of the universe.Combining first person shooting action, sci-fi drama, and thrilling espionage, Perfect Dark received PERFECT ratings from most reviewers.
Perfect Dark takes the innovative GoldenEye multiplayer to a new level, where you design your character, customize the settings (including guns and limits of the match), choose different scenarios (King of the Hill and Capture the Case), to going against 6 levels of CPU Simulants (from the stupid MeatSim to the smart and evil DarkSim).
This game is one of the last great N64 titles, and is now a Player's Choice - Million Seller Game.You would be wrong not to check out Perfect Dark..
Best Multi-Player for 64.
This game far surpasses it's inspiration (Goldeneye).
A "perfect" game for parties.
If you liked Goldeneye, the only thing you won't like about this game is that fast animation isn't nearly as quick as Goldeneye..
Return of GoldenEye...starring Joanna Dark as 007.
Perfect Dark IS modeled right after GoldenEye (though the rights for the James Bond games were swiped by EA at this time).
However, the elements of GoldenEye still belong to Rareware, since EA hasn't even dreamed of recreating the original GoldenEye (though they are releasing their own version of the game next month; now they're buying up most GoldenEye knock-offs, like TimeSplitters).GRAPHICS: Not really improved since GoldenEye's reign of terror, but there are some add-ons, such as how every gun has its own reload animation and now you can see your hand as you're holding the gun (unlike GoldenEye, where you could only see your hand on handguns.
Environments are pretty big, especially in the multiplayer levels.SOUND: Improved over GoldenEye, but only slightly.
An amusing thing about the sound is how you can hear the simulants in the combat arena shooting at each other in the distance, letting you know there must be one heck of a blazefest going on across the building.
I had to play without the Pak, so I'm missing all the yummy-ness the game was supposed to be built with.GAMEPLAY: Again, same as GoldenEye, except this time, the Deathmatch multiplayer allows one player to pit themselves with or against teams of computer-generated beings called simulants.
You can have up to 8 simulants, but in order to get that 8, you must work for it (preferably in the Challenges).
The only gripe I have is how unfair challenges seem to be after a while, like this one I'm stuck on where I have a simulant to work with against one enemy simulant, and there are one-hit kills.
Also, you need the Expansion Pak for the N64 in order to live the entire Perfect Dark experience.
Hey...that's why cartridges suck.BOTTOM LINE: Though this is a LITTLE better than GoldenEye, I wouldn't say too much.
Overall, you can check it out and see how nice it is, and it should be real easy to get used to if you've played GoldenEye before this.
Perfect Game..
Perfect Game..
SPOILERSPerfect Dark is the 2nd best N64 game(For me, the best is Ocarina of Time).
This can be named "Goldeneye 2" because of the similar things to the 1997 shooter classic.
The graphics are perfect.You can see many details in the game.
The game has many cool musics(Such as the end credits) and a cast of great dubbers.
The gameplay is very simple, with controls of perfect response.
The game is COOL!Many missions(More than 15), many guns(More than 40, each one with 2 functions) and the best Multiplayer of N64.Imagine this Multiplayer in Online Mode!
Perfect Dark is the prove of the quality of Rareware.
The scores are: GRAPHICS-10/10 SOUND-10/10 GAMEPLAY-10/10 FUN FACTOR-10/10Overall: 10/10.
The second best game of N64. |
tt0113362 | Le hussard sur le toit | In July 1832, Italian patriots hiding out in Aix, France, are betrayed by one of their own, and Austrian agents are on their trail. One patriot, Giacomo, is dragged away and executed. His wife runs off to warn their friend, Angelo Pardi (Olivier Martinez), a young Italian nobleman in France raising money for the Italian revolution against Austria. As the agents descend on his apartment, Angelo escapes into the countryside.
At Meyrargues, Angelo looks for his compatriot and childhood friend, Maggionari, and then continues on to another village, where he writes to his mother, "Always fleeing. When can I fight and show what your son can do?" His mother purchased his commission as a colonel in the Piedmont Hussars, and he's never seen battle. Angelo encounters Maggionari, who turns out to be the traitor. When the Austrian agents arrive, Angelo fights them off and escapes.
The next day, Angelo enters a village ravaged by a cholera epidemic. The sight of the corpses abandoned to the scavenging crows sickens him. He meets a country physician, who shows him how to treat cholera victims by vigorously rubbing alcohol on the skin. Angelo continues north, passing a small village where corpses are being burned. He meets a young woman and two children and accompanies them to the outskirts of Manosque. The young woman, who is a tutor and lover of books, gives him a copy of Rinaldo and Armida as a parting gift.
While in Manosque, Angelo is captured by a paranoid mob who accuse him of poisoning the town fountain. He is taken to the authorities, who soon abandon their posts in fear. Angelo searches for a compatriot, but encounters the Austrian agents. Angelo eludes them, and with sword in hand, fights his way through the hysterical mob and escapes across the rooftops. From his refuge above the town, Angelo watches one of the agents chased down and beaten to death, and later watches the piles of corpses being burned in the night.
To escape the rain, Angelo enters a dwelling where he is discovered by Countess Pauline de Théus (Juliette Binoche). Apologizing for his presence, Angelo reassures her that he is a gentleman. Pauline offers him food and drink, and soon he falls asleep from exhaustion. The following morning, Pauline is gone and Angelo joins the forced evacuation of the town. In the hills outside Manosque, Angelo meets his compatriot, Giuseppe, who possesses money raised for the Italian resistance, but which cannot now be delivered because of the quarantine and roadblocks. Angelo agrees to deliver the money to Milan using backroads. Before leaving, he encounters the traitor, Maggionari, who attempts to kill Angelo before succumbing to cholera.
Angelo and Pauline meet again, and she joins him in a daring river escape. At Les Mées, rather than head east toward the Italian border, Angelo accompanies Pauline north toward her castle near Gap. Angelo insists it is his duty, so they set off through the countryside, avoiding the plague-ridden towns. Forced to camp out in the open, romantic feelings develop between the two, but Angelo remains gallant. Asked if he comes from a military family, Angelo reveals he never knew his father, saying, "He came to Italy with Napoleon, then left." Everything he learned in life came from his mother.
The next day, they travel to a heavily-garrisoned village where they visit a friend of Pauline's husband and learn that he returned to Manosque to search for her. Determined to find her husband, Pauline leaves Angelo and rides off. Angelo follows, only to see her captured by the militia, who take her into quarantine at a convent. Knowing if she stays there she will die, Angelo surrenders to the militia in order to rescue her. Pauline understands he's risked his life again for her. Angelo orchestrates another daring escape by setting fire to the convent. Impressed by Angelo's bravery and intelligence, Pauline promises to trust the young Piedmont Hussard, saying, "I'll obey you like a soldier." Their mutual affection continues to grow as they make their way toward her castle at Théus.
As night descends, they seek shelter from the rain in a small abandoned mansion, where they warm themselves at the fireplace and drink wine. Pauline conveys her feelings for him, but Angelo remains a gentleman. Pauline recounts how she met her husband, forty years her senior. She was a sixteen-year-old country doctor's daughter when she found him near death with a bullet in his chest. Her father saved his life, and she tended to him for days, nursing him back to health. When he recovered, he left without revealing his identity, but six months later, he returned and asked for her hand in marriage—revealing he was a Count with extensive property.
Angelo prepares to leave, but Pauline decides to stay in the mansion for the night. As she climbs the staircase, she collapses showing symptoms of cholera. Angelo rushes her to the fireplace, rips the clothing from her body, and vigorously rubs alcohol on her skin—tending to her throughout the night trying to save her life. In the morning, Angelo is awakened by Pauline's frail but loving touch. Soon they are back on the road, completing the last few miles to Pauline's castle, where they are met by her husband, Count Laurent de Théus. Angelo leaves and returns to Italy to fight in the revolution.
One year later, Pauline returns to Aix where everything appears as it once was—but the cholera has taken a heavy toll. She looks for the house near the Bishop's Palace where Angelo stayed. She writes letters to Angelo, inquiring after his condition. Another year passes, and Pauline finally receives a letter at the castle from Angelo. She walks off alone to read it, while the Count watches from a window, knowing Angelo's memory would not fade. Pauline looks east toward the snow-covered Alps that separate her from Italy and Colonel Angelo Pardi, the young gallant officer who once saved her life. | violence, avant garde, murder | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0033836 | The Little Foxes | The play's focus is Southerner Regina Hubbard Giddens, who struggles for wealth and freedom within the confines of an early 20th-century society where fathers considered only sons as their legal heirs. As a result of this practice, while her two avaricious brothers Benjamin and Oscar have wielded the family inheritance into two independently substantial fortunes, she's had to rely upon her manipulation of her cautious, timid, browbeaten husband, Horace. He's no businessman, just her financial support; although he's pliable enough for her ambition, that ambition has driven him into becoming merely the sickly, wheelchair-bound tool of her insatiable greed.
Her brother Oscar married Birdie, his much-maligned alcoholic wife, solely to acquire her family's plantation and cotton fields. Oscar now wants to join forces with his brother, Benjamin, to construct a cotton mill. They need an additional $75,000 and approach Regina, asking her to invest in the project. Oscar initially proposes marriage between his son Leo and Regina's daughter Alexandra—first cousins—as a means of getting Horace's money, but Horace and Alexandra are repulsed by the suggestion. Horace refuses when Regina asks him outright for the money, so Leo, a bank teller, is pressured into stealing Horace's railroad bonds from the bank's safe deposit box.
Horace, after discovering this, tells Regina he is going to change his will in favor of their daughter, and also will claim he gave Leo the bonds as a loan, thereby cutting Regina out of the deal completely. When he suffers a heart attack during this chat, she makes no effort to help him. He dies within hours, without anyone knowing his plan and before changing his will. This leaves Regina free to blackmail her brothers by threatening to report Leo's theft unless they give her 75% ownership in the cotton mill (it is, in Regina's mind, a fair exchange for the stolen bonds). The price Regina ultimately pays for her evil deeds is the loss of her daughter Alexandra's love and respect. Regina's actions cause Alexandra to finally understand the importance of not idly watching people do evil. She tells Regina she will not watch her be "one who eats the earth," and abandons her. Having let her husband die, alienated her brothers, and driven away her only child, Regina is left wealthy but completely alone. | murder, melodrama | train | wikipedia | Bette Davis stars as Regina Giddens in this film version of Lillian Hellman's smash hit play (which starred Tallulah Bankhead).
Great performances here from Davis, Herbert Marshall, Teresa Wright, Richard Carlson, Charles Dingle, Patricia Collinge, Dan Duryea, Jessie Grayson, and Carl Benton Reid.
Wyler wanted Davis to portray Regina with a more sympathetic "hot house" flavour, but Bette was adamant that the character was a witch in spades: the resulting performance is striking.
As he did in The Letter, Mr. Wyler counted on Bette Davis and Herbert Marshall to play the leading roles in Little Foxes; and the choice worked out perfectly again.
Regina Giddens (Bette Davis), née Hubbard, is married with Horace Giddens (Herbert Marshall), who is a good man that is interned in a hospital in Baltimore due to a heart condition.
Regina's brothers are the exploitative Ben Hubbard (Charles Dingle), who is single, and Oscar Hubbard (Carl Benton Reid), who is married with the wounded Birdie (Patricia Collinge), and they have a son, the scum Leo (Dan Duryea) that works in a bank.
What will Horace and Alexandra do?"The Little Foxes" is a movie directed by William Wyler and based on a play that shows a Southern family of snakes in the turn of the Twentieth Century.
Regina (Bette) and her covetous brothers made the biblical passage "the love of money is the root of all evil" come to life.The Little Foxes is an apt name.
As animals Regina, Horace and Oscar not only would tear others to pieces to get what they want; they would eventually turn on each other to gain satisfaction.The performance of Herbert Marshall made me immediately search for his other movies to view; I've not been disappointed.
Superb playwright, Lillian Hellman (1905-84) wrote this screenplay for "The Little Foxes," saying that she "wrote her 'angry comedy' based on her own family's biannual dinner at which people drew lots for a diamond that had been left in her great-grandmother's estate." Hellman's first play for Samuel Goldwyn was "The Children's Hour." She was in lover with & influenced by author & screenplay writer, Dashiel Hammett.
(Jane Fonda plays Lillian Hellman in the movie "Julia" a true story about her best friend, played by Vanessa Redgrave; Jason Robards plays Dashiel)."The Little Foxes" is a vivid portrayal of sibling rivalry, Southern plantation slavery & most of all, greed in the Hubbard family of Alabama.
Carl Benton Reid played the other greedy Hubbard brother, "Oscar" and Dan Duryea was interesting as Oscar's dumb son, 'Leo."Herbert Marshall was good, too, as Regina's husband "Horace." He was an honest, principled man and thus, the black sheep in that household.
Each building upon the next, gaining speed until it culminates in a cinematic masterpiece, and the expression "Betty Davis Eyes" is born!Not having seen the entire movie until recently, I knew about the "staircase" scene, and everyone knows which one I'm referring to, my heart raced as I kept waiting for it to happen.
Bette Davis sinks her teeth into the role of icy bitch Regina Giddens with such relish that you can practically hear her sighing with satisfaction at getting away from the noble sufferer roles that had so recently made her famous in films like "Jezebel" and "Dark Victory." She's monstrous here as the frigid wife of Herbert Marshall, waiting impatiently for him to die so that she can get her talons on his inheritance.
The cast could hardly be improved upon, with the great Bette Davis taking center stage with a role that has her in her element, Herbert Marshall in a role ideal for him, and the supporting roles filled by talented performers who are themselves, in most cases, very well-cast.The script, likewise, is a well-conceived and well-paced adaptation of the Lillian Hellman play.
Superb, brooding Southern family melodrama about tension between greed and integrity, revolving around coming-of-age Alexandra Giddens (Teresa Wright), torn between corrupt, cruel and manipulative mother (Davis) and honest, loving, but infirm father (Marshall).
As you might expect, everyone herein is marvelous, dominated by the best of Bette Davis (as Regina Hubbard Giddens), whose backstage war with director William Wyler and the suits resulted in a great characterization that lifted all.********** The Little Foxes (8/20/41) William Wyler ~ Bette Davis, Herbert Marshall, Teresa Wright, Patricia Collinge.
Wyler extracts excellent performances from the entire cast, including Marshall, Dingle, Carlson, Grayson, and three making their film debuts: Wright, Duryea, and Collinge.
Another deep-cutting performance emanates from another wonderful actress from the era, Teresa Wright, playing Bette's daughter, whirring with inner emotion and love and equally capable of an inimitable quiet disavowed resistance due to her character's obligation to marry her first cousin, the ever-sniveling Dan Duryea, as a means of Dingle getting her father's money!This is an early effort by the great director William Wyler, who adapts the righteous and noteworthy Lillian Hellmann's somber play into a film in and of itself, employing fascinating visual descriptions and subterranean language without ever intruding.
The Little Foxes is near perfection from the the casting of Bette Davis and especially Patricia Collinge to the sets,cinematography and direction.
In this film, good direction and a tight script contribute to one of Ms. Davis' best performances with superb acting from the rest of the cast as well..
That's for the supporting goodies and the baddies?Since the wretched characters of Regina's brothers are not worth analyzing, the performances by Charles Dingle and Carl Benton Reid need a special attention, particularly in the scenes dominated yet generously led by Bette Davis.
It's an A team effort throughout, what with William Wyler's direction, Gregg Toland's deep-focus yet subtle photography, music by Meredith Willson, of all people, and much of the original Broadway cast, most notably an unforgettable Patricia Collinge (watch her big scene and marvel at the craftsmanship, both in front of and behind the camera).
They are a family of trades people, poor white trash in those halcyon years in the South before the Civil War. When the war laid the genteel planter class low, these are the people who prospered and became what was euphemistically entitled 'the new South.' They're a tough and ruthless family, but they are survivors though the next generation shows little promise because Dan Duryea who is the son of Reid and Patricia Collinge is an idiot and Teresa Wright, the daughter of Davis and Herbert Marshall will be rejecting the values of the previous Hubbard generation.I don't think Lillian Hellman's Marxist leanings were ever more prominently on display in her writing as in The Little Foxes.
Like most Marxists of the day, especially American Marxists, they sat and waited for the great come and get it revolution like fervent Pentacostals waiting for the Judgement Day. Wright in fact wishes for a society where people like her mother and uncles don't run things.Sadly and this is the weakness of The Little Foxes is that Hellman drew her characters too well.
I don't want to say more, as it could ruin the film.The bottom line is that this movie taken from the Lillian Hellman play is exquisitely written with marvelous characters, great plot twists and savagery within a family that make them seem more like a family of badgers than human beings!
Working basically on a one set, the movie doesn't feel claustrophobic."The Little Foxes" was based on a Lillian Hellman's play that was popular on the Broadway stage.
The film version was cleverly adapted to the screen where the magnificent production is seen in glorious detail thanks to the director and the cast that was assembled.Bette Davis was born to play Regina Giddens.
Bette Davis is Regina Giddens, one of "The Little Foxes" in this adaptation of Lillian Hellman's play directed by William Wyler.
The beautifully directed, acted, and photographed film is a magnificent adaptation and a great example of Bette Davis in her prime, working with her best director.
In William Wyler's adaptation of Lillian Hellman's great American drama, Davis plays Regina Giddens, a shrewd, manipulative woman who is willing to go to any lengths whatsoever to achieve her goal.
In this case, it's outwitting her brothers in order to be able to control the family's cotton mill (the story takes place in the south at the turn of the century mind you)--- even if it means sacrificing the health of her already ailing husband, Horace or the love of her young daughter Alexandra.
The coldness that Davis gives her character is admirable, but since she does not show any warmth or human side it becomes a bit of a two dimensional performance, not nearly as impressive as the acting by Wright or Herbert Marshall as her estranged husband.The lack of humanity in the greedy siblings is a bit problematic (they seem almost unrealistic) as is the fact that Wright's passage through life is more fascinating than the siblings' business deals since she is playing a more likable character than any of them - but overall, it is quite compelling stuff.
"Take us the foxes, the little foxes, that spoil the vines: for our vines have tender grapes." That prayer was the basis of Lillian Hellman's critically-acclaimed 1939 play "The Little Foxes"; adapted two years later by Samuel Goldwyn.Tallulah Bankhead didn't reprise her role as Regina Giddens as she was replaced by MGM figurehead: Bette Davis.
Birdie is the broken soul of the film and a sad collateral damage of the Hubbards' ambitious.Of course, we're left with some hope for the mankind through Regina's husband Horace (Herbert Marshall) and the most tender of all the grapes: Teresa Wright as Alexandra, the soulful arc of the film.
By the end, when she grasps the extent of her family's vileness and realizes she was the white sheep all along, a choice is given to her: either following the path of Birdie or to stop idly watching foxes taking the grapes.Patricia Collinge was nominated for an Oscar and so was Teresa Wright whose naturalness was so impressive for a film debut.
This script has too much opining and whining, not enough really tough observation.The best saved for last: Bette Davis cuts through all of Lillian Hellman's sentimental hokum with a beautifully vicious performance as Regina, with a great supporting turn from Charles Dingle as Ben, the one man who enjoys finagling others out of their money..
Wyler shows a very deep understanding of the script, human emotions, and the power of greed as opposed to love.The script, by Lilian Hellman, has some of the best, most concise dialogue of any movie ever made.Davis puts in an immaculate performance, sounding threatening without shrieking, a rare event in a career often punctuated by near-hysterical displays.Marshall, a superb actor, is unforgettable, each facial movement conveying myriad significance.I rate THE LITTLE FOXES a masterpiece, among the best 50 films ever made..
And any production involving Donald Trump will teach you more about greed.If you are going to make a film in which virtually every character is unlikeable and evil (except Teresa Wright, whom I normally adore, but who is sachharine here and all too obvious as a plot foil and decency relief), then at least make them interestingly evil.Yeah, I know -- there is the famous scene where Bette Davis as Regina does something naughty regarding her husband, Horace, played by the long-suffering Herbert Marshall (who was also her husband in the much more interesting "The Letter.") But, you know, that famous scene has been replayed in so many retrospectives, documentaries, and Davis salutes -- I think I've seen it a few times without ever seeing this whole movie -- that it has lost its punch.And Bette Davis had been to the "I'm an evil woman" well too many times at this point, and Herbert Marshall had played long-suffering husband to so many divas he could have phoned in his long suffering-ness.So, even in that Mount-Rushmore-famous scene, there is nothing that surprises or piques one's interest.
These little foxes, who spoil the grape vines, are an amusingly contemptible lot, though Bette Davis' Oscar-nominated lead performance was said not to be a shadow of Tallulah Bankhead's work on Broadway (in which Bankhead portrayed Regina as a victim of circumstance rather than as a ruthless matriarch).
Bette Davis as still another southern belle in the memorable "The Little Foxes."Bette was at her brutal best as scheming, vicious Regina Gittens who wants status and wealth at any cost.Herbert Marshall portrays her banker husband.
Unforgettable and unforgivable that she sat there with her lip drooping and a mean expression depicted like Madame De Farge at an execution, as Marshall's life slipped away.Bette was nominated for an Academy award along with Patricia Collinge, memorable as the unhappy alcoholic Aunt Birdie as well as Teresa Wright, who as Alexandra Gittens, was the antithesis of Regina in every respect.With her husband dead and the ability to checkmate her brothers, Regina seems to have it all only to lose it when Alexandra, suspicious of her father's death, tells her off and runs away with her beau portrayed by a young Richard Carlson.Note how Bette's beauty fades as the picture ends.
The Little Foxes is superlatively directed by Wyler, his use of the camera is relentless, he keeps the drama taut and does such a great job engrossing the audience into the story and its atmosphere to the extent it's like being there.Incredibly powerful writing, with razor sharp and chillingly vicious dialogue, and a story that's paced smoothly, darkly cruel, acutely dramatic without being melodramatic or ham-fisted but still entertaining and very compelling in its realism are also great assets, and there are scenes that stay with you for a long time like Regina and Alexandra's climactic scene on the staircase, the interaction between the characters and especially Horace's death scene (and that was mostly because of some chilling acting from Davis).
The characters are interesting and well-written if mostly unsympathetic apart from Alexandra, David and Horace, and like the story compellingly realistic.Herbert Marshall is on excellent form, bringing poignant tragedy to the role, while Patricia Collinge is heart-breaking, Teresa Wright is radiant and touching with a touch of feisty spirit in her later scenes and Richard Carlson makes for a sympathetic boyfriend.
Best of all is the towering portrayal by Bette Davis, playing one of the most monstrous characters of her career along with Whatever Happened to Baby Jane and The Anniversary, even her appearance is enough to give you the creeps.Only the somewhat abrupt and not quite resolved enough ending isn't so good, other than that The Little Foxes is an excellent film, that while not among Wyler's best it does deserve to be seen more.
I remembered this as an excellent movie with a brilliant performance by Bette Davis.To my surprise, on watching it a second time, ten years after the first, it seemed turgid, stagy, and even more predictable than the play.
Film-making at its best is what describes THE LITTLE FOXES, directed by William Wyler, shot by Gregg Toland -- he of deep focus fame -- adapted from a Lillian Hellman play and with Bette Davis playing a ruthless matriarch with a velvet glove.How far can greed take a person?
His and Wyler's direction allow for every minute detail in Davis' top-notch performance to come through: the chilling scene with her sitting in the sofa, looking dead ahead, as her husband crawls to his death up the stairs, is one of remarkable power -- more so due to its restraint of emotion, as is the final scene when she watches Alexandra leave and retreats from the windows into shadows.There's an interesting similarity in this film and Ingmar Bergman's CRIES AND WHISPERS.
It diminishes Alexandra's character somewhat, makes her weak, but I think also it's the choice Teresa Wright took when applying herself to this role; plus, it was her first film appearance against none other than Bette Davis in full command of Who she was.
And, later on, in the movie, big brother Ben (Charles Dingle) reminds Regina (Bette Davis) to smile as "mama always said a good looking woman should never frown".
His performance here is reminiscent of the work he did as Bette's weak husband in THE LETTER--but the scene where she denies him his medicine is as brilliantly played and filmed as any scene in the entire film.TERESA WRIGHT is a bit sugary as the sweet daughter but rises to the final moments--although I thought her last confrontation with her mother could have been even more harsh than Wyler permitted it to be.
Dan Duryea is convincing as the dumb Leo and Richard Carlson does nicely as Wright's boyfriend who realizes that she has a lot of learning to do about the household before she grows up.Most chilling aspect of the whole film is Bette Davis' towering performance as Regina--perhaps the most realistic of all of her "bad" roles.But for an even more powerful study of greed, I suggest you watch TREASURE OF THE SIERRA MADRE..
Synopsis: In the South, circa 1900, Regina Giddens, (Bette Davis), and her two scheming brothers, Ben, (Charles Dingle), and Oscar, (Carl Benton Reid), are working on a "get-rich-quick" scheme and all they need is about $75,000 from Regina's ailing husband, Horace Giddens, (Herbert Marshall), to make it happen.
All that said, it is the performances of Bette Davis, Teresa Wright and Patricia Collinge, as the heartbreaking Aunt Birdie, that make this film soar.
Let me introduce you to Regina, played by Bette Davis, scheming and badgering her sick and invalid husband, Horace (Herbert Marshall) to get her hands on $75,000.
It's a wonderful, if sickening, scene with inspired direction by William Wyler.Teresa Wright plays Regina and Horace's innocent daughter, Alexandra, a work in progress.
Bette Davis gives an incredible performance as Regina Giddons in William Wyler's "The Little Foxes.
Herbert Marshall's character Horace, was the one who stands out the most in terms of performance, and feels like he made the most lasting impression, even though he doesn't come in for quite some time in the film.
William Wyler's excellent film version of Lillian Hellman's play stars Bette Davis as Regina, a southern belle way past her prime who'll do pretty much anything to stay wealthy. |
tt0050547 | The Iron Sheriff | A stagecoach is robbed in South Dakota and its driver is killed. A dying man, Gene Walden, tells the sheriff, Sam Galt, that it was Sam's son Benjie who shot the driver. Benjie is engaged to be married to Walden's daughter.
Benjie is placed under arrest. Newspaper publisher Phil Quincy demands to know what Walden said, but Sam won't say. Quincy and the sheriff are in love with the same woman, Claire, whose father was a lawman killed in the line of duty.
Sam brings in a prominent lawyer, Roger Pollock, to defend his son and hires a detective, Sutherland, to help find the real culprits. In time, all evidence points to Benjie being the killer, and against his lawyer's wishes, Sam testifies to what Walden told him. Benjie is found guilty and sentenced to hang.
Coins from the robbery are found in Kathy's hope chest. She conspired in the robbery with Leveret, a telegraph operator who knew the stage's schedule, ambushed it and murdered the driver. Walden unjustly placed the blame on Benjie, disliking him for seducing his daughter. Sam manages to bring Leveret to justice in time to save his son. | murder | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0044392 | Baiju Bawra | Tansen is known to be the greatest classical vocalist ever to have existed in India, and was one of the nine jewels (Navaratnas) of Emperor Akbar's court. Nobody could sing in the city unless he or she could sing better than Tansen. If this was not the case, he or she was executed. Baiju Bawra is the story of an unknown singer, Baiju, who is on a mission to defeat Tansen in a musical duel to avenge the death of his father.
When Baiju is still a child, Tansen's sentry tries to stop Baiju's father from singing, and in the ensuing scuffle, his father dies. Before dying, he extracts a promise from his son to take revenge against Tansen. Baiju gets shelter from a village priest and while growing up, falls in love with Gauri, the daughter of a boatman. He continues his musical education on his own, but gets so enamoured by Gauri's love that he forgets the promise made to his father.
Later, a group of dacoits raid Baiju's village. With his song, Baiju persuades them against looting the village, but the female leader of the dacoits falls in love with him and asks him to follow them to their fort as a condition for their sparing the village. Baiju leaves with her, leaving the wailing Gauri behind. In the fort, the dacoit leader, who is actually a princess living in exile, tells Baiju how her father's serfdom had been usurped and she was seeking revenge because the village too previously belonged to her father. The word "revenge" brings all of Baiju's memories back; he leaves the fort greatly agitated, and the princess does not try to stop him.
Baiju sneaks into the Mughal palace, where Tansen is singing. He is dumbstruck by the way Tansen sings, and the sword that was supposed to cut the maestro's throat fell on the tanpura, saddening Tansen. He said he could only be killed by music, and the pain that accompanies it. "Dip your notes in melancholy and I'll die on my own," he said. Baiju accordingly leaves the palace to learn "real" music.
Baiju remembers that when his father was killed, he was taking Baiju to Swami Haridas. He goes to see the Swami himself and asks for his guidance, informing him of his plan to take revenge against Tansen. Haridas tells Baiju that one must be in love to be a true musician, and thus Baiju must rid himself of all the hatred in his heart, but still gives him a vina and accepts him as his disciple. Baiju again starts his musical training, spending all his time in a Shiva temple, but his vengeful feelings never leave him. Nonetheless, he still reveres his guru, Haridas. After learning that his teacher had fallen seriously ill and was unable to walk, Baiju sings a song that so thrills Haridas that the master gets out of his bed and starts to walk.
Gauri, meanwhile, is so distraught over Baiju's departure that she is about to swallow poison. At that point, the princess who had taken Baiju from the village comes to her and tells her that she knows of Baiju's whereabouts. Gauri meets Baiju and tries to convince him to return to the village so they can be married; Baiju, however, refuses, as he feels he must take revenge against Tansen. At this point, Haridas arrives, and Baiju goes to receive him, once again leaving a crying Gauri behind. Haridas tells Baiju that to be a true singer, he has to feel real pain. Hearing this, Gauri decides to make a venomous snake bite her, thinking that her death would bring enough grief to Baiju that he would defeat Tansen. Baiju sees Gauri's lifeless body and goes mad, with the princess' attempts to get through to him being futile. Baiju instead goes to the Shiva temple and sings a heart-wrenching song condemning the God who had consigned him to his fate; even the idol of Lord Shiva sheds tears at Baiju's grief.
In his delirious state, Baiju reaches Tansen's city, singing the whole way. The residents fear for his life and call him bawra (insane), hence the title of the movie. Baiju is caught and imprisoned, but the princess frees him. However, both of them are caught by Mughal soldiers when escaping, leaving a musical duel with Tansen as the only way to save his life.
Emperor Akbar himself witnesses the competition. For a long time, both the singers prove to be equally good. Then Akbar suggests that whoever could melt a marble slab with his singing would win the duel. Baiju manages to do so and wins the competition, saving his own life and finally avenging his father's death. Tansen accepts his defeat graciously, and is in fact happy that there is someone better than him. Baiju persuades Akbar to spare Tansen's life, to return the princess' land to her, and to allow music in the streets.
After winning the musical duel, Baiju departs from the court. Emperor Akbar is unhappy to see him go and asks Tansen to sing to produce a storm and floods to make him stay. Tansen sings raga Megh and the river Yamuna floods. (This scene was cut from the final film.)
Meanwhile, Gauri is alive but her father is deeply upset. The entire village makes fun of Gauri's and Baiju's love affair. Her father warns her that either Baiju be found, or Gauri should marry a village moneylender and in case she refuses, he would commit suicide. Gauri, unwilling to divulge Baiju's whereabouts, agrees to marry the money-lender.
Discovering that she is still alive, Baiju goes to meet Gauri. On the other side of a swollen Yamuna River, Baiju is stuck. The boatmen refuse to take him to the other side. Despite not knowing how to swim, Baiju pushes the boat into the raging waters and starts rowing it. He starts singing and Gauri hears it. She starts running towards the bank. When she sees Baiju struggling with the boat, she jumps into the water to rescue Baiju. The boat topples over and after a lot of struggle Gauri manages to reach him. He urges her to go back and leave him but Gauri replies that they had promised to be together in life and in death, and she would be content in dying with him. They both drown. | revenge, romantic | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0065233 | Yuke yuke nidome no shojo | Poppo, a teenage girl, is raped by four boys on the roof of a seven-story apartment building. She asks them to kill her, but they mock her and leave. Tsukio, a teenage boy, has been watching the rape passively. Over the course of a day and a night, Poppo and Tsukio begin a relationship, telling each other of their troubled past and philosophizing about their fate. Poppo describes an earlier rapes shown in flashback. In a color flashback, Tsukio tells of his own recent sexual abuse at the hands of a neighboring foursome, all of whom he has stabbed to death. Poppo repeatedly asks Tsukio to kill her, but he refuses.
When the gang returns and again rapes Poppo, Tsukio kills each of them and their three girlfriends. While he is doing this, Poppo follows him complaining that he refuses her request, yet is killing the gang. The story ends with Poppo and Tsukio both jumping off the apartment roof to their deaths. | revenge | train | wikipedia | In beautifully shot black and white with some gory color sequences this film takes you on a compelling, nihilistic trip through the claustrophobic existence of two teenagers living on the edge of society.
Koji Wakamtsu's "Go,Go Second Time Virgin" is a classic pinku eiga film.Wakamatsu was raised to be a farmer but made his move to the big city and tried his hand at being a gangster and a convict before he found his true calling as Japan's most notorious experimental movie director,who made over 30 films between 1963 and 1974,many of them too raw and disturbing to be shown in theaters but acclaimed at fine-film festivals."Go,Go Second Time Virgin" tells the story of of Poppo(Mimi Kozakura),a young girl raped(for the second time in her young life)by a gang of street ruffians one August night in Tokyo.Left bleeding on a rooftop,she survives the night and meets Tsukio(Michio Akiyama),a fellow teenager with problems of his own.Together they explore the darker side of life and sex,with Poppo's suicidal obsessions matching similar threads in Tsukio's unsuccessfully published book of poetry.The joy they find in each other inflames their rage at the unjust world around them,and their love engenders a tragic killing spree."Go,Go Second Time Virgin" is a beautifully shot film and the cinematography is brilliant.Most of the film is in gorgeous black-and-white,with a few tinted sequences and a full-color flashback to Tsukio's unfortunate orgy experience.So if you are a fan of Japanese art-house exploitation give this one a look.8 out of 10..
Amazingly bleak film, and quite shocking to watch.
A strangely jaunty, optimistic sounding title for such a grim and nihilistic movie though."If you tell me why you want to die, then I'll kill you""Really?" "Yes?" "It's because I'm so hopelessly unhappy in this life"(Bit of a rough quote there I'm afraid).
opens with a 17 year old girl being dragged to a rooftop and raped by a gang of thugs, whilst a boy of a similar age watches on expressionless.
Awkward conversation arises, and the girl reveals that this is the second time she's been raped.
I don't know what it is about the Japanese, but they seem to have a knack of producing the strangest and most disturbed movies in the world.
Takashi Miike might be shocking audiences and provoking walk outs now, but 32 years ago Koji Wakamatsu was producing movies that were at least as dysfunctional and disturbing.
It feels in many ways more 'film' like than most movies today...
the cinematography is all very photographic, and the way the interesting soundtrack is blended with the movie - definitely 'cinema as art'.
If nothing else, the stark black and white cinematography is gorgeous, and director Wakamatsu's use of music is masterful.
The director later went on to produce Oshima's In the Realm of the Senses, which, while certainly a good film, is far less daring and compelling as Go Go Second Time Virgin.
But this has got to be one of the most bizare,yet interesting films that has come out of japan in recent years.
unlike American teen angst films were you just have a bunch of dialog and crying this one has action and visual imagery that follows the characters though out the whole film the combination of both color and black and white film is a rare treat indeed..
Go Go Second Time Virgin is as surreal and strange as its title suggests it is.
Go Go Second Tim Virgin starts with a rape sequence and from there we focus on two teenagers; one of which being the girl that was raped.
The pair of them are depressed, and the girl insists that she wants to die and asks the boy to do it, but he refuses, preferring a different solution to the problem.
The film is stylishly shot; most of it is in black and white although certain sequences are portrayed in colour.
There's not a great deal of sleaze in the film - the rape scenes are not overly graphic and there's not a great deal of gore either.
I won't name this film as a favourite or anything like that, but it's an interesting little flick that is definitely worth seeing, and therefore comes recommended..
Not an easy and an art movie, Koji Wakamatsu's Go-Go Second Time Virgin' won't let you without a second see, because it's just amazing.
More than that (can you imagine) Go-Go Second Time Virgin' is a strange and beautiful combination Bunuel-Resnais-Antonioni in a Japanese manner.
It is true that the movie is violent, really violent, but physical violence is a indispensable element in Go-Go Second Time Virgin', especially when the same violence is not being followed for any single moment by Wakamatsu.
The TITLE signifies purity, and in the beginning, a 17 years old girl is gang raped on a roof, while a boy is watching without participating.
The boy remains there, right next to the raped girl till the morning, 8th of August, a warm and sunny one.
The girl gets up and, even though she wasn't a virgin, she still bleeded after the rape.
She bleeded for the second time, because she didn't lose her innocence, and directly comes the title, Go-Go Second Time Virgin'.
For the same reason the movie is build' on and around a ROOF, with many WHITE SHEETS in the 8th of August morning scene.
The girl is sad and she wants to die, and the boy, an anonymous poet, pretends that he does not understand why.
We go down the roof in a flat where the image turns for the last time from B/W (not a coincidence) into colour, this time, and there is a murder scene with four bodies and a lot of blood.
From this moment 'till the end, the movie turns into a not losing purity dilemma, and the climax is the night i'm-gonna-kill-you-dance, all WHITE SHEETS are gone and a misty morning on the 9th of August.
As for the set, the image and the shot, Tarkovsky's and Kieslowskyi's fans would be delighted seeing Go-Go Second Time Virgin' a '65 minutes everyday Masterpiece about trying, keeping and fighting for your own purity.
And so it goes, still camera and long takes, repetitious dialogue and pretentious poetry, the slow unfolding of terminal youth, sorry isolated kids playing out sex and death on what might as well be the roof of the world.
Referred to in the credits simply as girl and boy, Poppio and Tsukio find their obsessions entwine, find tenderness amidst cruelty but best of all for the viewer find expression as remarkably credible characters.
Films dealing with the darker side of youth seem eternally prone to sensationalism and that is present here, but for all the exploitation gears that this film moves through the characters are authentic, their inescapable thoughts, the bindings of determination, of society, of their own desperation, all is real, bleak to a wrenching degree but always unsettlingly real.
Director Koji Wakamatsu demonstrates mastery of his craft, exquisitely binding exploitation to art-house treatment, switching to colour for memory or grisly violence and deploying once or twice hand-held camera for shocking style as he pulls his actors inexorably to climax.
The film does slip into the realms of the unnecessary in using photographs of Roman Polanski and Sharon Tate, underlining the climatic violence and its riff on the then all over the papers Tate/Lo Bianco murders but it felt somewhat out of place to me.
Incredibly bleak pink film.
Personally i find "Second Time Virgin" more disturbing though.
Very minimalist film, almost entirely shot on a grimy rooftop, where a young woman gets raped repeatedly, mostly because after the first rape, she decides to STAY on the roof, to wait for someone to kill her or rape her again!
Effectively filmed in black and white, with some jarring color flashback scenes, this film can really get under the skin.
Many people die, and the casual way the deaths are filmed makes for a surreal and unpleasant mood.
Bleak "Day In The Life" Of Two Japanese Teenagers....
Koji Wakamatsu's GO, GO SECOND TIME VIRGIN is a dark tale of rape, revenge, teen-angst, depression, and feelings of solitude.
This is a strong film showing the inner-turmoil of two teenagers who've each had a rough life.Tsukio follows after a gang of guys who take a young girl to a rooftop to rape her.
He stands by and watches, and stays on the roof until the girl wakes up the next morning.
They eventually take revenge against the gang that raped her, and decide to take their own "destinies" into their own hands...Much like Wakamatsu's earlier film, THE EMBRYO HUNTS IN SECRET - G,GSTV is a pretty bleak film punctuated with poetic and strangely beautiful moments.
There are a few rape scenes and a little bit of splatter for the sleaze-heads out there (of which I am proudly one...) but this is not an overtly sleazy film.
Now as it happens, I was watching films when this was made, so even though I'm coming to it out of its context, I do know the Manson murders and some notion of where Japanese film and society were.
But the truth is that I cannot connect with this the way the filmmaker intended; I'm just too far removed in time and culture.I can guess from the outside: the nudity would have been shocking in the time and place; the dramatic devices more effective.
The depiction of society as fundamentally damaged is universal and reachable but not through the vehicles used here: the Japanese obsessions with virginal sex; the particular abstractions of Japanese comics; the Japanese tradition of suicide, essentially religious; the Japanese tradition of ritualized stage drama the role that filmmakers played in Japanese society as challengers of culture that has no counterpart in the west.And then there's the dark side of zen, that violence heals.So how do I watch this?
And if I am pretending, do I go as far as pretend to be the audience the filmmaker is criticizing instead of being on the filmmaker's side?Do I watch it for historical value, looking for its place in the development of films that do affect me directly today?
But it seems a lot of layers to go through for something that was meant so simply.The story here is of a girl who defines herself as a virgin because she bleeds when gangraped.
We kill everyone we see, something underscored by photographs of a filmmaker (Polanski) and murdered wife (Sharon Tate).Ted's Evaluation -- 2 of 3: Has some interesting elements..
It is a mix of art-house and exploitation and it marries the two seamlessly.A girl, who is tired of life, begs a shy, troubled geek to kill her.
The soundtrack is minimal, the music sparingly employed at key moments.Wakamatsu has an original, anti-establishment perspective that makes his more personal films very intriguing and fresh..
His other exploits include getting high with Yoko Ono in a hotel room, getting banned from entering the USA because of radical political affiliations in his youth, producing Nagisa Oshima's controversial pinku film In the Realm of the Senses and, according to some rumors, even sending his daughters to a Palestine army camp to teach them discipline.Take everything written above, and take the title "Go, Go, Second Time Virgin" and just try to visualize what sort of a film this is.
A pinku Japanese New Wave exploitation art-house film shot on a shoestring budget in foru days, resorting to a single location like in other Wakamatsu films, in this case a building rooftop.
In the end - the movie is very nihilistic - you can't escape the rooftop and its wickedness, and the only way out is jumping off of it to your death.The title of the film is taken from one of the poems the heroine recites, and is a reference to how she bled after getting raped on the roof even if it weren't her first time.
For visual accompaniment, Wakamatsu focuses on white hanging sheets which disappear after the opening scene.
The film's bleak B&W look is also sometimes interrupted by a cyan-tinted flashbacks and, later, a full color violent flashback which manages to be incredibly unsettling despite the extra-fake blood effects and the amateurish acting.It's a short watch, spanning just over an hour in typical pinku fashion, but I'd say every minute of it is well-spent even if I have trouble understanding it.
It relies on poetry and jazz songs to give the story more depth, although Wakamatsu's intent is never made clear, right to the very end where the camera focuses on an children-aimed ad advertising not to sniff thinner.
There's also a scene where the titular girl, Poppo, speaks to the camera and yells "Fuck you!" after confessing that neither her nor her mother felt any pleasure while getting raped.
The scene has been read as Wakamatsu's attack on conventional plot points concerning rape in pinku films.One oddity in particular concerning this films is that it's tied to the Manson Family murders.
This movie for example ends with a quick-cut collage of violent manga extracts and pictures of Roman Polanski and his murdered wife Sharon Tate.
The film begins on August 8th, the same day as the Tate murders, and 3 women and 4 men are killed in the movie (same number as the Tate-LaBianca killings).And you know what else?
Mama, I'm Heading Off. Go, Go Second Time Virgin opens with the gang rape of a seventeen year old girl by four men.
With a slow Japanese acid rock tune playing in the background, the camera focuses on the face of the young girl while she is raped by each man.
This scene then goes to a flashback in sepia tones in which the viewer witnesses the first time the girl was gang raped.
Instead of fleeing the scene or calling the police, the girl remains on the rooftop and makes a shaky friendship with a boy, the son of the building's manager, who witnessed her rape.
Spending their time on the rooftop, the boy and girl engage in a conversation which basically consists of the girl telling the boy that she wants him to kill her.
However, the boy, of course, is reluctant to do so, but as time goes on the boy agrees to do so, and it seems that he might have some experience in the area of killing.Go, Go Second Time Virgin is a bizarre film by a director who broke many filmic taboos and directed films such as Blood Red from the Sun, The Wet Flower's Budding Eye, and Flesh Target Escape in a time in which Japan was producing one pink film after another, so where Miike can be viewed promulgator of extreme violence in Japanese film of today, Wakamatsu was pushing the envelope of eroticism over forty years ago during a time in which censorship was much stronger.
However, how does Go, Go Second Time Virgin rate as a film?
Upon my first watching of the film it seemed nothing more than a way to display the naked body of its lead actress as much as possible and upon my second viewing of this film it seemed as if Wakamatsu was trying to create a film that not only had erotic aspirations but was also trying to push the pink film to a new level of artistry.
However, for those who like the films of Suzuki Norifumi, the older films of Oshima Nagisa and Imamura Shohei, or maybe the fiction of Murakami Ryu Go, Go Second Time Virgin might be a good example of some of the sleazier films produced during the 1960s in Japan..
GO, GO SECOND TIME VIRGIN (Koji Wakamatsu, 1969) **1/2.
This one presents an even more depressing (and pointless) concept than THE EMBRYO: the film is basically a series of gang-rapes committed on a young girl by a mixed group of wastrels on the roof of an apartment block, separated only by scenes in which the girl is befriended by an unwilling (and possibly impotent) hanger-on where they recite poetry and sing songs as a means of coping with their strange predicament!
A couple of similarly violent reminiscences by each of these characters are effectively shown in color, as opposed to the stark monochrome photography of the main events.
Despite the abundant nudity on display (the girl is naked for most of the film's running time), the end result is distinctly unerotic; not surprisingly or, perhaps inevitably, the story resolves itself with bloodshed as the gang is butchered with a knife by the enigmatic boy, after which he and the girl leap off the roof to their death!!.
A rape and revenge movie that leaves the beaten path far behind, but there was no 'beaten path' in 1969, was there?
So, was this the first rape and revenge movie?
If it was, then it has its own added set of rules.Main characters Tsukio ('boy') and Poppo ('girl') have charm and charisma in spades, which can be crucial in any kind of exploitation film.
It is the end of an era in which pretty anything goes, but that never happens without consequences.This is a crazy, bloody, poetic, musical, haphazard trip taking place in, on and around an apartment building somewhere in (I assume) Tokyo mostly in black and white, and it might not be for everyone...10 out of 10 because 'Yuke yuke nidome no shojo' just does nothing wrong (well, if you want to split hairs: near the end I saw the shadows of the camera and crew a couple of times and the beach scene had a continuity goof in it)..
Bespectacled, effete young man watches a young girl get gang raped on top of an apartment building.
The girl claims it's the second time she's been raped.
A mysterious bond grows between them, and inviting her to his apartment, he reveals a little secret -- he's a psychotic mass murderer who's just murdered four people who forced him into an orgy!Seeing as they are both the victims of sexual abuse, the girl's attackers return to the roof of the apartment building. |
tt0046532 | War Arrow | Major Howell Brady (Jeff Chandler), a cavalry officer, is sent from Washington D.C. to Fort Clark, Texas, to subdue a Kiowa uprising that has been raiding both white settlements and villages on Seminole reservations. Brady requests that the post commander Colonel Meade (John McIntire) send his troops out in fast moving small units to engage the Kiowa but the Colonel fears his men would be slaughtered in piece meal actions and only feels the Kiowa are impressed by large numbers of troops.
Together with his two sergeants, Brady enlists the help of the Seminole chief, Maygro (Henry Brandon}, by giving him $500 and promising his people food and land. The three of them arm 25 Seminoles with state of the art Henry repeating rifles and train them as counter guerillas; luring the Kiowa in then ambushing them. Col. Meade and his officers resent Brady’s interference and mistrust the Seminoles.
At Fort Clark, Brady meets and falls in love with Elaine Corwin (Maureen O'Hara), the widow of a cavalry officer. However, when "Brady's Bunch" of Seminoles successfully repel a Kiowa attack, Brady spots a white man with the Kiowa. Although he does not get a good look at him, he recovers his sabre. The engraved sabre turns out to belong to Captain R. G. Corwin, the supposedly deceased husband of Elaine. The Seminoles confirm Corwin is still alive through torturing a Kiowa prisoner.
Meanwhile, Meade fails to deliver promised food to the Seminole so Maygro leads his people from the fort. Brady steals the food from the fort and delivers it himself to Maygro, for which Meade jails Brady. Brady is freed by Elaine and some of the Seminoles.
Brady discovers the Kiowa are preparing to attack the fort that is defended by only 20 men due to Meade's forces being away pursuing the elusive Kiowa. He returns to warn Meade, but he ignores him. He is about to throw Brady back in jail when a cavalry patrol returns with the same news that the Kiowa are preparing to attack. A fierce battle ensues and the Kiowa are defeated. Amongst the dead is the traitor R. G. Corwin, whom it turns out has been collaborating with a group of Mexicans to incite war. | violence | train | wikipedia | Maureen O' Hara & Jeff Chandler are the stars here, in this otherwise average western.
He's a cavalry major who over- rides the opposition of fort commander John McIntire and recruits friendly native American Seminoles to help defeat hostile Kiowas.O'Hara plays a fiery wife of a captain who's gone missing and she's a hot shot with a rifle and doesn't mind laying a charge of dynamite, if need be.
She's radiant as ever but Chandler looks a bit wooden (generally for me as an actor).The end shoot out against the Indians is a spirited and action-packed one and nearly makes up for an otherwise rather disappointing, slightly boring film.
The direction, by George Sherman, is adequate but little more and whilst it's in Technicolor, it doesn't look as glorious as it should.One for serious fans of westerns, otherwise, probably not..
It's just a regular, everyday western, but with good acting, Technicolor, the solid direction of George Sherman, and a fine screenplay by the effective John Michael Hayes (of Hitchcock fame), it delivers enjoyable entertainment for the length of its running time, and should keep you hooked until the action-packed ending.The premise is an interesting one, and the relationships of the characters - especially Chandler's with his commanding officer, John MacIntyre, and his sweetheart, Maureen O'Hara, are more interesting than in the usual standard western.
I thought Chandler and O'Hara were excellent leads, with good chemistry - with MacIntyre, Charles Drake, Noah Beery, Jr., and (cast as Indians) Suzan Ball, Henry Brandon, and Dennis Weaver extremely effective, as well.A drawback was that some of the dialogue was difficult to pick up (though that could have to do with the DVD transfer, not the film itself), and the denouement was kind of sudden and the ending rushed.And, as usual with some of these films, the whole thing seems a little bit modern, with well-lit (supposedly by candlelight and oil lamps), perfectly decorated rooms at the fort (plenty of fresh flowers everywhere) - and Miss Ball in a dress she supposedly constructed herself - her first try at dressmaking - which fits her as if it was executed by Universal's dressmakers (it was).
In War Arrow, Major Jeff Chandler is sent west with two trusty sergeant sidekicks, Charles Drake and Noah Beery, Jr., to implement some ideas of his own about fighting the Kiowas.
Seems as though the Kiowas like to raid their villages as a warm up before attacking whites and the Seminoles have no weapons to resist.These Kiowas led by Henry Brandon are devilishly tricky lot, almost as if they are led by someone who studied army military tactics.
Turns out they are.In her memoirs Maureen O'Hara dismisses both of her films with Jeff Chandler, this film and Flame of Araby which makes this one look good.
Chandler probably was not terribly interested in the project, he was just beginning to fight for better roles than the action programmers he was doing under his Universal contract.Chandler is operating independently out of the fort commanded by John McIntire.
The army chain of command is a sacred thing and any commander worth his salt wouldn't put up with it.Of course why the Seminoles would possibly want to go to war on behalf of the white man against other Indians is not satisfactorily explained, even with the Kiowas.
It certainly would seem far more likely to team up with the Kiowas.On the plus side, War Arrow has some nice battle scenes, especially the climatic battle when the Kiowas come real close to capturing McIntire's fort.
It also has some nice performances by Dennis Weaver and Suzan Ball playing Seminole lovers.But it sure won't be ranked as one of the great cinema westerns..
It stars Jeff Chandler, Maureen O'Hara, Suzan Ball, Noah Beery, Charles Drake, John McIntire and Henry Brandon.
Story is based on real events and sees Chandler as Cavalry officer Major Howell Brady, who is dispatched by Washington to end the Kiowa Indian uprising in Texas.
But his mission is made doubly difficult by the obstinate commander of the post Colonel Meade (McIntire), and his feelings towards Elaine Corwin (O'Hara), whose officer husband disappeared after a scouting mission.Brady's BunchA pleasant surprise, although mired in the formula than ran through many a B Western that featured Cavalry and Indians, War Arrow packs an intelligent punch and features acting to match.
The strength in the narrative comes from Brady's coercing of the peaceful Seminole Indians to fight alongside the white man against the rampaging Kiowa.
With Brady meeting resistance from stuffy Colonel Meade, these promises are on shaky ground, but the training sequences are most interesting for their tactical value and the Seminole are nicely drawn as a race of people.
The latter of which, unsurprisingly, is not afforded the Kiowa who are rank and file blood thirsty marauders, but the balance is right, and with the Henry Repeating Rifle the weapon of choice, the action and stunt work, particularly for the siege on the fort finale, is high on excitement.They say that a wild plant doesn't live too long indoorsInto the mix is a romantic triangle, which isn't overplayed and creates a number of jealousies from both male and female characters.
Chandler offers up a big presence, while turning in one of his more committed Western performances, and O'Hara brings the class while Ball brings the smoulder.
Daniels' (The Far Country/Night Passage) Agoura exteriors are pleasing, though the print of the film isn't doing it justice, and the prolific Gershenson (the go-to guy for Cavalry Vs Indians flavouring) scores it in standard, but easy listening, thematic beats.With Sherman's (Chief Crazy Horse/Big Jake) direction unfussy, War Arrow, in spite of mixed reviews on the internet, is a B Western I personally recommend to like minded Western fans.
Cavalry officer Jeff Chandler trains a peaceful tribe of displaced Seminoles to fight against a warring tribe of Kiowa, while at the same time butting heads with stubborn commanding officer John McIntire and romancing pretty "widow" Maureen O'Hara, who's husband may or may not still be alive as the leader of the renegades.This B-western has some okay, but short and clumsy action scenes.
War Arrow is fast-paced enough, with a compact running time.As the Seminole chief's daughter, Suzan Ball is very beautiful (even more so than Maureen O'Hara!), even if her character is rather unlikable.
Indians Western deals with Major Howell Brady (Jeff Chandler) supported by two colleagues (Charles Drake , Noah Beery Jr.) are sent by Washington to end the Kiowa uprisings in Indian territory .
As they are assigned to go to Texas and recruit peaceful tribes Seminoles relocated from Florida to aid the army in bitter fighting the savage and hated Kiowas .
The picture gets Western action , shootouts , a love story , breathtaking raids on a Yankee fort and results to be quite entertaining .
At the ending , when takes place the Indian assault , possesses all the sweep , grandeur and noisy action of the greatest Westerns of an age long past .
As Jeff Chandler is good as Army Major Brady who attempts to vanquish Kiowas and to keep the peace between US cavalry and Indians .
And other wonderful woman , Suzan Ball as Indian Avis , who also died early at 21 by cancer , being these ¨War arrow¨ and ¨Chief Crazy Horse¨ both of them directed by George Sherman , his last films .
, Charles Drake , Henry Brandon , Dennis Weaver , Jay Silverheels , Jim Bannon , Lance Fuller and special mention for the veteran John McIntire .
During the Indian Wars of the late 1800s, the U.S. government hired Seminole Indians from Florida to help fight the Kiowa Indians of the Southwest.
Using one group of Indians to fight another wasn't new even back then--it was, after all, how the Army finally managed to subdue the Apaches--and it would make a good film, but this one isn't it.
Director George Sherman was an old hand at making westerns, having churned out dozens of them during his days at Republic, and Jeff Chandler and Maureen O'Hara had done more than their share of them.
There are a few action scenes spread throughout the picture, and a fairly big one--an attack on a fort--at the end, but they are for the most part pretty listless affairs, lacking the energy that Sherman usually brought to them.
On the other hand, Suzan Ball is smokin' as a sexy Indian girl, so maybe that's why O'Hara looks uncomfortable.
This picture has the novel approach of the U.S. cavalry enlisting peaceful Seminoles to help them fight warring Kiowas on the southern plains.
The Seminoles, now farmers instead of fierce warriors, are trained by Jeff Chandler's troopers in military tactics to stand up to the Kiowa raiders.
Chandler is solid throughout the picture and is well paired with Maureen O'Hara as he romances the pretty widow.
Surely the best line of the film is when Jeff Chandler "forcibly" kisses Maureen O' Hara (after she tells him she doesn't love him) and she responds by telling him: "I'm genuinely impressed."Very interesting Western, possibly overstating the lead character's sympathy for the native American, but this is ahead of its time for a 1953 movie.
Jeff Chandler plays a major in the U.S. Calvary who wants to train the peaceful Seminoles to help the Army fight the savage, marauding Kiowas; Maureen O'Hara is a flirtatious widow whose captain-husband (found burned beyond recognition, yet still possessing his identification papers!) may be alive, having defected to fight alongside the Indians.
Her main acting skills involve a mane of red hair and large bosoms.In this movie, O'Hara, once again, plays a fiery redhead who likes to tell the man she loves that she wants nothing to do with him.
He gets more screen time and all the action, but he is sadly lacking in the mammary department.They have plenty of Indians in this movie.
And then there is a big battle where everybody forgets their roles and just attacks everybody else en masse.And finally Maureen O'Hara gets to model a cool outfit.The end.This movie gets two stars: One for Ms. O'Hara's physical qualities, and one for her lack of screen time.I almost deducted a star for Dennis Weaver's portrayal of an Indian, but it was a relief to see the man walk around without a stick tied to his leg..
Jeff Chandler plays an army major who heads west in order to help an obstinate colonel quell a local Kiowa uprising.
He has the idea to train some uprooted Seminoles to help the army defeat the Kiowa using some of the same hit-and-run tactics the Kiowa use to attack white settlers.
The Kiowa are also helped by an army deserter who also happens to be Maureen O'Hara's ex.
Dennis Weaver as a Seminole indian looks unconvincing and John McIntire as the stubborn colonel can be a little too hard to believe at times.
It's only when the Kiowa attack the fort and he gets shot that he comes around and believes Chandler's tactics were right, all along.The full-screen Universal DVD is pretty clean with little, if any film damage but the only extra is a trailer.
Stereotypical (white) Natives, but Chandler, O'Hara and Ball make it worthwhile.
Major Brady (Jeff Chandler) arrives from D.C. to utilize a small band of transplanted Seminoles to aid the US Army against the marauding Kiowas.
Brady conflicts with the Colonel of the fort (John McIntire) and romances a redheaded widow (Maureen O'Hara) while a Seminole woman takes interest in him (Suzan Ball).Chandler was 33 during filming and is great as the masculine protagonist with Hollywood looks, but his greying hair makes him look at least a decade older.
In any event, the film has a great Western "look." Unfortunately, the film loses points due to using white actors in the main Native roles, like Dennis Weaver as the Seminole brave who loves Avis and Henry Brandon as Avis' father, Maygro, not to mention Ball as Avis.
Determined to correct this situation, an Army major named "Howell Brady" (Jeff Chandler) is sent to the fort in an effort to rearm the Seminoles to augment the troops at the fort.
Major Brady also meets an attractive widow named "Elaine Corwin" (Maureen O'Hara) who welcomes a new face in the middle of nowhere.
"War Arrow" opens with major Jeff Chandler arriving at Fort Clark, Texas, and discovering that Colonel John McIntire openly opposes the government endorsed plan to make use of displaced Seminole Indians to stop the bloody Kiowa uprising on soldiers and settlers...In fact, the only person at the fort who is friendly to Chandler is Maureen O'Hara, the attractive widow of Captain James Bannon...All the action leads to a tidy end: Chandler discovers Bannon is very much alive (at least at the climax of the movie) and is really the renegade white chief of the Kiowas...In the small assigned action-packed moments in this slight entrance, the pillaging Kiowas are totally controlled...
For a rare change Maureen had some harsh competition in the fascinating department, which was supplied by Suzan Ball as the passionately sensual daughter of the Seminole chief...The film is more of an excuse to show that excellent guys, always end up with excellent girlseven when the best guy resists authority and tries to match one tribe of Indians against another...
Good western, containing elements of "Fort Apache" and an imaginative, if far-fetched, screenplay..
Jeff Chandler and Jay Silverheels, who played Cochise and Geronimo, respectively, in "Broken Arrow" and "Battle at Apache Pass", return for this one.
Chandler, as Major Brady, has a role somewhat like that of John Wayne in "Fort Apache", except that here it's the sitting fort commander(Meade), rather than the new guy from the East, who goes strictly by the book and doesn't know how to subdue the Indians.
In this film, the fictional Brady took this a step further, training the Seminoles to be the primary fighters against the raiding Kiowa, rather than just scouts.
Fort commander Meade(John McIntire) sarcastically called them 'Brady's bunch', and wrongly predicted that they would prove no match for the Kiowa.
Fortunately, Maureen's character sensed that the Kiowa would eventually lose, and broke out to destroy a part of the 'snake'.Young Suzan Ball takes on Maureen O'Hara's frequent role as a feisty independent-minded woman, whereas Maureen's character is rather bland, hobbled by uncertainty whether her estranged husband(Corwin) is still alive, and if so, whether she would want to receive him back into her life, given his known collusion with the Mexican government to promote Indian unrest in Texas.
However, Ball didn't end up romantically with Chandler's character in either that film or the present one.
She was much more subdued in that role, perhaps because one leg had been amputated in an effort to halt the cancer spread.John McIntire is OK as the overly pessimistic fort commander, who too often resents the opinions and actions of the upstart Major Brady.
Noah Berry and Charles Drake are OK as Brady's two loyal, somewhat knuckleheaded, sidekicks, reminding me of the pair of sidekicks played by Alan Hale and 'Big Boy' Williams in "Santa Fe Trail"Dennis Weaver hardly looks convincing as a Seminole(Pino).He came across much better as the Navajo chief in "Column South".Look for this film on YouTube..
This B-Western follows US Cavalry officer Major Howell Brady who has been sent to Fort Clark in Texas to try a new method of fighting the local Kiowa tribe; he intends to recruit Seminole Indians who had been forcibly relocated to the area after their defeat in Florida.
There is also a romantic subplot involving Brady and the widow of a captain apparently killed by the Kiowa and Maygro's daughter Avis; as the film continues we learn that the captain isn't as dead as was thought and is in fact helping to lead the Kiowa attacks...
ultimately there will be a battle between the Army and Brady's Seminoles on one side and the Kiowa on the other which will determine who controls that corner of Texas.The main story was well handled and contained plenty of good action although like many films of its time it used made-up Europeans to play the Native Americans which made them somewhat less believable which was a pity.
Jeff Chandler did a decent job as Major Brady however the lack of chemistry between him and leading lady Maureen O'Hara rendered the romantic subplot somewhat of a distraction from the main story.
An army sergeant comes across an arrow while on his way to a fort within Seminole territory.
That sets up the plot for this lighthearted and easy going western that top bills gorgeous redhead Maureen O'Hara over army officer Jeff Chandler, heading to the fort to make sure that the Seminoles and their rivals, the Kiowas, are kept in line.
"Conquest in the face of the American army always seemed so civil", I once heard in an analysis of the American takeover of the west, and if the gentility of a birthday party filled with discussions of their determination to keep the natives down seems one sided and a re-write of the truth in history, then this movie gives its viewer to check out what facts exist for themselves.What is good here is the efforts it shows between the peaceful Seminoles and the brutal Kiowa's.
Suzan Ball is unbelievable as a Seminole maiden who is treated with kindness by O'Hara and only looks on her with contempt.
I was very plesantly surprised.The action scenes are plentiful and brilliant including several ear blasting shootouts and an epic scale battle sequence which makes excellent use of sharps buffalo rifles, springfield rifles and cannons.The plot is nice and simple as it mainly involves a cavalry officer training a group of discraced semihole indians to fight against some other western indians.I really enjoyed this movie and it is one of the best B westerns out there. |
tt0116707 | Joe's Apartment | Penniless and straight out of the University of Iowa, Joe (Jerry O'Connell) moves to New York needing an apartment and a job. With the fortuitous death of Mrs. Grotowski, an artist named Walter Shit (Jim Turner) helps Joe to take over the last rent controlled apartment in a building slated for demolition. If Senator Dougherty (Robert Vaughn) can empty the building, he can make way for the prison he intends to build there, and uses thug Alberto Bianco (Don Ho) and his nephews, Vlad (Shiek Mahmud-Bey) and Jesus (Jim Sterling), to intimidate tenants (see landlord harassment).
Joe discovers he has 20 to 30 thousand roommates, all of them talking, singing cockroaches grateful that a slob has moved in. Led by Ralph (Billy West), the sentient, tune-savvy insects scare away the thugs in an act of enlightened self-interest that endears them to their human meal ticket. Tired of living on handouts from Mom back in Iowa and after a series of dead-end jobs ruined by his well-intentioned six-legged roomies, Joe finds himself the unskilled drummer in Walter Shit’s band. Hanging posters for SHIT, he encounters Senator Dougherty’s daughter Lily (Megan Ward) promoting her own project, a community garden to occupy the vacant site surrounding Joe’s building.
A gift to Lily while working on her garden is enough to woo her back to Joe's apartment, where the cockroaches break a promise to keep out of his business and a panicked Lily flees, only to discover the garden she’d worked on has been burned to the ground. During a fight with his roommates over his spoiled romantic evening, the building suffers the same fate as the garden. A mutual truce between our hapless and now homeless roommates leads the cockroaches to "call in favors from every roach, rat and pigeon in New York City" to try to make amends to Joe. Overnight, the roaches scour New York to gather materials to convert the entire area into a garden and take care of all the necessary paperwork to ensure harmony reigns over all. | romantic | train | wikipedia | "Joe's Apartment" has more creativity and originality in it than most of the films I've seen in 1999.
I remember it was pretty funny but then I was maybe 7 years old so now I was expecting this film to be stupid.
I also liked that Walter Sh!t character (played by Jim Turner), actually he was the reason why this comedy appeared original to me.
Then my brother rented it, and the rest of my family saw it, and we all laughed, and I realized something I should've known earlier, that this was funny, and I shouldn't be ashamed to think that way...and neither should YOU!.
Indeed, even though it's not the best movie of the century, I found it quite entertaining and "fresh".I loved the way it is shot, there is a real work on the layouts that makes Joe's apartment look dirty and moving at the same time.
I could not describe the way I laughed rolling on the floor when I saw those roaches watching an "insect porn movie", it cracked me up.This movie is worth seeing for sure and does not deserve such a mark.
The story itself is a bit naive, but, hé, it's a fairy-tale!Everyone who likes Who frames Roger Rabbit, Ant Z, Thumbelina by Don Bluth (OK, bad example) or over-the-top-sentimental-romance like What Dreams May Come must like Joe's Apartment.What do we have here?
1: a lonely country-boy in New York; 2: two ugly and dumb bad guys; 3: a sweet girl as love interest; and 4: thousands of bugs who are supposed to be loathsome, but soon turn out to be adorable.
Just remember, this is a critic who holds some of the most vile films ever (vile in a good way) in my list of best comedies ever (Dumb and Dumber, UHF, South Park), so it is not surprising that I found this movie enjoyable and funny.
The movie stars Jerry O'Connell as a loser type who finds an apartment in NY's east side for 50 or 60 bucks, but then he also finds it is infested with more cockroaches than the DMV has idiots.
I'm sure there will be some watching the movie who might think, this might be a good time to become bulemic, and for those people I don't reccomend the movie for the hurl factor.
But for those who can take the chum of roaches on a face, in breasts, in toilets singing songs (I love the funky towel song), this movie is for you.
To see the roaches up close and performing song and dance made me a little nauseous at first as it brought back memories of those times when I got too close to a real roach, but after a while, you sort of forget that they are dirty and disgusting pests and actually start enjoying and anticipating their next comic routine.
What it lacks in intelligence, it makes up for in fun.Joe(O'Connell)has just to New York City and into his first apartment.
They all seem to be a pain in Joe's butt, but the roaches come in more useful for him than he thought.This movie is no classic, of course I don't think any of MTV's movies will be considered classics.
But they are really funny(also see Beavis and Butt-Head Do America and Dead Man On Campus).It's a hilarious and fun little flick, even for people who don't like bugs.
Decided to pick a film I'd never heard of- this turned out to be very funny especially the songs of the cockroaches.
Unfortunately for the poor shop assistant, she was in the middle of watching it and had to take it out of the VCR to rent it to us.Turned out to be a great choice, even though I hate cockroaches!
They love to see the roaches singing and dancing..So if anyone cans it, they can go to buggery because we all get a lot of laughs and entertainment out of it..
Not just an old-fashioned music-and-dance extravaganza in the style of Busby Berkeley, "Joe's Apartment" is also a heartwarming tale of a naive midwestern boy learning about life, seeking his destiny in the big city.
You'll find yourself cheering for Joe, as a tender romance is played out against the backdrop of an epic of modern life, when New York's poorest and most forgotten residents learn to overcome their distrust of an outsider, and help him to find both success and love.Based on the novel of the same name (winner of both the 1994 Pulitzer Prize and the 1995 Nobel prize for literature) and adapted for the screen through the combined efforts of Maya Angelou and Salman Rushdie, the power and majesty of the screenplay has been shown to lower blood pressure, reduce acid reflux, and cure eczema ("Wisconsin Dermatological Review", November 1999.) Both a critical success and smash hit (by the end of 2007, the cumulative worldwide box office exceeded $830 million) the film has been playing continuously to packed houses in New York, Los Angeles, London, Prague, and Rio de Janeiro for over eleven years.
Its theme music was adopted in 2004 as the national anthem of Norway (this led to a brief but violent conflict with neighboring Finland, which had also sought to use the music for its anthem, until UN Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali declared before the General Assembly that "Joe's Apartment" should be considered "part of humanity's common cultural heritage.")Upon his return from a much-publicized audience with Pope John Paul II, star Jerry O'Connell was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom by President Bill Clinton.
The Dalai Lama (who at the time of this writing has seen the movie over 2300 times) was recently quoted in Newsweek as saying "No feeling person can see "Joe's Apartment" and not be moved to tears by its urgent message: that we must all embrace biological diversity in the fight against homelessness, crime, and political corruption." That this simple truth remains as relevant in today's society as when the film was made, is simply more proof of the prescience and timeless universality of the message.With its magnificent cinematography, lush musical score, and sensitive direction of the outstanding performances, it's easy to see why "Joe's Apartment" swept every major category in the 1997 Oscars, and is third on the AFI's list of the most ground-breaking films of all time.
The artistry of this film recalls the heyday of Hollywood's past greatness, and will leave you both profoundly moved, and filled with renewed hope for the future of the world."Joe's Apartment" is THE feel-good movie of the late '90s, a film that will warm the hearts of young and old, from your grandmother to your grandchildren.
Lily doesn't like her paying job because all she can do is put people on hold; there's no one to switch them to (I did like the nice music that was played).If you don't like 'Fear Factor', this movie might not be for you.
They even did dance routines, including an Esther Williams style performance in a toilet.This movie was very funny at times.
I mean, showing cockroaches who talk and sing sounded hilarious, so I rented the VHS shortly after it came out, but didn't find the dark humor as good as I had hoped.Somebody told me this film was really gross, but I didn't find that the case.
Yet having the guts to make a movie about them, and having them sing and dance, especially in a Busby Berkeley-type number, is pretty outrageous and deserves an "E for effort," as the saying used to go.I think this would have been more tolerable, and funny, had it been a short film, something around 20-30 minutes.
I went into Joe's Apartment I was expecting a crappy film, not going to lie.
Thousands of cockroaches and their scratchy voices running around a ceiling kicking two guy's asses sounds like a Horror film.
It looked like a cheesy MTV film that lacked talent and humor.
Joe (O'Connell) is a College grad who is having a hard time after moving to New York City.
Little does he know the podunk joint is home to over 5,000 singing and talking cockroaches.Joe must now cope with the roaches irrational behavior, as well as trying to score big with a local, garden nut named Lily (Ward).
I could be wrong though.I have seen the original short that this film is based on, and I hate cockroaches.
Plus Jerry O'Connell's likable persona was something that flowed nicely throughout the film.Joe's Apartment crosses the line of disgusting and becomes utterly filled with gross out humor and repulsive scenery of Joe's apartment.
But it's a fun, creative movie that dares to go where no film has gone before.
Gives me an idea for my fourth short film.Starring: Jerry O'Connell, Megan Ward, Billy West, Robert Vaughn, Reginald Hudlin, Jim Turner, and Don Ho. Directed by: John Payson..
Making what I think to be one of the most disgusting creatures on Earth to be endearing, lovable characters was a huge stretch, but it was the most successful aspect of the movie.The story is simple, and oftentimes can be dull, but the occasional insect song and dance routine, along with several apartment-sized battles between roach and human that stay consistently silly, it's easy to look past the tired love story.A wholly original, fun movie, anyone willing to let loose and laugh at some three stooges- esquire comedy will most likely enjoy the slapstick and excrement-related humor.Chances are that you can buy this movie for less than five dollars on DVD at this point, so if you happen to pass it, pick it up.
When I read that someone had made a musical with singing & dancing cockroaches in a filthy apartment I was surprised.
Well, if singing cockroaches and an endless stream of toilet humor is your thing, you might enjoy the film....
But apart from every negative I've written in this review, I must admit that I followed this film from the very beginning pretty much to the very end...
This movie was a funny comedy especially that part where they were watching a talk show with that roach asking a pigeon, a rat and a squirrel how to promote better understanding between species.
I like the way the film develops in the early stages, taking some chances and daring to be a little different.
It is a very 90s movie, the style, the characters, the music, it is a nice time capsule of an era.So the real treat of this movie is the roaches, the musical numbers they do I think are hilarious!
and the stop motion animation is pretty cool, in an age where everything is made with CGI watching something like Joe's Apartment really is a treat.The script and story line are a bit weak I'll give it that, but if you just want to laugh at something that is kind of weird and funny, Joe's Apartment is a good way to burn an evening..
Jerry O'Connell plays Joe, a guy from Iowa who cannot find a cheap apartment to rent in New York city because of real estate speculation.
But none the less, this was a fantastic movie, with a bunch of slap-stick humor, so anyone who loves this kind of humor should definitely watch.
Also if your going to watch this film, be ready for some weird scenes and musical parts, because that is kind of what this movie is mostly put of.
But overall, if your in the mood for a great slap-stick humor film, go watch Joe's Apartment..
Wasn't a masterpiece but who can beat a good laugh and catchy tunes.Joe's Apartment a must see for those with a wacked sense of humour, not for those with weak stomachs and a dry straight up sense of humour.
Rodney and Ralph are the stars of this movie I'd say, cockroaches with attitude, they sing they dance and damn they are funny..
A movie so mindless and dumb that the prospect that Beavis and Butthead might quote Shakespeare doesn't seem too far fetched.However, what gets me is how I really like this movie.I remember watching this movie years ago when it first came to video, and having the love of stupid humor that runs in my veins, I had an instant liking to the talking cockroaches.
And of course, being a girl who loves those bushy-tailed rodents, we ended up renting it, and I found myself on a return trip to Joe's Apartment.
"Joe's Apartment" is a feature-length adaptation of a short film previously seen on MTV.
Joe, an Iowa innocent new to the Big Apple, is horrified when the bugs take a liking to him because he's their kind of slob.
Otherwise, the plot is dumb to the point of irrelevance: the congressman wants to level Joe's building, the last one on its East Village block, to make way for the vast new Manhattan Maximum Security Prison (which makes him a Democrat who's caved in to Republican priorities -- again, just like real life).
I would seriously wonder about the people that laughed the whole time, or put this film on their top ten list.
If you are in the mood to watch something that will really make you feel like your night has been completely wasted, rent Joe's Apartment..
I never thought I'd be praising a film for it's cockroaches but what can I say these little guys have style and some serious musical talent.
The musical bits in this film are really original and alone would make this movie worth seeing and no its not just because they feature cockroaches.Aside from the vermin the visuals in this movie are great and almost have a cartoonish comic book element to them.
This film has a sense of humor and style that makes the idea that anybody thought it could be a mainstream hit kind of laughable.
If singing cockroaches don't sound like your thing then chances are you won't enjoy this film and the rather charming and talented vermin that star in it.
However if your sense of humor is a little off Joe's Apartment is well worth checking out..
I can always watch this movie over and over again coz it'll never stop being funny.
If the fact that Joe (O'Connell) works for a company that makes toilet cakes or that the the girl of his dreams is trying to build a beautiful park in the middle of the slums don't make you smile, than the singing roaches are sure to make you laugh.
High-pitched singing is really all that "Joe's Apartment" has going for it.
I've found Joe's Apartment to be a cute movie.
The Character Joe rents out an apartment, occupied by acres of cockroaches, who sing and dance and give Joe unwanted company.
OK, we get it already.So how does a film revolving around annoying little roaches extend to 90 minutes?
By adding in that predictable subplot involving the hard-to-get love interest for Joe of course, who the viewers automatically know will end up together by the end of the movie.
These roaches cause Joe nothing but grief, and torture, and they invade his privacy; yet the film is supposed to make us laugh.When the film reaches its inevitable conclusion, I was so annoyed and disgusted by this time that I couldn't feel any of the euphoria the film was trying to feed its viewers.
I have not seen the short on which this was based, but I assume it was funnier that this film - it would rely on the roaches singing and dancing routine(s), without the subplots that a full length film has to have to reach its 90 minutes, which just made the cockroaches grow annoying, crude, mean, and tiresome..
I'd rather eat a real bug than visit Joe's apartment again!.
cockroaches will be left after nuclear detonation, so in either case, you're F.U.B.A.R.ed!I had the unfortunate "privilage" of actually witnessing "Joe's Apartment" when it played in theaters.
The film primarily fails because the cockroaches in it are NOT endearing in any sort of way at all.
Also, the film backfired majorly by featuring "master thespian" Jerry O'Connell, who disgraces his passable work in both "Stand By Me" and "Crossing Jordan" by appearing in the filth that is "Joe's Apartment".
If you absolutely MUST watch a film with talking cockroaches, then try to track down the original MTV short that "Joe's Apartment" is based on.
The feature-length version of "Joe's Apartment" makes the MTV short look like "Citizen Kaine"!.
Even though I hate cockroaches I couldn't help but to like the singing cockroaches in this film.
Though I think this film is more for the young teenagers who like toilette humour and kind of childish jokes.
I have seen better comedies but this was quite good but like I have just written this film consists more of teenage kind of jokes rather than mature adult jokes.
Its one of the funniest movies I have seen..you have to see this film, enough said!
I like this movie because it is funny!
The thing that I like best about the roaches is their "sense of humor"!
I highly recommend that you rent or purchase Joes apartment because that's when you will have the "laugh" of your life!.
From the opening animation scene of the singing cockroach atop the Statue of Liberty's torch to the end scene where they form the MTV logo, the film manages to get its purpose across - to make you laugh so hard that your stomach hurts.
Joe (a country boy from Iowa, played by luscious Jerry O'Connell) comes to the Big Apple in search of a job and his first apartment.
My favorite scene was the song and dance routine in the toilet to the original tune "Funky Towel." I laughed until I had tears in my eyes.For people like me who are squeamish about bugs this movie will definitely make you uneasy.
How can you not like a movie with singing cockroaches?. |
tt4009278 | Shut In | Steven (Charlie Heaton), is a troubled kid who is being sent to boarding school. While his father, Richard Portman (Peter Outerbridge), is driving him to school, Steven and his father get into a bad argument, and the car swerves into the other lane, causing a head on collision with an eighteen wheeler.
Six months later, Richard Portman has died and Steven has become a vegetable. His stepmother, Mary (Naomi Watts), takes care of his every need. Mary works from home with children and adolescents as a clinical psychologist, giving sessions in the garage right next door to her house.
Mary is informed by a woman named Grace (Crystal Balint), that one of her patients, a little boy named Tom (Jacob Tremblay), who is hearing impaired is going to be transferred to another school in Boston. Mary protests, but there’s nothing she can do about it. Just before leaving, Mary gives a Tom a scarf and hat that once belonged to her stepson Steven. Later that evening, Mary discusses Steven with her therapist, Dr. Wilson (Oliver Platt). She has decided to put Steven in a home to be cared for called Covington because “Steven” is no longer there and he is just a body that she cares for and feeds. Mary expresses guilt for sending her stepson away and the accident which occurred. While bathing she daydreams of drowning Steven in the bathtub.
After bathing, Mary hears sounds in the house and goes to investigate. Once she gets outside, Mary hears glass shattering and her car alarm goes off. In her garage, Mary finds one of her car windows smashed in and Tom fast asleep on the backseat. She brings Tom inside, and while she’s discussing him on the phone, Mary is locked inside her office. When she finally unlocks the door, she finds her front door standing open and Tom is nowhere to be found.
Mary informs the police and they search for Tom. She hears sounds in her house at night and dreams of herself, searching for Tom. Doug Hart (David Cubitt), the father of one of her patients talks about a snow storm that is headed to their area, and asks her out on a date. Mary declines implying that it would be unprofessional.
She continues to hear sounds in the house at night. One night, Mary sees Tom. He comes into her room and claps his hand over her mouth to keep her from screaming. Mary discusses the night’s events with Dr. Wilson, and he tries to convince her that it wasn’t real; attributing it to parasomnia, memories, and the guilt she feels about Steven. Dr. Wilson wants to prescribe her some medication to help her sleep, so he sends a nurse over to Mary’s house to do some blood work.
Mary reconsiders and has dinner with Doug, both of them discussing their respective teenagers. Later on, Mary is frightened by a door slamming. When she investigates, Steven is missing from his bed. She finds a small door to a crawlspace across from the stairway that’s partially open but blocked by furniture. Mary opens it and is grabbed from inside by two small hands and has to fight to close the door.
The next morning she wakes up on the floor. Steven is back in his bed, but has scratches on his face. Dr. Wilson again tries to convince her that she has sleep parasomnia and wants to prescribe antidepressants. Mary gets two invitations to leave her house for the storm, one from her assistant Lucy (Clémentine Poidatz), and another from Doug Hart who visits her. She declines both.
Dr. Wilson contacts her via Skype with her blood work results. Dr. Wilson admonishes Mary for self-medicating because her stepson’s medication is showing up in her blood. Mary denies taking any medication and distractedly and walks away from the computer without ending the call. Dr. Wilson is about to end the call when he looks into Mary’s living room and sees Steven’s empty wheelchair. Right then, Steven walks across the living room, scaring Dr. Wilson. The power and the lights go out in the house and Dr. Wilson loses his computer connection to Mary. Dr. Wilson tries to call Mary, but can’t get through.
Mary is in the basement when the lights go out. She sees Tom in the dark, and when Mary tries to leave the basement, Steven blocks her way and attacks her. She wakes up bound, gagged, and naked in the bathtub and Steven is bathing her. He tells Mary how he woke up in the hospital after the accident with her there. Steven didn’t move or speak so that he could relish in the attention that Mary gave him. He believes that for six months they were happy together just the two of them; until Tom came.
It turns out that Tom wasn’t a ghost. He was alive and living in the crawlspace across from the stairs. Tom saw Steven moving around, so Steven tried to “deal with him,” but before he could, Tom escaped into the crawlspace. Steven blocked him in there hoping he would starve to death. Mary really did see Tom every time he appeared. Steven was keeping her medicated with his medicine so he could walk around at night, increasing her medication since Tom has been there.
Steven medicates Mary so he can “take care” of Tom and leaves her in the bathroom. Mary unties herself and throws up the medication. Dr. Wilson drives to Mary’s house, but wrecks his car on the way. Mary finds both Steven and Tom in the basement, and Mary learns that Steven killed his father on purpose. She knocks Steven out and unties Tom. He runs when Steven wakes up and attacks Mary. She locks Steven in the basement.
Tom and Mary hide in a closet. Steven breaks out of the basement and searches for them. Dr. Wilson arrives as Steven is searching. Steven stabs him. Steven begins hammering. Mary collects Tom from the closet. When Steven goes upstairs, Mary tries to leave and discovers Doug Hart’s dead body in the snow.
Dr. Wilson, still clinging to life, advises Mary not to challenge Steven and to play along with his delusion so she can save herself and Tom. He dies. Steven has nailed all of the windows and doors shut, so Mary breaks a skylight in the roof and Tom climbs out. Steven catches Mary and she plays along with him until she is able to burn him and knock him out. Mary opens one of the doors just as Steven wakes up. They run to the lake with Steven in pursuit. Mary blocks the path to Tom, who is at the end of the pier. Steven pushes her aside and charges after Tom, knocking him into the freezing water. Mary tries to stop him, but he knocks her down again, and begins to drown Tom. Mary grabs the hammer Steven threw down on the pier and bludgeons Steven with it, knocking him into the water and killing him.
The movie ends with Mary driving Tom to school. | revenge | train | wikipedia | Just finished watching Intruders or Shut In. I don't know what the real title is and I don't get why you have to have two different titles for one movie.
Intruders (or "Shut In", as it was when I saw it at the European Premiere) begins as a fairly tame drama about a woman with agoraphobia but takes a sudden and welcome turn for the more exciting and interesting to become a satisfying revenge sub-genre picture.It compares, in spirit, with the recent "No One Lives" and perhaps slightly in plot with "I Spit on your Grave" though, like the former, does not take itself too seriously and certainly doesn't have the vicious nature of the latter.The ending is perhaps a bit predictable and watered down.
But "Intruders" managed to take that theme and do something pretty interesting and a little interested with it.I won't spoil anything but I will say that this isn't just simply a movie about a woman being attacked by men and then turning the tables on them.
It's good that the film makers tried to do some original things but some of them just didn't work.The movie's weak point is definitely the characters.
You want to root for her but a lot of her actions are questionable, and plus one minute she will be a ruthless bad ass and then the next she is a babbling victim.I liked this film, it does enough right to make it an entertaining experience.
Unfortunately it misses the ball on being more then just good, if they would have done a few more things right it probably could have been a pretty great horror film.6/10.
After reading the comments I expected a complete letdown and yet, had quite the fun with it.Intruders is a far better movie than some with the same subject.
Still, the direction of this film is adequate, the setting is sufficient, and overall, this is an all right movie.
Shut In (Intruders) is of the latter kind, attempting to use the uneducated's fear of mental illnesses while utilizing the fear of potential home invasion as back up.Anna (a very nice performance by Beth Riesgraf, delivering a convincing and realistic paranoid and phobic woman) is agoraphobic, and has not left the comfort of her home in 10 years.
When Anna's brother dies, she wholeheartedly offers Danny an extremely generous tip so he can quit his dead end job and follow his dreams.
Little does he know his friend and his friend's brother mean to break into Anna's home during her brother's funeral, and rob her blind.
However, the burglars had no clue about Anna's agoraphobia, and when they break in and find Anna at home - things become complicated.The story involves two coinciding plots.
In order to avoid any possible spoilers, let me stick to what the trailers already reveal - Anna is not as helpless as she appears to be, and her being home turns out to be the least of the robbers' problems.
The way the story plays out is not nearly intense enough to qualify as a revenge flick, and (in my opinion) not remotely frightening or even discomforting enough to be considered Horror.All in all, Shut In isn't anything fancy.
I wasn't too bored watching it, so I guess that's a plus.But overall I can't say that this was very impressive, we've seen it all before (even though the movie does throw a rather surprising twist at us which by all means is not a new one it's usually just delivered more upfront).The characters didn't seem very believable to me either, not necessarily bad acting just very 2-dimensionally written characters that didn't feel real, and things that were supposed to be shocking just came across as the opposite.And it just completely lacks the edge that it clearly was meant to have.It's not absolutely terrible though but it's kinda like when you are thirsty and you'd really like a cold soda, and instead you get a lukewarm one that's gone flat.Has had 3 name-changes I know of since it's release: The Lifetime movie sounding 'Deadly Home' the incredibly unoriginal 'Intruders' and the best one: 'Shut In'...And that's just the ones I know of, it's almost like it decided to change name of it for every bad review it got..
INTRUDERS is a home invasion flick with a few twists to set it apart from the crowd.
One of those films that could exist only in the mind of a scriptwriter rather in the real world.Beth Riesgraf plays Anna, a woman crippled by agoraphobia to the degree that she can't leave her own home when a trio of thugs invade and threaten violence.
The story is punctuated with moments of gruesome violence which are well staged but the overall narrative is hard to get interested in and just sort of plays out in a typical way.Come the end of the film there's been one twist too many and, again, I didn't really buy what was being offered.
It doesn't help that the casting is lacklustre, with Rory Culkin (MEAN CREEK) the only recognisable face here; Riesgraf in particular fails to get the viewer to elicit any sympathy in her character, leaving INTRUDERS an oddly hollow and uninvolving experience overall..
And while it's tough to feel sympathy for characters at times, that doesn't change the fact that this was well thought of.Of course if you already know one of the major twists in the film, you may not appreciate it as much when it comes after the slow beginning.
Why aren't you at your brother's funeral?""Intruders" surprises and disappoints at the same time.
And when three men show up at her house to search the alleged fortune, it's the beginning of a seemingly thrilling home invasion which however takes a sudden turn.
Although it all seemed very promising in the beginning.There are plenty of home-invasion movies.
The film chooses a completely different direction and the home-invasion theme turns into a sadistic torture film with a transforming house.
On the one hand, Shut In (don't mix it up with the homonym film starring Naomi Watts) offers a moderately interesting psychological basis which makes it better than other "home invasion" movies; on the other hand, the screenplay relies too much on coincidences and convenient revelations, while making trap with the development of the characters when the story threatens to stop.
I liked the movie at the beginning but not much at the ending scenes , however i appreciate the brilliant submitted efforts especially that 'Beth Riesgraf' made in attempt to portray the 'Anna Rook' psychopathic character , I can't deny that the movie was very suspenseful and exciting but nevertheless you will feel tiny holes and flaws in both sides , the character and the plot , with regard to the character i couldn't discern or distinguish her psychological problem yet , is she a psychopath or sociopath or just an introvert photosensitive person , you will understand when you see the movie , but even if the director intention was to make a psychopathic character i'd like to notify him that he was good but not good enough ' i don't really know who's to blame but there's an obvious incomplete side of the psychopathic character that she tried to portray to us , and concerning the plot aspect i think it wasn't something new for me , it wasn't really a unique scenario that worth the 10 out 10 vote , that's why i gave it only 7 out of ten just for the brilliant efforts of the actors .
Suffering from severe agoraphobia, a woman is forced to stay inside her house when a trio of intruders break into her house looking for money, only to realize she may be more dangerous than she appeared and are forced to play her deadly games to get away alive.This here is quite a lame and rather unimpressive home invasion effort.
Though the twist in the second half is quite nice, that as well doesn't make this one any better with the fact that it's just not filled with any real kind of true horror elements during this section as it's mainly just a rather lame series of scenes of them trying to break out of their entrapment and her observing on them from afar, leaving their interactions to be just truly bland, weak and unimpressive for the most part.
I've seen the trailer for 'Intruders' sometime last month, and based off that trailer I was under the impression that the film was a sorta like some bad guys enter the wrong house and get more than they bargained for, a lot more.
INTRUDERS first introduces us to Anna (Beth Riesgraf) and her terminally ill brother Conrad, (Timothy McKinney).
His death leaves Anna alone in their enormous house, where three criminals (Jack Kesy, Martin Starr, and Joshua Mikel) soon break in.
Anna was supposed to be at Conrad's funeral, but she suffers from agoraphobia, resulting in her inability to leave her home.
If, like me, you decide to give it a watch anyway, be prepared for 90 minutes of complete and utter crap.The plot is silly - you can probably gather that just by reading the synopsis, but even I was surprised at just how ridiculous it got.
This movie fails to keep it interesting.Unless you're a fan of cheap, silly horror flicks, then 'Intruders' or 'Shut In' is definitely one to avoid..
UK title - Shut In. Three men break into a large house looking for a stash of cash, thinking that it's occupant, Anna, is away at her brother's funeral.
Certainly not a typical home invasion movie, this one turns into something more akin to say "Saw".
'Intruders' (or 'Shut In' as it is also known) is a difficult film to discuss without revealing the twists and turns of the plot; suffice it to say though, the movie is a triumph of production design with thoughtful sound mixing often keeping one on edge; to say that the film makes the best of its single location setting would be a massive understatement.
Beth Riesgraf is reasonably effective in the lead role too and of the three intruders, Martin Starr offers a very compelling performance as the most violent and unpredictable member who will not even let innocent birds stand in his way..
A Good Movie with a Terrible EndingIt is like some One started making a Great Dinner, carefully added the spices and flavors, cooked for right time, put all effort into it and when it is ready, simply Peed on it.What a Great Movie ....all the way until a Terrible Ending.Honestly, while I was watching this movie, I thought its a very good 8 Star Movie.Ending was so terrible that I had to give it a 4 Star..
I would have to say that I was entertained by this movie and watched it through until the end.
I didn't really like the ending, I could thing of a few different ways to end the movie that would have been more satisfying.
There are Thrills and Suspense that Build to a Climax that some Find Unfulfilling.But it's Worth a Watch for sure because of some Good Acting and a Twist on the Home Invasion Genre that is Set in a Distressing House Full of Horrors and Horrifying People..
I love that simplicity primed in developing this movie contrarily to current Hollywood stupid trend looking to create extraordinary scenes when most of times a simplicity would have made it just as good.However, the title of my post says it all.
Shut In (AKA Intruders): Anna (Beth Riesgraf) suffers from chronic agoraphobia.
In Intruders, a severely agoraphobic young lady (Beth Riesgraf) is menaced by three baddies in search of cash somewhere in her home.
This Intruders contains a devilish twist about midway through, and suddenly this isn't a movie about a damsel in distress but something wholly different – and much more interesting.Anna (Riesgraf) lives in an old house with her brother Conrad, who's quickly dying of some disease.
After all, this is Anna's home turf.I found Intruders to be fairly brilliant, with a neat twist on a standard plot that ultimately transforms the film from a pile of predictability to a tsunami of terror and guessing..
So if you don't want to read them, just know that I really liked this movie, and highly recommend it.SPOILERS!!!I enjoy watching and reading about strong women.
I knew there was more to Anna, thanks to the description, but I was afraid she was going to be timid throughout the whole movie.
But when she started killing, I saw there was nothing to worry about.Beth Riesgraf's (Anna) acting is superb.
The casting people must of saw her there too, because she does a great job of looking sweet, and then you see a bit of something not quite right appear.The movie was a bit slow at first, but they had to establish some back story, and dramatically show you photos of Anna and her dad, so you knew something was up with it.
Three thieves break into a house believing the place to be empty while its owner Anna (Beth Riesgraf) attends the funeral of her brother.
When they run into Anna, the gang decide that they cannot allow her to live, since she has seen their faces, but killing her isn't as easy as they thought, the house holding more than a few unpleasant surprises for the burglars.Intruders (AKA Shut In) starts off in standard home invasion mode, but takes an unexpected turn when Anna's house is revealed to be loaded with gadgets and secret rooms, the agoraphobe able to keep track of the thieves via hidden cameras.
And while watching this I cannot help thinking how brilliant the other one is.The woman's past, the little set up that her and her brother had is so unusual and feels a little contrived and that is my major annoyance.The acting is good, the script seems okay, the movie is well set out and for the most part I really enjoy it.
I randomly saw this movie while watching TV at home.
- the story of a woman who overcame PTSD & agoraphobia by killing some bad guys." I would have given this movie a 1 star but I really liked the woman who played Anne.
But if you want to watch a real horror movie, skip this one..
Adam Schindler has made an impressive directorial debut with his unusual home invasion thriller "Intruders" featuring a largely anonymous cast and a story that unfolds in a single setting.
A twentysomething woman, Anna Rook (Beth Riesgraf of "Scorcher"), hasn't set foot outside her family home since her father died ten years ago.
A trio of violent thugs, J.P. Henson (Jack Kesy of "Empire Gypsy"), sadistic Perry Cuttner (Martin Starr of "Superbad"), and Vance (Joshua Mikkel of "Terminator Genisys") break into her home since they figured that Anna would be at her brother's funeral.
Typically, home invasion movies present a suspenseful situation that the damsel-in-distress must get out of if she plans to survive.
Anna suffers from agoraphobia, and has been living in her house without leaving for the last 10 years.
Rather than the film being an all out horror, Shut In tries to turn the age old tropes on their head by using them to the protagonists benefit.So where you'd usually be shouting at the screen 'get out of the house' or 'don't run up the stairs', here, Anna has no choice because of her phobia.But that's where the originality ends with the film, and it's back to basics with your predictable house of traps and a trio of bad guys who all have the atypical personalities you'd find in any old horror film gathering dust on a bargain shelf.Which is a real shame, because they have a wonderful character in Anna, never becoming the true psychotic that the film threatens her to be, she remains to have the aura of an innocent little girl throughout the film, and although the film connotates to some sort of childhood abuse in the first act, it's never really explained enough to be an integral part of her psyche.Some of the camera work is clever, especially using CCTV and shadows, and there is a slight twist I the third act, as to why the house is almost 'Home Alone-esque'.My advice is, try to see this movie without knowing to much about it, you'll probably get more out of it, and forgive it for backing away from such a wonderful premise.Worth watching, but it will leave you a little disappointed..
Beth Riesgraf is excellent as agoraphobic Anna, who has spent years looking after her dying brother Conrad.
Their inevitable demises are, if anything, not horrible enough.The house, in which the whole thing is set, provides an effective maze-like prison for them all as they begin to realise that Anna's intimate knowledge of the place has its advantages, and the building, it seems, has secrets of its own.This is another 'home invasion' project, where the comforts of a familiar environment are turned on their head upon the arrival of uninvited 'others'.
Last year I was tempted to buy a good home invasion movie on DVD to treat myself.
'Intruders' at first glance just seems like any other average home invasion movie.
One of my Favorite Home invasion movies.
The main star being agoraphobic was fun to watch and how the movie turned from her seeming to be scared for her life and a helpless pretty young woman, to at times a heartless in control maniacal crazy person.
I watch basically only Horror/Thriller/Drama/Supernatural movies.
This movie gave me that feeling.I did kind of want to see Rory Culkin's character not leave at the end or leave with the Lead as he seemed to have a crush on her.
In the end I would of liked to have seen her struggle still to leave the house after setting the fire. |
tt0110913 | Pumpkinhead II: Blood Wings | In 1958 in Ferren Woods, a small backwater town, an old blind witch, Ms. Osie, feeds a deformed orphan named Tommy; he is the offspring of Pumpkinhead. As Tommy eats, a car of six teens pull up and notice him. Convinced that he is some demonic monster, they chase him with switchblade knives and baseball bats; eventually, they corner him at an old iron mine, where they bludgeon him and drop him down into the mine, killing him.
Thirty-five years later, Sheriff Sean Braddock, his wife, and his daughter Jenny have come into town. Sean grew up in Ferren Woods and returned when offered a job as the local sheriff. Jenny has often gotten herself into a lot of trouble with the law, especially with her father, who was once a police officer.
At school , Jenny meets a group of wild kids, one of whom is Daniel "Danny" Dixon, whose dad was one of the teens who had taken part in Tommy's murder 35 years ago and has since become the town judge. The teens sneak off one night and pilfer Sean's car. Danny inadvertently hits Ms. Osie, and when they go to her cabin to check on her, they find a spellbook and vials of blood, which she is planning to use to resurrect Tommy. After Ms. Osie catches them, she orders them out. Danny knocks her down and escapes with a vial of blood.
Danny and his friends attempt to resurrect Tommy's corpse. Jenny notices Ms. Osie's cabin on fire and Danny and his friends flee. Ms. Osie is badly burnt and ends up in the hospital. Unbeknownst to Danny and his friends, the spell they'd attempted worked, resurrecting Tommy in the form of Pumpkinhead. Soon, Judge Dixon's friends begin to meet grisly deaths.
Jenny's father investigates and begins to come to terms with the fact that Tommy is responsible for the murders. Ms. Osie dies, but not before revealing to Sean some clues. Sean discovers the connection between the victims and Pumpkinhead, realizing that the judge is next.
Judge Dixon calls his posse to assist him in killing whatever is murdering his friends. Before they can arrive however, Pumpkinhead brutally murders Judge Dixon. Now that Tommy has avenged his own death, he begins going after Danny and his friends (for fleeing instead of helping Ms. Osie). Sean and the town doctor go into the woods to find Jenny. By this time, Pumpkinhead (Tommy) has murdered Danny and his 3 friends.
He then chases Jenny to the iron mine. Since Sean had saved his life years earlier as a boy, and because Jenny was innocent of hurting Ms. Osie, Tommy allows Jenny to step down to her father safe and sound. However, the judge's posse arrives and shoots Tommy back into the mine, where he had died 35 years earlier. Jenny later apologizes to her father for all the trouble she caused. Just then, Sean finds an old toy fire truck near the mineshaft that he gave to Tommy as a gift for saving his life. | revenge, murder | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0101866 | Femme Fatale | Mercenary thief Laure Ash (Rebecca Romijn) participates in a diamond heist in Cannes. The plan is for Laure to steal valuable diamonds from the ensemble of a female attendant named Veronica (Rie Rasmussen) while in the middle of seducing her, during which her accomplices "Black Tie" (Eriq Ebouaney) and Racine (Édouard Montrouge) provide various support. However, Laure instead double-crosses her accomplices and escapes to Paris with the diamonds. In Paris, a series of events causes Laure to be mistaken for her own doppelgänger, a missing Parisian woman named "Lily" (also portrayed by Romijn) who had recently disappeared. While Laure luxuriates in a tub in Lily's home, the real Lily returns and commits suicide while Laure secretly watches, providing Laure the opportunity to take her identity for good, and she leaves the country for America.
Seven years later, Laure (in her identity as "Lily") resurfaces in Paris as the wife of Bruce Watts, the new American ambassador to France (Peter Coyote). After arriving in France, a Spanish paparazzo named Nicolas Bardo (Antonio Banderas) takes her picture. The picture is displayed around Paris, and Black Tie (who has coincidentally been released from prison seven years after being arrested for the heist) spots Bardo's photo while in the middle of killing a woman, seen talking earlier with Laure at a café, by throwing her into the path of a speeding truck. With Laure exposed to her vengeful ex-accomplices, she decides to frame Bardo for her own (staged) kidnapping. Bardo is further manipulated by Laure into following through with the "kidnapping," and in the process, they begin a sexual relationship. The pair eventually meet with Bruce for a ransom exchange; however, Bardo has a crisis of conscience at the last moment and sabotages the scheme. In retaliation, Laure executes both Bruce and Bardo, only to be surprised by her ex-accomplices afterwards who promptly throw her off a bridge to her seeming death.
In an extended twist ending, the entirety of the movie's events after Laure enters the tub in Lily's home are revealed to be a dream. Laure spies Lily entering the home as before, but this time stops her from committing suicide. Seven years later, Laure and Veronica, who is revealed to have been Laure's partner all along, chat about the success of their diamond caper. Black Tie and Racine arrive seeking revenge, but they are killed by the same truck that killed Veronica in Laure's dream. Bardo, witnessing all these events, introduces himself to Laure, swearing that he has met her before, with Laure replying "Only in my dreams." | neo noir | train | wikipedia | Awful script ruins a clever idea.
As I sat in front of the TV watching this movie, I thought, "Oh, what Alfred Hitchcock, or even Brian DePalma, could have done with this!" Chances are, you will too.
It does start out intrigueing.
A British park ranger living in Los Angeles (Collin Firth) marries a pretty, demure brunette woman (Lisa Zane) whom he met in a park only a short time ago.
Then, one day she dissappears.
The police are unable to find any documentation that she ever existed, and Firth conducts his own search.
So far, so good.
Just as he's about to give up, he turns to his womanizing best friend (Billy Zane), and they stumble onto her former life in L.A.'s sordid underground of drugs, nightclubs, and ametuer filmmaking, and then to her history of mental instability.
At that point, Firth's life is in danger, and the film falls apart.
None of the characters from Lisa Zane's past are remotely interesting.
The film moves slowly, and there's very little action.
There is a subplot regarding missing drug money, but it's just a throwaway.
No chases, no cliffhanging sequences, and no suspense.
Just some dull beatings and a lot of chat by boring characters.
One thing worth noting, Lisa Zane and Billy Zane are brother and sister, but they never appear in a scene together.
By the end of the movie, you're torn between wondering what might have been and trying to stay awake..
Looney lady leaves unlucky lover in lurch.
The bud of love bloomed when boy met girl.
A whirlwind romance and quickie nuptials are displayed in a series of flashbacks after a mysterious woman [read: crazy] leaves her hubby during the honeymoon.
He goes bonkers and spends his days tracing his disappeared darling.
This leads him into a web of S&M film makers, lunatic drug dealers, and a very large surprise concerning his wonderful wife.
Run of the mill thriller which seems to bog down more than cause one to quiver with emotional excitement..
Great premise is poorly executed.
It's interesting at first.
A naive park ranger (Colin Firth) marries a pretty, mysterious woman (Lisa Zane) he's only known for a short time.
They seem to be happy, then she disappears without warning.
He searches for her and, after a few dead ends, stumbles upon some of her abused childhood and sleazy recent past, which may include criminal activity.
And then, it seems the filmmakers didn't know what to do with the story.
The beginning, while not as suspenseful as it sounds, is at least watchable.
Then it ceases to be interesting or even make much sense.
And the ending is so lame, so dull, and so devoid of any excitement or intelligence, you'll think the screenwriters didn't know what to do with it and got bored trying.
What a sorry waste of a good idea!.
If you enjoy seeing Colin Firth in a lead role, you will enjoy this flick....
If you are a tried-and-true fan of Colin Firth, you will enjoy this movie as he is in every frame...who wouldn't want to watch Colin Firth fall in love...Made in 1991, it shows how much Colin has grown in his acting skills since this movie...Lisa Zane is believable in her role, and Billy Zane is there...not much more to say about him...the script lacks depth and credibility...i rate this movie a C..
a very useless movie.
I accidentally stumbled upon this 'movie' while zapping over my 60 dutch channels.
Well, because it was very late and there wasn't anything else on, I continued to watch this low-budget picture.
I like to torture myself from time to time.
Colin Firth is a dumb newlywed whose bride runs away on their honeymoon.
So, guess what, he starts to look for her.
But his wife is a loony.
Lisa Zane doesn't play her character with any mystery.
You only get irritated by her.
Oh yes, her brother Billy plays Firth's best friend and what an acting achievement that was.
I urge you to go to dentist rather than to see this movie.
Lisa Zane can't save it with her looks alone..
One word .......
awful !.
Don't even think of being tempted to watch this because of the intriguing premise of a disappeared bride.
This is no "Breakdown" or "The Vanishing".
What it is, is a total waste of time.
Beyond the initial idea, the script seemed made up as it went along.
The characters are unlikable, the premise preposterous, and the entire movie is pointless.
This is like trying to make sense out of a jigsaw puzzle with quite a few missing pieces.
Unfortunately I stayed with it, hoping to find at least one redeeming quality that would justify my patience.
None could be found, and you have been warned not to make the same mistake.
- MERK.
A must see for Firth fans...
Granted I'm a Colin Firth fan but I really enjoyed this movie.
It has an interesting plot with unsuspecting twists and turns that keep the viewer focused until the end.
Even the reviewer that said it was bad watched it all the way through..
Colin fans only.....
This movie is intriguing only because Colin Firth is in it.
It is one of his earlier films so he still has a baby fat face, but he also has that charming accent...so, not a total waste of time.
He is the only reason I stuck it out.Movie has thin plot that probably could have been a good, had the characters not been so superficial.
Colin has all his usual passion, but seems out of place with the surrounding "ghosts" pretending to be actors.
Really was let down by extent of the emptiness of the acting.
The plot was too easy...first there are really bad men, then the bad men don't want to be bothered with the physicality's of killing someone.
So they leave...what's with that?
They are hit men without bullets, basically.And I am so used to seeing Billy Zane as a really bad man that he seemed secondary if not less.
Kinda spacey, and not really in the part of the film that he would have been best at, the supposed brutal sub-ending.
I say sub-ending because the ending-ending was even more disappointing....turned into some warped fairy tale.All in all, waste of time and space.
Sorry Colin. |
tt0046902 | Design for Leaving | Reprising a salesman role that Daffy previously played in Daffy Dilly (1948), The Stupor Salesman (1948) and Fool Coverage (1952), Design for Leaving opens with Daffy as a fast-talking door-to-door salesman from the Acme Future-Antic Push-Button Home of Tomorrow Household Appliance Company, Inc. Daffy visits Elmer Fudd at his house and says that Acme has authorized him to install, at no cost, a complete line of ultra-modern automatic household appliances (on a 10-day free trial). Elmer tries to speak but is repeatedly interrupted by Daffy, who grabs Elmer by the arm and escorts him to a bus to take him to the office. Despite Elmer's protests, Daffy puts him on the bus, which unknown to Elmer has a sign on the back that reads "Duluth Express Non-Stop".
Later that day, Elmer returns to his house (hitching a ride in a truck from the Duluth Van and Storage Co.). Daffy greets Elmer at the front door and welcomes him to his new future-antic push button home. Elmer sees that his house is different and asks Daffy what he's done, but Daffy quickly pushes a button and a machine removes Elmer's hat and coat. Daffy then guides Elmer to a massaging chair. Elmer likes it at first, but Daffy pushes a button and Elmer receives an aggressive massage, which dazes him. The chair then automatically puts a cigar in Elmer's mouth and lights it, but the smoke activates a robot fire extinguisher from another room which douses Elmer with a bucket of water. Daffy states "It's, uh, very sensitive to heat. Probably needs adjusting", then guides Elmer into the kitchen. Daffy encourages Elmer to bask in the kitchen's "treasure trove of work-saving appliances" and demonstrates a new knife sharpener which ends up destroying the blade on one of Elmer's knives. Undaunted, Daffy points out the garbage disposal, which is revealed to be a pig which is housed under the kitchen sink (this would technically be regarded as low-tech).
Daffy then shows Elmer the "main control panel" which operates all of the new appliances. Daffy suggests what Elmer would do if the walls were dirty. Elmer simply says that he would scrub them, though Daffy pushes a button marked "Wall Cleaner" and a robotic device emerges to clean the walls but it removes Elmer's wallpaper instead (humorously removing the outer clothing from a portrait painting in the process). Daffy tries to adjust the device but the adjustment causes it to start removing the plaster ("Oh! My walls are wuined!"). Daffy quickly deactivates it, then asks Elmer if he is tired of looking at his dirty windows; Daffy then summons a machine which covers Elmer's window with bricks, and says that he'll "never have to look at those dirty windows again". Elmer becomes angry, telling Daffy that "he's so angwy, he's burning up!" which again activates the fire extinguisher and Elmer is doused with another bucket of water ("I tried to warn you!"). Daffy tries to continue the demonstration, but Elmer objects, saying that something bad happens to him whenever Daffy pushes a button. So Daffy agrees to let Elmer push a button. Elmer spots an unmarked red button, saying in his distinct voice, "I think I'll push this wed one." Daffy stops Elmer, shouting, "No, no, no, no, no! Not the WED one! Don't EVER push the WED one!" Elmer pushes another button that reads "Burglar Alarm" and a mechanical dog comes out of the wall which bites him in the leg, and he screams in pain.
Daffy then takes Elmer into a bedroom and shows him a device which will automatically tie a neck tie (from the options of Bow, Four-in-hand, Five-in-hand, False Granny, Windsor, Smindsor and an unlabeled option). Daffy tries to demonstrate it by pressing the unmarked button, but the machine puts Elmer in a noose ("Help! Get me down!"). Daffy shuts off the machine and casually refers to the noose as the "Alcatraz Ascot" as if it were a type of neck tie. Elmer is exhausted, telling Daffy that he wants all of the "push-button nonsense" removed and tries to go upstairs and take an aspirin, but cannot do so because his stairway has been removed. Daffy confidently boasts that there is no need to walk up stairs in a push-button home, and uses an elevator-like device to bring the "upstairs (to the) downstairs". Elmer seems impressed but asks what happens to the downstairs, and Daffy raises the upstairs which shows that everything downstairs has been destroyed. Elmer asks if there is "any more cwever gadgets to demonstwate, Mr. Smarty Salesman?", and when Daffy says no, Elmer makes a phone call but the conversation is inaudible. When Elmer hangs up there is a knock on his front door and a large crate is brought inside. Elmer opens the crate and starts the motor, telling Daffy about his new "future-antic push-button salesman ejector" which grabs Daffy by the shoulders and wheels him out of the house, kicking him repeatedly (it was done as revenge from Elmer).
With Daffy gone, Elmer remembers the red button and wonders "what that wed button is for?" Despite Daffy's warning to never touch it, Elmer's curiosity gets the better of him, and when he pushes it, a display reads "IN CASE OF TIDAL WAVE". A hydraulic lift raises his house high into the air. Elmer looks out of the front door and Daffy flies by in a helicopter and delivers the final punch line, "For a small price, I can install this little blue button to get you down!". | psychedelic | train | wikipedia | null |
tt2402101 | Dark Places | Libby Day, the novel's narrator and protagonist, is the sole survivor of a massacre in Kinnakee, Kansas, a fictional rural town. After witnessing the murders of her two sisters and mother, in what appears to be a Satanic cult ritual, she escapes through a window and later testifies in court against her teenage brother.
Twenty-five years after the massacre, Libby, in need of money, meets with a group of amateur investigators who believe that her brother is innocent of the crime. At their coaxing, she meets her brother, Ben for the first time, but is not convinced that he didn't do it. She also meets with her father, now homeless, but is not convinced he played a part in it either. Through her investigation, she learns of her brother's secret girlfriend, as well as accusations against him for child molestation.
Interspersed with the modern day investigation are flashbacks to the day of the massacre. These flashbacks are told from the points of view of Libby's mother, Patty, and her convicted brother, Ben. Patty's viewpoints discuss the difficulties of trying to keep the family farm while raising four children alone; Ben tells the story of a troubled teenager as he falls in with a bad crowd. These viewpoints paint a picture of a grim life of desperate poverty, marital abuse and abandonment that characterize life on the farm prior to the murder. | violence, murder, flashback | train | wikipedia | I actually liked Dark Places better, so when I found out they were making it into a movie, I was of course skeptical about whether or not it'd be good.
The sets were also very accurate - it's been YEARS since I read the book, but while watching the movie everything came back to me...the layout of the farm house, the crappy apartment Libby lived in as an adult with her collection of stolen items...all the way down to crap hole Runner was living in...This is not going to be a big blockbuster.
She gets contacted by a club that is intrigued by mysterious murders, and she is forced to confront her multilayered traumatic past."Dark Places" is a truly haunting drama that keeps me captivated thoroughly.
Each switch back to 1985 is like the tumblers on a lock giving that satisfying click as you pick it, breeding anticipation and certainty that there is a rich reward at the end for your efforts, every scene evoking a subtle revelation that drives the story onward.Well cast, well scored, well directed, Dark Places deserves more recognition than it has garnered.
The rest of the cast is good but Christina Hendricks and Corey Stoll stand out and elevate the film.So to me Dark Places really depicts how prejudices, despair, and a bunch of white lies can snow ball and change people's lives forever.
Ungodly and sinister, Gillian Flynn's Dark Places is just as devilish as you hope.Again Gillian Flynn takes inspiration from the headlines, this time Dark Places sheds unsettling and ominous light on the famed mass murders that capture society's attention.When Libby Day (Charlize Theron) was just seven years old, she was the lone survivor and he family was viciously murdered in what the media claimed was a satanic occult sacrifice at the desolate farmhouse in Kansas.
Twenty-five years later, in desperate need of cash and with no way to get it except capitalize and exploit her seedy past, she allows an organization obsessed with real life murders investigate the case with her help, as they hope to exonerate Ben. As she investigates her past, she opens old wounds and uncovers things about her life she had long since buried deep in her soul.Not being able to speak of the novel, the Dark Places as a film does a great job of leading you on myriad paths of misdirection.
Her Libby and the medley of supporting characters are gripping and match the brutal content of the film.Dark Places is a satisfying mystery that tells of savage desperation and sadistic cold-hearted murder.
I did not read Dark Places nor Gone Girl (the other Flynn's book) but I can really said that movie is slow but captivating.
Her character does not shine like the female character in Gone Girl; in fact her character is really an accessory to the story that basically happens in flash backs.As a murder mystery; the end is somewhat unexpected but not completely convincing; but it is obvious that the important thing was the sadness, misery and tough decisions some of the characters had to make and its consequences.It is an interesting slow cooked movie; far from commercial but worth seeing anyway.
It doesn't nearly deserve the terrible reputation it is receiving right now.For a basic plot summary, "Dark Places" tells the story of Libby Day (Charlize Theron), a woman still haunted by the memory of a childhood incident in which her brother murdered the rest of the family...or did he?
They both have a pretty respectable cast (even Chloe Moretz has a key role in this), they both feature a psychological thriller/mystery at the heart of the narrative, and both are thoroughly entertaining from beginning to end.So, why did "Gone Girl" soar while "Dark Places" puttered out?
It felt a little bit cobbled together and stunted when it could have been just as great and nuanced as its Flynn-inspired predecessor.Overall, though, "Dark Places" is a pretty solid movie that (for whatever reason) gained such a bad reputation that it flopped early and often.
From 2015, "Dark Places" stars Charlize Theron, Nicholas Hoult, Christina Hendricks, and Corey Stoll in an adaptation of a novel by Gillian Flynn (Gone Girl).Theron is Libby Day, one of two living survivors of the mass murder of her family in 1985 in Kansas.
It has to be done right away because storage problems in the state building mean that cases more than ten years old will be destroyed in a few weeks.Flashbacks recreate the circumstances surrounding the murders, showing her mother (Hendricks) trying to hold onto their farm despite poverty, her alcoholic husband who shows up for money, Ben being accused of child molestation and of practicing Satanism, and Ben's relationship with Diondra (Chloe Grace Moretz), who seems to be the town bad girl.Slowly Libby is able to put the pieces together and learns the stunning truth.I don't understand the vilification of this movie - what has it ever done to anyone?
She prefers to make films that are not about her gorgeous looks, and this was one.Christina Hendricks does a great job as Libby's downtrodden mother - she looks and acts defeated - a far cry from being one of the glamorous stars of "Mad Men."For fans of this genre, and I gather for people who haven't read the book, I think this is a very well done film that deserves to be seen as a rental or on Amazon streaming..
I guess the story was flushed out quite well by the filmmaker.The film had a lot of cool elements too.Charlize Theron plays Libby Day, the lone survivor of a massacre done by her brother of their entire family.
There's dark tones everywhere you look from the Satanism themes, the struggling family murdered in cold blood, a kill club that get their kicks from solving crimes and front and centre Charlize Theron's Libby Day, the grown up survivor of the family murder that gives a testimony that imprisoned her older brother for the crime but in a convoluted story that seemingly worked quite well in book format gets lost in a shoddily edited and unveiling cinematic narrative.Much of the films failings can be placed squarely at the feet of director Paquet-Brenner who unlike Fincher seems to lack any single amount of vision for this event.
Much of the film fails unequivocally and is saved only by a decent Theron turn as the feisty Libby and some nice support from Tye Sheridan as the young Ben Day and Corey Stoll as the older incarnation.
Other performers in the piece get lost in a mistreated retelling of the source material with yet another OTT turn from Chloe Grace Moretz front and centre in this aspect.Uninvolving, lacking any energy and most tellingly just downright boring, Dark Places barely feels like it belongs in the league of cinematic thrillers and in the end comes off as a cheap and nasty TV movie that is notched up a peg on the ratings scale thanks to some Hollywood talent that deserve better material to work with.2 sacrificial cows out of 5.
To be honest the distance from the main character of Dark Places and Gone Girl shows the key difference between the film adaptations.
Dark Places (like a lot of movies, I guess) won't be everyone's cup of tea as it's a pretty slow-paced Thriller that concentrates on a decent cast delivering a good story.
If you're more into faster-paced films then you more than likely won't enjoy this.The story sees Charlize Theron play Libby Day, a young woman who believes that her brother brutally killed her mother and sister when she was 8-years-old.
Also, while there is no twist as such, the story does keep you guessing as to how it will pan out.The cast all do a decent job with their individual parts as well, from Theron's performance as Libby Day, a woman who finds it hard to trust anyone and has become a bit of a recluse, to Chloë Grace Moretz's performance of a young manipulative Diondra.
Put a decent cast in to deliver a decent story and you have yourself a pretty enjoyable movie.As I mentioned earlier, it is a pretty slow-paced Thriller, and while I don't mind watching these, there were a few scenes where I thought it dragged a wee bit, but for the most part it is interesting and enjoyable enough.It's not the best film you'll ever see, but Dark places is a good film that is definitely worth a watch..
Now, I always disliked that typical and clichéd statement: "the book is much better than the film", but I must admit that there's truth in it
Director Gilles Paquet-Brenner's screenplay adaptation is very loyal to Flynn's novel, and thus the basic subject matter is tense and unsettling, but for some inexplicable reason the book is compelling whereas the film is rather tedious
"Dark Places" tells the story of Libby Day. At the tender age of 7, Libby witnessed how her mother and two sisters were brutally slain in their Kansas farm at night, and she confirmed to the authorities that her 15-year-old brother Ben was the culprit.
Even though they aren't discussed in the story, these facts and their long-term repercussions lead to the problems that we see play out in one small community, and within one family in particular, in "Dark Places" (R, 1:53).When she was a young girl, Libby Day was in her family's rural Kansas home when her mother and two sisters were brutally murdered.
As the film progresses, we see the list of possible suspects in the murders steadily grow and then gradually shrink as we learn more and more about what really happened in that farmhouse on that fateful night in 1985."Dark Places" is based on the novel that Gillian Flynn wrote before "Gone Girl", but this second film based on one of her books isn't as good as the first.
(Flynn adapted her own novel for the film version of "Gone Girl", and received an Oscar nomination for her efforts, but little-known French filmmaker Gilles Paquet-Brenner, this movie's director, also took on the screen writing duties here.) Inside "Dark Places" there's a great film trying to find its way out, but it's hampered by uneven acting and mediocre directing.
(Reminder: As always when reviewing a movie, I don't comment on the quality of the book's story, just on what appears on the screen.)Charlize Theron and Nicholas Hoult look very different than when they appeared together in "Mad Max: Fury Road" (most of which was filmed a year before this movie), but their performances aren't as effective or compelling as in the "Mad Max" reboot.
Libby (Charlize Theron), her dead beat father Runner Day (Sean Bridgers) and her imprisoned brother Ben (Corey Stoll) who were both suspects in the murders but eventually the young teenaged son Ben would be convicted of the three (3) murders and spend the rest of his life behind bars.Was justice really served by imprisoning young Ben Day or will Lyle Wirth and his freak cult of criminal investigators uncover what really happened that night in 1985 on a Kansas City farm with the paid for information supplied by the then 8 year old survivor Libby Day?
This is an excellent film, with dark undertones, with a brother/sister relationship that was strained from the very day the guilty plea was read out in court to Ben Day. So the adult Libby is instructed by her employer Lyle Wirth to go to the prison and talk to her estranged brother Ben to seek real closure on what happened that night 30 years ago that changed their lives forever.This is a story that although is fiction, has real life undertones of self worth, pity, hatred, youth influenced by passion and fear, love/hate family relationships, and by cult like groups who when you dig deeper serve a real purpose in society ensuring justice can prevail, albeit sometimes too late to save a young and naive teenager.
With the success of Gone Girl, film producers have been scrambling to adapt other works from novelist Gillian Flynn.However this adaptation of Dark Places by French Director Gilles Paquet-Brenner lacks the style, tension and panache of Dave Fincher's superior adaptation of Gone Girl.Libby Day (Charlize Theron) as a 7 year old survived an attack on her family home which left her mother and two sisters dead.
First of all don't expect to see a better film than gone girl (the the book by Gillian Flynn) I saw this film last night, and I can say is that is a good film, better than the book, the cast it's good but apart from Charlize Theron (who make a great interpretation of Libby day)and Chloe Moretz( that give a tremendous performance of Diondra) the other characters are in the movie like 10 minutes tops, I don't know why they put Nicholas Hoult in the top billed cast if he is hardly in the movie.The direction it's not very good, but it gets along with the movie, then if you haven't read the book the plot it's gonna surprise you in the end, it's not a great twist like in gone girl but it's tolerable, sure you expect more, but i think it's some kind of predictable ending.In the end dark places turns out to be to the movie that everyone expect to be..
When Charlize Theron's character gets forced to take a new look at her family's murder thirty years earlier, it's but one example of the inevitable.It's an OK movie, not a masterpiece.
Dark Places is exactly that, a dark eerie film about the life of Libby Day. The movie starts out slow as the build up takes you through the story, nicely put together and the only things that I didn't feel fit were the reminisces of the past where the film style changed and didn't quite blend in.The acting for the most part was very well played, and of course Charlize Theron pulled her weight as always.
What drew me to this film however wasn't the genre nor the fact that Charlize Theron and Nicholas Hoult were going to be in this movie together again after their success in Fury Road, but that the screenplay was adapted from Gillian Flynn's novel of the same name.
Dark Places isn't as tightly constructed as Gone Girl and the characters aren't as interesting, but the mystery still had me engaged during most of the film's running time.
I just read the book and decided to watch the movie, thinking that with this strong compelling story the film would be great.
I know that in order to make a movie you have to cut a lot of things out of a book, but it feels like it lost its great character, their emotions and the mood.
'DARK PLACES': Four Stars (Out of Five)A mystery/crime/thriller based on the 2009 novel, of the same name, by Gillian Flynn (the author of 'Gone Girl').
However, somewhere along the way the movie starts to lose track, resulting in an end that should have wowed but instead will leave you asking "is that it?"Full Review:Dark Places is an adaption of the novel by Gillian Flynn, the same person who authored Gone Girl.
Charlize Theron was a great choice for the older Libby, who is trying to find out who murdered her mother and sister when she was 7 years old.
I personally think that he done a great job with this movie and he got the most out of the experienced cast, so it definitely gets the thumbs up from me.Budget: N/A Worldwide Gross: $3.5millionI recommend this movie to people who are into their drama/mystery/thrillers starring Charlize Theron, Nicholas Hoult, Corey Stoll, Christina Hendricks, Chloe Grace Moretz, Drea De Matteo and Anrea Roth.
I was looking for the 'inspired from a true story' label in the credits or the information surrounding Dark Places but what I found instead was that it's based on a book by Gillian Flynn, who also inspired Gone Girl which I hear is a better film which I did not see yet.
The director is the French Gilles Paquet-Brenner whose career alternates French and (North-American) English spoken movies - this is his first film that brings on screen not only a story by a famous crime writer but also the fabulous Charlize Theron, who is also one of the co-producers.The hero of the film is Libby Day (Theron) who has lived all her mature life from the donations and book rights around the horrible crime in which her mother and two sisters were murdered 25 years ago.
This movie is about a crime committed some 30 years ago where the mother and the sisters of Libby Day (Charlize Theron) and her brother, Ben, are murdered.
Libby Day (Charlize Theron) gets confronted about her own tragic family murder 25 years later by entrepreneur Lyle Wirth (Nicholas Hoult) from the KT (Killer Team).
I mean her transformation in the film 'monster' really worked, here it kinda feels like a Hollywood version of CHarlize playing a much darker role that doesn't fit her.Despite those minor complaints, "Dark Places" is a solid crime/thriller that keeps the audiences attention and has enough to offer the viewer to give it a hard 6/10..
And once the mystery is over, we don't have any reason to care about these characters, because no effort has been made to make us care about them, or even get to know them as people.Much like in "Gone Girl", and, it seems, in the worldview of Gillian Flynn, the women of "Dark Places" are devious and the men are stupid. |
tt0168156 | Saint Maybe | Tyler's plot explores the ways ordinary people react to disastrous events with quietly heroic behavior. When seventeen-year-old Ian Bedloe confronts his older brother Danny with his belief that the latter's wife, Lucy, is having an affair, Danny commits suicide. Shortly after, Lucy dies of an overdose of sleeping pills, and responsibility for the care of the deceased couple's three children (two from their mother's previous marriage) falls to their grandparents. A profoundly guilty Ian, who has discovered his accusations were wrong, receives spiritual guidance from Reverend Emmett of the storefront Church of the Second Chance, and he decides to drop out of college to become a carpenter and help his ailing parents with the children, until he eventually becomes their primary caretaker, sacrificing his own freedom to fulfill what he perceives to be a lifelong moral obligation.
As the years pass and the three children mature, Ian continues to be torn between his sense of obligation to the children and the urge to have a "real life," but he increasingly finds solace and peace in participation at the church and becomes devoted to it, its homespun followers, and Rev. Emmett. Ian also develops into a dependable and loving father. The two oldest children (Agatha and Thomas) eventually leave home and form their own families, while the youngest (Daphne) stays home with Ian and the grandparents. When the grandmother has a heart attack, Agatha returns to find a disorganized house and tries to restore order. Efforts to organize the house with help from Daphne's friend, a young female professional "Clutter Counselor"(Rita), ultimately provide Ian with an opportunity for a new beginning. "Moving back and forth among the points of view of various characters, Ms. Tyler traces two decades in the lives of the Bedloes, showing us the large and small events that shape family members' lives and the almost imperceptible ways in which feelings of familial love and obligation mutate over the years." | tragedy | train | wikipedia | Made me want to read the book.
This is a story of a man's search for forgiveness.
A young man gives up his plans for the future in order to raise his orphaned nieces and nephew.
Mary-Louise Parker is wonderful(as usual).
She is the reason to watch this movie.
Blythe Danner and Edward Herrman are also two of my favorite actors.
I ran across this one evening and decided to watch based on the cast.
I was hooked right away but I felt there was too much missing from the story.
I had to read the book.
I read the book the following weekend and found that the movie was actually quite faithful to the book just lacking the detail that you only get from a book.
All in all, I would recommend this movie (and also the book)..
You can't change the past...but you can make choices for the future..
While this movie was a little thin in places and had a less than imaginative ending, it is well worth watching and is a nice contrast to highly unrealistic Hollywood films and soap operas where the dead come back to life and/or people really get second chances.How does a person live with the knowledge that his own actions (although they were well intentioned but misguided at the time)destroyed the lives of those closest and dearest to him and caused years of pain and suffering to others?
Many would turn to drugs, alcohol, anger, denial, or suicide.
This movie shows how it is possible to reach inside yourself and out to others to heal some of the wrong that was done.
I liked how it also had a sub-plot about how the young man succeded in life without going to college or getting married (or atleast not until later in life)and how he wanted to "make things that people won't throw away".While it's not the kind of movie you watch with friends and a beer, it's great for a quiet evening at home alone or with family.
It gets you thinking.The only trouble that I have with it is that while it begins very strong and I felt drawn into the characters and their dilemas, the last 1/4 of the film was very weak and the characters became cardboard and cliche almost.
the oldest girl became a doctor, the youngest a rebellious misfit.
Just try to overlook that part and you'll enjoy it..
How do you live in the present when you can't erase the past?.
Saint Maybe (1998) (TV) was directed by Michael Pressman and based on the novel by Anne Tyler.
Thomas McCarthy plays Ian Bedloe, a teenager who has a fine home, loving family, and lovely girlfriend.
For reasons that are complex, and not clear to Ian or to us, Ian initiates a chain of action that leads to tragedy.
Naturally, he feels tremendous guilt.
The movie is about what you do when you're a good person who has made an irrevocable mistake.
Anne Tyler is an excellent author, and the film is faithful to the basic plot of her novel.
The acting is uniformly good, and the production has the usual solid strength we expect from the Hallmark Hall of Fame.This film probably won't make your all-time best 100 films list, but it's still worth seeing.
Also, Anne Tyler's novel is definitely worth reading.
I had read the novel years ago, and just saw the film, so I can't make specific comments about the degree to which the script reflects the novel.
Still, my impression is that this is a solid and careful adaptation..
Need To See To Understand....
I had to watch this movie again, while I agree it may be thin in places, the overall plot made me want to see the end, I admired the dignity that Tom McCarthy displayed and I was pleased to see that there were good solid morals portrayed.
It took courage for Ian to sacrifice his youth (to atone for his mistake) and while he could have gone off the rails as someone suggested it was quite noble of him to draw strength from God and raise the kids like his own and never divulge the terrible secret of their mothers' past to them.
It is quite simply a nice but realistic movie, people are faced with choices like these everyday, most people actually chicken out!!!Real Men & Women are those who do not need to shout to be heard but live with dignity and strength!!!.
Enjoyable.
A Hallmark movie about a young man who turns to God and church after a family tragedy.
Wonderfully written, nice sets, and a terrific cast.
Thomas McCarthy was very good in the leading role, and you can spot a pre-"Providence" Melina Kanakaredes in the role of his girlfriend.
Also starring Gwyneth Paltrow's mom, Blythe Danner.
A very good movie..
This a story about second chances.
This a story about second chances.
I do not know how faithful it is to Anne Tyler's novel, I have not read it, but I know in real life everyone needs second chances.
In this story everyone gets a second chance but Danny, unfortunately.
Lucy gets a second chance with Danny.
Bee and Doug Beedloe get a second chance to be parents and they do a good job.
Ian ruins Lucy's second chance, but redeems himself by taking responsibility for raising the orphaned children as his parents age, and they do a good job raising them.
When the other grandmother is finally found years after Danny and Lucy's deaths, Ian realizes that they are better off without that woman in their lives.
A second chance with that grandmother would have been a disaster.
Finally Ian himself gets his own second chance with Rita.
The Church of Second Chances is a metaphor for life.
God is always there giving second chances,and even third and fourth ones.
Life is filled with second chances, if we only see them and embrace them..
Saint Maybe-Not. This is a very poor attempt to translate a marvelous book to the screen.
Hallmark should have made this a multi-parter, and definitely should have left elements of the book alone.
"Saint Maybe" is a very long book, and may well be Tyler's masterpiece.
Condensing it into a "movie of the week" format dilutes the vivid images painted by her.
"The Accidental Tourist" was much better and kept as faithful to the book as possible.
If you haven't read "Saint Maybe" you should.
Once you do you'll love it and ask "why did Hallmark change so much?!?" I was very disappointed.
The actors try very hard to win us over, but the script is just too weak.
Perhaps someone will attempt to make another of her books into a movie with better results..
Terrible.
I sat down thinking I would have a nice quiet evening watching a chick flick kind of movie.
What I ended up doing was wasting my evening hoping this movie would get better.
I watched it to the end and no it never got better.
I felt cheated out of a evening I could have been watching something worthwhile.
Don't waste your time.
Don't waste your time.
It never gets better.
it just drags on and on.
Find a movie that causes some other emotion that pity for the author for believing she was a real writer.
The movie and the book are a waste of money, time and energy.
There are plenty of books that read better and don't make you feel like you just want to get through it..
Sobfest, courtesy of Hallmark.
I saw "Saint Maybe" on the Hallmark Channel.
I don't know what I was thinking.
It's a wonderful cast, including Blythe Danner, Mary-Louise Parker, Edward Herrmann, and Thomas McCarthy.
I haven't read the book by Anne Tyler, so I can't comment on the transfer from book to screen.It's the story of a young man named Ian (McCarthy) whose brother Danny (Jeffrey Nordling) marries a flighty young woman named Lucy (Parker) very shortly after meeting her at his post office window, when she wants to mail a bowling ball.
Lucy has two children by a previous marriage, and 7 months after marrying Danny, has a third.
The baby is said to be premature, but Ian isn't buying it, and is pretty sure the child isn't the deliriously happy Danny's.
Constantly called on to babysit, Ian grows more and more suspicious of his sister-in-law over time - she is constantly going out with her girlfriend Dot and coming home with jewelery, scarves, and new clothes, and she seems to need a sitter an awful lot.One night, when his own date is ruined because Lucy doesn't come home as promised, Danny returns first and drives Ian home.
Ian loses his temper and tells Danny all of his suspicions.
His brother is very upset and, after dropping off Ian at home, crashes into a tree and dies.
If that isn't bad enough, Lucy dies not long afterward of a sedative overdose.
Now the question is, what to do with the three orphaned children.
The elderly grandparents (Danner and Herrmann) do their best, but guilt-ridden Ian stumbles into a church one night and realizes that he has to make a decision.I said I don't know what I was thinking because I became very absorbed in this story and cried through most of it, hating myself every step of the way for watching it.
It's a very warm, sentimental story with some lovely scenes.
It has Hallmark stamped all over it - it's perfect family entertainment about a man who, in looking for forgiveness, finds that he can't undo what happened, but he can create what happens now.Very good, but have some tissues nearby.
Get a bunch ready for an especially poignant scene with Edward Herrmann.
Blast him.
He's fabulous..
Good But It is Very Hard to Watch..
BEWARE OF FALSE REVIEWS & REVIEWERS.
SOME REVIEWERS HAVE ONLY ONE REVIEW TO THEIR NAME.
NOW WHEN ITS A POSITIVE REVIEW THAT TELLS ME THEY WERE INVOLVED WITH THE MOVIE.
IF ITS A NEGATIVE REVIEW THEN THEY MIGHT HAVE A GRUDGE AGAINST THE FILM .
NOW I HAVE REVIEWED OVER 200 HOLIDAY FILMS.
I HAVE NO AGENDA.
I AM HONESTIn this film a 19 year old college student Ian gets roped into babysitting his brothers kids once again.
He gets very mad that his sister in law promises to be home at a certain time and she isn't.
This makes IAN very mad because he just missed an important date with his girlfriend who he hardly see's.
They both go to desperate colleges.
He was kind enough to babysit however he feels disrespected when his sister in law ruins his plans.
Once his brother comes home after work he see's that IAN is babysitting.
Ian tells his brother things he believes about his wife including the fact that he thinks she is cheating on him.
The two brothers have a minor fight and IAN'S brother ends up in an auto accident and dies.
A short time later Ian's sister in-laws overdoses and dies.
Ian is racked with guilt now because he feels responsible for the deaths of both people.
A short time later he drops out of school to become the guardian of his brothers children and step children.
I enjoyed this film.
The ending was not what I expected because I did want something more elaborate.
The acting is fine in this and the pacing of the film is very solid.
I really would not calls this "A Christmas Film" but it is about having faith.
The message in this film I do support.
Its about making amends and saving yourself in the process..
the director got lost after good start.
This movie started out so good and really had me hooked but then I got confused,then outright lost.The movie starts out about a very close family who've gathered at Christmas and the oldest brother has his girlfriend with him and proclaims they're getting married.The wife who already has two kids acts very spacey.Next scene the couple has had a baby but only been married 7 months which the younger brother tells anyone who'll listen that it's not his brother's baby.Where is all this going?
The movie is about the younger brother(Ian) and how he ends up living his life after tragedy in the family but it takes it's time getting there.Ian tells his brother how his wife is cheating on him,that the baby's not his and how she is always getting babysitters during the day and coming home late,not to mention always having fancy clothes he didn't buy.The brother knows his wife has a problem but only sees the good in her.
He drops Ian off after he finishes trashing his wife and so angry on the inside he crashes into a tree killing himself.The wife is unable to function or work and also commits suicide by taking pills.Ian the only one who knows why the two are dead thinks it's his fault since he finds out the wife's problem was that she was a kleptomaniac not cheating on her husband.Ian who was in college and had a steady girl keeps seeing the couple and after going into a storefront church and confessing what he's done dedicates his life to the kids.The family can't find any relatives and his parents are up in age so he drops out of college and raises the 3 kids and becomes a devout church member.I was very confused as to the era.It seemed to start in the 50's yet at the wife's grave a woman was in a very short mini skirt.The children grew to adulthood but yet Ian looked the same as he did in college except for one part where he looked older then back to young Ian.At the end he meets a woman but she seems to be in the 80's while everybody else seems to be in the early 70's.She comes into the movie out of nowhere the barely have 2 scenes together and he end up telling everyone he's marrying her as the kids are established in their lives.Oh yeah oldest girl has a doll when she's little that has a piece of paper she hides from everyone.The woman Ian marries is a house clutter remover and the doll ends up on top of the trash.He sees it pulls the paper out reads an address on it and ends up finding the kids real grandmother on their father's side.She has always hated the kids mother and her son is dead also from an accident.He realizes it was his destiny to raise the kids in a loving home as she didn't want them anyway.
I give it 5/10 for touching my heart but the movie doesn't flow smoothly. |
tt1653690 | Ong-bak 3 | In the year 1431 in Thailand, Tien (Tony Jaa) is held captive being beaten with wooden staves. On the orders of Lord Rajasena (Sarunyu Wongkrajang), his elbows and knees are snapped. As Lord Rajasena sleeps, Tien's guerilla fighters attempt to free Tien, but Bhuti Sangkha (Dan Chupong) appears and kills them. Lord Rajasena offers to hire Bhuti, but he refuses and gives the offer to remove the curse which has been placed on Rajasena before leaving. Rajasena orders his men to kill Tien, but before this can be carried out, a man arrives with a pardon from the king, indicating that he will take Tien, much to Rajasena's ire. The messenger returns Tien to the Kana Khone villagers. After fending off the village from invaders who are after Tien, Master Bua (Nirut Sirijanya) feels guilty over Tien's imprisonment and becomes a Buddhist monk. Pim (Primrata Det-Udom) heals Tien to life, but finds that Tien is still crippled from his beatings. Tien then embarks on a rehabilitation regimen with the help of Master Bua.
Rajasena visits Bhuti at his temple to remove his curse, but Bhuti reveals his true motive of usurping Rajasena and becoming the new king. After a battle, Bhuti decapitates Rajasena, but his severed head curses Bhuti. After meditating, Tien returns to his village to find it in ruins, and the surviving villagers kidnapped and enslaved by Bhuti. Bhuti uses his magic to summon an eclipse. When Pim reveals herself as Tien's companion, she is taken to Bhuti's palace, where she is killed. Tien witnesses this killing from a statue and fights his way through the guards before confronting Bhuti, who launches a spear at Tien's chest. As he falls to his knees, defeated, he remembers Bua's words, and finds himself again atop the statue. Overcoming Bhuti's illusion, lightning strikes and Bhuti's eclipse magic is dispelled. Bhuti attempts to escape but is confronted by Tien. Bhuti attempts again to throw a spear at Tien, who catches and throws it aside. On the royal ledge above the arena, Tien's upright finger tips hold Bhuti aloft by his chin. Suddenly an elephant's trunk butts the doors below the ledge, causing Bhuti to fall from Tien's grasp. Bhuti falls, over the elephant's tusks. The camera pans as we watch Bhuti dying on the ground, pierced by the elephant's broken tusk. As he breaths his last breath, the elephant, now resembling the one tusk Ganesha, raises his head in a victorious trumpet. Beginning life anew, with good having triumphed over evil, the final scene opens as Tien, Pim and the remaining villagers, pray before the statue of Ong Bak. | violence | train | wikipedia | Especially the final fight is very disappointing and if you've watched the previous Tony Jaa movies you know all his moves by now.
While I appreciate the effort to make a "real" film instead of an action flick, it was done horribly as the cinematics are awful: numerous completely pointless close-ups and weak special effects make it look like a college project at times.
For the first hour we only have limited battle sequences involving our hero, so savour whatever you can in his fight for survival against hordes of weapon wielding enemies who have the unfair advantage of strength in numbers against a badly beaten (just came off those numerous fights from Ong Bak 2) Tien.
Totally broken and just as he's about to be executed, Tien gets saved by the bell and brought back to the village of Kana Khone, where another fight ensues involving his new rescuers against Rajasena's assassins.Then it's a good plod onto the hour mark, where Tien goes through a reincarnation of sorts, involving body wraps, mystical chants, Master Bua (Nirut Sirichanya) turning to monkhood and imparting pearls of wisdom, the rehabilitation of body, mind and soul, time for romance with Pim (Primorata Dejudom) his pillar of strength, discussions of karmic philosophy and the circle of life.
Tien has to unlearn what he has learnt, and basically has to snap all the bones of his body back in place before he can practice martial arts again, which brings us a bearded Jaa and a training montage in a tree, under water, showing off a lean though scarred body, and is that a little paunch I see as well?So while Tien takes a breather of sorts for his transformation, the duty of keeping the action junkies entertained fell on Dan Chupong's shoulders, as his very short supporting role as the Crow Ghost got expanded here, with his motivation fully revealed.
Ong Bak 3 straddles martial arts and philosophy very openly and tried to strike a fair balance between the two, but alas it came off as quite a schizophrenic film very much like True Legend in spirit.
I hope the Ong Bak 2 and 3 episodes don't tank Tony Jaa's career, because I'm sure he has enough in reserve to wow audiences once again, should the right story come along that pushes his physical boundaries..
the end fight scene was disappointing.ong bak came out 7 years ago that and his other films were great.
Well...The storyline was almost non-existent, and whatever story was being told there was told in a really confusing and weird way, so it was difficult to make any sense of the movie.It seemed like this was a showcase of how cool can we make Tony Jaa look?
Honestly, I liked seeing those cultural scenes, but again, not really something that can carry a movie.I think "Ong Bak 3" is pretty much as weak as the 2nd part, except the story in this one is more confusing.
They should have stopped after the original "Ong Bak" movie which was a blast of an action movie.I was disappointed with this movie, and I was actually just sitting through it at the end to watch Tony Jaa fight and show what he can do.
Brought up by a group of warriors, Tien grows up to become a fearsome fighting machine himself- which is really an excuse for Tony Jaa to show off his bone-crunching moves."Ong Bak 2" ended on a cliffhanger, with Tien overwhelmed by the sheer number of Rajasena?s soldiers and taken away to be tortured to death.
Picking right up after the events of "Ong Bak 2", this installment begins with an unpleasant sequence where Tien is beaten and brutalized in ways apparently too disconcerting even for an NC16 rating (yes, it's cut).
His body covered with tattoos, the Crow Demon soon uses his supernatural powers to enslave the villagers, setting the stage for an epic confrontation with Tien.True enough, like "Ong Bak 2", audiences will be treated to a no-holds-barred vicious climax with plenty of jaw-breaking, head-cracking and knee-crunching action.
And once again, like its predecessor, you can be sure that you'll be left in awe at Tony Jaa's physical agility and martial arts prowess- which was the very reason his name was mentioned among the greats Jet Li and Jackie Chan when "Ong Bak" was first released.Here, Tony Jaa also showcases the 'nattayuth' fighting technique, a combination of traditional khon dancing with mixed martial arts, as his character Tien goes up against the Crow Demon.
(There is certainly a real-life parallel to be drawn here, as Tony Jaa's decision to join the monkhood in May shortly after this film was released can only mean that Dan Chupong may steal his thunder as Thailand's most famous action star.) Of course, there is a good reason for Tien's (or Tony Jaa's) departure, for "Ong Bak 3" tries- though rather clumsily- to be a film about the redemptive potential of forgiveness.
Whereas Jaa's Tien was driven by revenge in "Ong Bak 2", here he is driven by something different, something less destructive and ultimately liberating.In the hands of more experienced directors, this noble ambition might have translated better to the big screen- but co-directors Tony Jaa and Jaa's mentor Panna Pittikrai (who are also action choreographers and action directors in the film) are unfortunately out of their league here.
Indeed, it's especially telling when one of the best things about the film is the levity that Phettai Wongkumlao's village idiot Mhen brings, especially during Tien's fight when he first emerges from his self-imposed solitude.Much has been said about the production troubles surrounding "Ong Bak 2" and "Ong Bak 3"- Tony Jaa disappearing from the set for two whole months during filming for "Ong Bak 2"; subsequent studio pressure leading to the rushed production of "Ong Bak 2" and the decision to make this film "Ong Bak 3" partly to complete the story and partly to recoup costs.
At the very least, it's an excuse to watch Tony Jaa fight on screen again and probably for the last time in a long while.
One thing the viewer will notice in "Ong Bak 3" is that the degree of difficulty of the martial arts choreography is not nearly as high as Jaa's previous works.
"Mediocre" for Tony Jaa is "good" for everyone else, which means that the action in "Ong Bak 3" is engaging enough to be moderately entertaining.
In reality it's on the same level as something like "The Sanctuary" (2009) or "The Bodyguard" (2004) and comes off like a poor man's version of "Ong Bak 2." Jaa's typical critics – you know, the people with awful taste in action films – will have a field day lambasting this one while giving it a 1/10 rating.
I tried to understand what was going on, and I did not succeed.There's also scenes of graphic violence and torture that is a lot more mean spirited than what we've seen in Tony Jaa's other movies.
Let's get strait to the point, Ong Bak 3 have wonderful moments that can value the movie without all the fighting scenes.
The plots of those two films amounted to "Hey, the bad guys stole something from me, now I'm going to go get it (while kicking the ass of everyone who gets in my way), whether or not my pants are on fire." Ong-Bak 2 & 3, which Jaa directed, wrote and choreographed (he's most successful in the latter aspect), have a mytho-historic epic plot line that is as confusing as it is unnecessary..
If you want "something more", go on and watch "The Notebook" or something like that.For those who doesn't think that a movie should always try to be a "masterpiece", this is their kind of movie: pure fun, full of kicks, a history of vengeance, some love, and a lot of people getting kicked on the head.Maybe is not at the height of Ong Bak 1, but it doesn't mean that it isn't a good film to watch if you like martial arts flicks..
Ong Bak 3 instead of one fight scene after the other, Tony Jaa (Tien) now has a love interest and is keen on showing Thailand itself, Thai religions and Thon a form of Thai dancing in a good light, and this he does well, there are still spectacular fight sequences but not so many, the elephant scene towards the end is a worthy highlight for any Asian Cinema action fan.
It would be foolish to rate this as an action film, as obviously Tony Jaa is now much older and wishes to progress his acting career and wants to be taken seriously as an "actor", but as "World Cinema" goes it is definitely a step up from the usual non stop bone crunching high speed fighting and more into "Fantasy Adventure" which in the long term no disgrace to film-making.
So in conclusion, it does not have the fighting that made Ong Bak 1&2 and "Warrior King" so effective and glorious to watch, but it is now starting competing with other countries in the acting stakes, it still has some way to go, so expect some more intense Thai cinema in the future, and personally I wish it luck..
Tony Jaa has one fight scene in the first hour of the movie.
Like when after an hour of pretty much nothing, an action scene has finally happened, only it didn't because the movie rewinds itself to take it away.
The makers take "The Crow" premise, add some crappy special effects and a next to impossible story line(...yes even after having seen part 2 of Ong Bak,)and mashes it into a big fat fail of epic martial arts portions.
'ONG BAK 3': Three and a Half Stars (Out of Five) Thai martial arts superstar Tony Jaa (who's been compared to the likes of Bruce Lee, Jackie Chan and Jet Li) stars in this sequel to the international blockbuster 'ONG BAK 2', which actually isn't a traditional sequel to the original 'ONG BAK', seeing as that movie was set in modern day Thailand and the two sequels are set in the year 1431.
While it doesn't live up to it's two predecessors or Jaa's other works it's still a more than decent martial arts adventure.The film begins with a montage of the closing scenes from the second film, which ended on a cliffhanger.
This movie is just a great action thrill ride, almost like an over long martial arts music video.
I might have enjoyed the film quite a bit more than others because of my low expectations but I definitely had a pretty good time watching it.Watch our review show 'MOVIE TALK' at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffxjYiwLUko. The best ending for the trilogy.
Tony Jaa was just as good in this one as he was in Ong Bak 2.I enjoyed watching this movie for its beauty, and action..
one must also know a little bit about the fighting style(s) being exhibited in order to fully appreciate the martial arts movie being viewed.
First, I have been a rabid fan of Tony Jaa since the first Ong Bak, and I've watched every one of his films since then.
The fights are fantastic, both in Ong Bak 2 and in Ong Bak 3, even though the 3rd part has less action than the 2nd...the "crow man" is also an awesome martial artist...I think that the movie needed some time to "mature" the ideas...but still, it's very entertaining.The Thai cinema industry often delivers very good efforts...and this one is another good movie...In my opinion, it deserves a watch....
Ong-bak 3 take right after Ong-bak 2 left Tony Jaa as Tien after failing to use brute force to revenge now he has to find his inner piece to face off with a out of no where villain.The writing is bad but one again i came here to see Tony kick a lot of ass and he do it with style while rocking a long hair.The action scene is well choreographed by Tony himself although not as memorable as previous Ong-bak movies.Strangle stuff like during the final battle Tony pull out Nicolas Cage power in Next (2007) may upset many people other than that this movie is a great watch don't let the poor IMDb score fool you.
Firstly, and this is key, the fight sequences are top notch and I come to expect nothing less from Tony Jaa. Having seen the prequels to this film (Ong Bak in particular is fantastic) and Warrior King this doesn't quite live up to first Ong Bak but it has a good go.
All people want is Tony Jaa's acrobatic fighting action.
After the second movie, Lord Rajasena is holding Tien (Tony Jaa) prisoner as he is beaten to a pulp.
Ong bak 3 has a story which suits me its not stupid the directing is bad and the film is rushed in many ways this also lacks action.
In my opinion, the first Ong Bak film had more of a cutting edge thrill ride filled with diverse fight scenes.
Ong Bak 3 is really good however, the time Tien spends healing himself lingers on for to long for my liking.
The bad guys are generally weak and indeed the crow-king character is just silly without any real sense of threat or presence (a couple of good moves though).Speaking of moves, this film's biggest disappointment is that the fight sequences are so very dull.
Instead we get fights that are mostly "OK" but nothing more than this; they don't cover for the poor plot and they certainly don't make up for long "training" sequences that feel like they are there purely to fill time (which of course they are).One could argue that viewers of Ong Bak 3 should know what they are getting, but I don't buy that.
When I watch Tony Jaa's movies I'm expecting for action, lots of action, it doesn't matter if the story is nonexistent...
The final fight, which should have been epic, is really disappointing because it is short, it has nothing spectacular, it lacks the flamboyant style of Tony Jaa and the other guy shows absolutely nothing..
I wanted action, real conflict, for Tien to struggle to win and fight to the near-death.All I got was a half-arsed film with sentimental crap and....oh forget it.It's miles away from the brilliance of Ong Bak 1..
premonition to lightning strike near the end was odd and seemed out of place, but can easily be interpreted as an intervention of good -> (you know, Tony Jaa all decked out in white, Chupong flossing his dark evil-emperor threads) and 2.the end fight, although awesome, should definitely not have been all slow motion, kinda ruined it, but thats just an editing mistake, after that 300 garbage everybody is doing it.anyway, i thought the movie was sick, agree disagree, i don't care.think of it this way, i'v been an IMDb user for a while now, never written a review, only made like 2-3 posts about anything in total, and the bad reviews that were floating around about this movie were honestly just too much, i felt somebody had to say something in this movies defense, because it is in all actuality a great film.
True, Ong Bak 1&2, plus the other Jaa's movies, didn't had good scripts, but he overcome this weakness by pretending he translated the life of real people on the screen.
Very little fighting in the whole movie, for the most of the way through, we the audience watch Tony jaa doing next to nothing in slow motion, be it dancing or sitting in a waterfall,(cheesiness is something that is common in all 3 movies ^^), he doesn't do much throughout the film.
Well, after what i saw (Ong Bak 2) i was expecting something with at least some good fighting scenes, but after watching the film over 90min i decided it was not worth my time.
(? !wtf have he said that i lot?!"well; IMHO, if you want good Tony Jaa's movies, stick with Ong Bak 1 and The Protector 1 and 2..
ONG BAK 3 starts off with an extended torture sequence that rivals the one in THE LAST TEMPTATION OF Christ; and, like Jackie Chan before him, Tony Jaa appears to be more than willing to suffer for his (martial) art...
While I've come to think of Jaa over the past few years as one part Bruce Lee (Real World hand-to-hand combat techniques) and one part Jackie Chan (death-defying, almost superhuman stuntwork), ONG BAK 3 (like all too many martial arts movies these days) employs totally unnecessary wirework as well.
After the events of the previous 'Ong Bak' film Tien has been captured by the evil Lord Rajasena.
The scenes showing Tien's recovery take far too long, especially given that the film is quite short, and the plot involving Bhuti is somewhat confused
it would have been better if the conclusion was a fight between Tien and Rajasena.
When we aren't watching Tien recover there are some decent fight scenes; one even provides so good laughs when a comic relief character gets involved.
There is a clear difference between the tired feel of this movie and the extraordinarily brilliant Ong Bak and Ong Bak 2.Whilst the first two films had fantastic fight sequences, featuring brilliant stunts and awe-inspiring moves that showcase Tony Jaa's immense talent, this movie has none of these magic ingredients.The movie is slow moving...not a great thing for an action movie.
Big mistake.Ong Bak 3 picks up where the second film left off, not only in the story but in the confusing, jumbled mess of rubbish that spends most of its time posturing.
I love Tony Jaa's previous movies, and watched despite poor stories, simply for the enjoyment of the fight choreography.
So this is basically a sequel to "Ong Bak 2" which wasn't a good movie. |
tt0029602 | Springtime in the Rockies | During the thirty-fourth week of their hit Broadway show, dancer Vicky Lane (Betty Grable) awaits the arrival of her partner, Dan Christy (John Payne), but as usual, he is late. Vicky thinks that Dan is buying her an engagement ring and is infuriated to discover that he has been on a date with socialite Marilyn Crothers.
Fed up with Dan's womanizing and insensitivity, Vicky quits the show and returns to her former dancing partner and beau, Victor Prince (Cesar Romero), who is still in love with her.
Three months pass as Dan sinks into a depression and cannot find a backer for his new show. He sits in bars, drinking by himself. His agent, "the Commissioner" (Jackie Gleason), tells him that financiers Bickel and Brown will back his show, but only if he can get Vicky to return. Dan is pessimistic, for Vicky and Victor are beginning a new engagement with Harry James and His Music Makers at the famous Lake Louise resort in the Canadian Rockies. The Commissioner tells Dan to romance Vicky so that she will come back, and not tell her about Bickel and Brown until she arrives in New York. He then asks bartender McTavish (Edward Everett Horton) to get the drunken Dan on the next plane to Lake Louise.
When Dan awakens sometime later, he finds himself at the Canadian resort and learns that he has hired McTavish as his valet and Rosita Murphy (Carmen Miranda), who was working in the souvenir shop at the Detroit airport, as his secretary. McTavish is an eccentric whose wealthy aunt bankrolled him to several college degrees.
Dan meets Vicky, who happily shows off her engagement ring from Victor. Dan is discouraged but hits upon the scheme of making Vicky jealous by romancing Rosita. His plan appears to be working until Vicky learns the truth from Rosita, who has aroused the interest of Victor, although she prefers McTavish. Vicky's friend, Phoebe Gray (Charlotte Greenwood), is also intrigued by McTavish, and the couples spend much time pursuing and arguing with each other.
One evening, Dan barges into Vicky's room and refuses to leave even when she summons Victor. He hides, but is discovered by Victor, who accuses Vicky of being unfaithful, and she breaks off their engagement. Later that evening, Vicky and Dan reconcile. Dan proposes marriage and promises to be honest with her. He tries to tell her about the new show, but she rushes off to plan their departure the next morning. So instead he suggests a honeymoon in New York. As she is checking out in the morning, Vicky meets the Commissioner, and Bickel and Brown, who have just arrived. They spill the beans about the show.
Thinking that Dan is using her once again, Vicky runs off in tears, but quick-thinking Rosita covers up for Dan, convincing Vicky that he intended to take her to California for their honeymoon. In the process, however, Bickel and Brown are lost as backers and Rosita must persuade McTavish to invest some of his inheritance in the show. The show opens with Vicky and Dan as the star performers, supported by Harry James, Rosita and Victor, and McTavish and Phoebe. | comedy | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0116531 | High School High | Richard Clark (Jon Lovitz) is an unsatisfied prep school teacher at the fictional Wellington Academy, who accepts a job at inner city Marion Barry High School, much to the chagrin of his boss and father, Wellington headmaster Thaddeus Clark (John Neville). Richard arrives to find the school in a state of disarray and disorder, while meeting several students and faculty members, including jaded, sour principal Evelyn Doyle (Louise Fletcher), her cheerful assistant Victoria Chappell (Tia Carrere) and student Griff McReynolds (Mekhi Phifer).
Despite initial opposition to his teaching style and harassment from the school gang leader Paco (Guillermo Díaz), Richard begins connecting with his students and teaches them effectively, while developing a romantic relationship with Victoria. Barry High eventually is transformed into a fine educational establishment. Frustrated, Paco and his gang tamper with the school's final exam scores, causing everyone to fail. Griff, who grew to see Richard as a mentor, loses faith in him, as does the rest of the school and Richard is fired. Griff subsequently joins Paco's gang to make extra money.
Victoria learns through word of mouth that Paco was behind the failing test scores and rushes to inform Richard, who decides to confront Paco and rescue Griff with the help of several of his students, including Anferny Jefferson (Brian Hooks), Natalie Thompson (Malinda Williams) and Julie Rubels (Natasha Gregson Wagner). By deceiving Mr. DeMarco (Marco Rodríguez), a local gangster, Richard and Victoria reach Paco and the local crime boss, "Mr. A", whom they find has been Principal Doyle the entire time. Griff is told the truth about the test scores and after a brief fight, Paco, Doyle and DeMarco are arrested.
Richard (now principal of Barry High) presides over the graduation ceremony and proudly names Griff as the class valedictorian. The six main students of the film graduate (but only those six). Richard makes good on his promise to send Griff to college and is in a relationship with Victoria. | absurd, comedy | train | wikipedia | I've seen the movie about nine or ten times, so naturally many of the jokes--which I found hysterical at first--aren't that funny anymore.
But I don't think they could've done a much better job at spoofing high school flicks like "Dangerous Minds," "Lean on Me," "The Blackboard Jungle" and "To Sir, With Love." There are lots of witty moments that hit the bullseye.The jokes are not over-the-top, nor are they filthy and vomit-inducing like many recent spoofs.
Jon Lovitz is funny, like usual.
The young stars like Guillermo Diaz, Mekhi Pfieffer, Natasha Gregson Wagner and Brian Hooks are very good and their timing is just right.I would probably praise this movie a lot more if I submitted this comment after my first viewing, but trust me--it's very funny!
After having seen the latest spoof, "Not Another Teen Movie," I'm able to appreciate this film a lot more.
However, it does have a number of successful gags (when the teacher enters the ghetto area, his car radio will play ONLY rap music), and, of course, the gorgeous Tia Carrere....wow!
High School High was the best school movie parody of its time (before "Not Another Teen Movie"), taking "Dangerous Minds" and making a plot we should actually care about and enjoy.
And we also have Tia Carrera (not to be confused with Asia Carrera).Lovitz plays a history teacher who wants to turn a school full of unwanted students into a fleet of tomorrow's best and brightest.
A naive but dedicated educator (Jon Lovitz) decides to teach at the roughest high school in L.A. and once he arrived at this new job, he finds out the conditions at this school is tough, violent and students don't want to know anything about higher education.
This educator befriends with an beautiful teacher (Tia Carrere) and an student (Mekhi Phifer), who wants an education.
This educator also has trouble with passionless principal (Oscar-Winner:Louise Fletcher) but he finds a way to teach his most unlikely students and giving them hope for education, which they never had before.Directed by Canadian actor:Hart Bochner (PCU) made an amusing comedy that spoofs films like "Dangerous Minds", "Stand and Deliver", "The Deer Hunter" and other memorable films.
Written by David Zucker (Airplane!, Baseketball, Ruthless People), Robert LoCash (CB4:The Movie, Naked Gun 33 1/3:The Final Insult) and Pat Proof (Hot Shots 1 & 2, Bachelor Party, Police Academy).
Spoofing 'Dangerous Minds,' 'Lean on Me,' and others, Jon Lovitz stars in 'High School High' as an ambitious, optimistic teacher from a prep school who wants to prove to his father that he is perfectly capable of inspiring his students at an inner-city high school.
While there, he inadvertently becomes involved in a turf war between two rival students and their idiotic posses.Time capsule movie spoofs the mid 90s scene of hip hop has one gag after another, but is probably more destined for laughs for younger teenagers or first-time viewers.
Underrated but lovable film which takes all the cliche high-school movie scenes (many of them awful), mixes large dollops of political incorrectness, throws in sophomore humor only a guy could love, and tops it off with a fun good-guys-win-in-the-end finale.
Maybe a brief "SNL" skit, but not a movie.I think Lovitz is pretty funny, and without him there would have been no Phil Hartman on "SNL" (literally!
I thought the slapstick comedy was good and jon lovitz was an excellent actor pretending to be a gangsta, but this acting did not top his days on snl as my favorites, the actor, the anonymous liar, and the devil.
High School High is a very decent spoof comedy written by comedic geniuses Pat Proft and David Zucker.
And off-course there's many very absurd scenes that is very common to screenplays by Zucker.Also you can enjoy performance of Jon Lovitz.
They both played like in usual roles in usual high school films.High School High is a bit underrated but might not be as brilliant than the other films by Zucker/Craft but still it has it's moments..
There's a difference - Airplane was original and funny, and had talented actors in it.At least Tia Carrere was nice to look at as usual..
Jon Lovitz stars in a movie so bad, it had to go under my label of `brilliant stupidity,' which is a good thing by my standards.
There are so many great moments to high light in this film, and it hits its marks pretty most of the time.
Nothing here works - Louise Fletcher comes close to embarrassing herself, the sight gags are lame, and aside from one scene between Lovitz and Tia, its all a mess..
It is a very funny under rated comedy that should be seen if your in the mood for good comedy.This is one of Jon Lovitz funniest performances I have seen.
So if your a fan of Jon Lovitz it is worth all the time that this movie is..
Jon Lovitz uses his clueless schmuck persona to play a new teacher at the prototypical inner city school, where violence and disorder are the order of the day.
The film is a parody of all the idealistic-teacher-saves-the-bad-kids movies.
Richard Clark (Jon Lovitz- of SNL fame) is a bumbling, caring and out of touch prep school teacher who feels like he should be doing more.
Along the way Richard has help with class from secretar- err...I mean administrative assistant Victoria Chapel (Tia Carrera- Wayne's World, True Lies) and former thug turned good guy Griff (Mekhi Phiffer- 8 Mile) to help Marion Barry be the best or quite possibly the best...umm maybe..
It was funny in some parts and Jon Lovitz is a great comedy actor but needed some work in this movie.
High School High has laughs in it, but like a few critics say it doesn't know if it's a normal or spoof comedy.
It's funny how they make fun of "Dangerous Minds".I've always loved stupid movies like "Naked Gun", "Loaded Weapon" and off course "High School High".
They were just made to make you laugh.John Lovits had already been in a stupid movie (Loaded Weapon) and he was very funny like in this one.
Though it was unusual to see Tia Carer in a movie like this but I think she did a very good job.If you haven't seen "High School High" don't hesitate to watch it.
John Lovitz is very likable and very funny in this spoof of an inner city high school.
"High School High", like most spoofs is a hit or miss affair.
John Lovitz carries the film, but the supporting cast is quite good also.
It's the same old story about a teacher who moves to an inner-city school to teach unruly kids, who of course, aren't interested in learning or being friendly.
Jon Lovitz is a funny guy, but he is miscast as the teacher.
A spoof with a number of mildly amusing parts and a good comedian in the starring role, but it still isn't really that high.
It's a parody of movies about teachers who get jobs at corrupt schools and try to make a difference.
Before seeing "High School High", I knew it wasn't a very popular spoof movie, but there was still a chance I could find laughs in it, especially with Lovitz in the starring role, and I did.
However, unsurprisingly, most of these laughs were small ones, and in the end, I was not left very pleased by the movie.Richard Clark is a teacher who leaves Wellington Academy with another teaching job waiting for him at Marion Barry High School.
Unfortunately, he quickly learns that working here will not be a pleasant experience, as this is a very dangerous school full of crime, where the students in general are deeply troubled and constantly get poor marks, and it doesn't look like they have a bright future ahead of them.
After arriving at the school on his first day, Clark soon meets the hotheaded principal, Evelyn Doyle, and his first conversation with her turns out to be an embarrassing one, but he then meets an administrative assistant named Victoria Chapell, and falls in love with her.
Despite how much trouble Clark's class puts him through, he remains determined to somehow guide them in a different direction, and has his new girlfriend to help him, but obviously, he's going to face more than one problem along the way!Around the time I started watching this high school movie spoof, I certainly wasn't always keeping a straight face, but it didn't exactly look that promising.
The first part that made me laugh fully might have been the protagonist, on his first day teaching at Marion Barry High, getting rivals to shake hands in the hall, and unfortunately, not too many gags made me laugh that hard after that.
There certainly were a number of scenes that made me at least smile or laugh just a little, which may not have been the case without a talented comedian like Jon Lovitz in the starring role, and eventually found at least one touching moment.
I won't advise people to avoid this movie at all costs, but can understand why it doesn't even come close to having the same kind of reputation as "Airplane!" and "The Naked Gun"..
Mr. Clark (Jon Lovitz) and Miss Chapell (Tia Carrere), on the other hand, were very good, attractive, strict, and business-like teachers.
Go all the way in high school!" Now, in conclusion, if you're a fan of Jon Lovitz, and, you haven't seen this excellent, gut-busting, in-your-face high school comedy, I highly recommend it!
High School HighStarring: Jon Lovitz, Tia Carrere, Malinda Williams and Mekhi PhiferRated PG-13 for Crude Sexual Humor, Partial Nudity and Some Drug ReferencesGenre: ComedyStar Rating: **** out of 5High School High I thought was a pretty good comedy especially since it had a good lesson to the story and that is to follow your dreams to reach your goal if you can work at it!
High School High is a story of a teacher named Richard Clark (Jon Lovitz) who left a well-know school to a school where most of the students weren't working so well on their grades.
Mekhi Phifer played a bright kid who wasn't doing well until Jon Lovitz' character helped him out.
This is probably one of my favorite movies of 1996!BOTTOM LINE: A GREAT JON LOVITZ COMEDY!.
But High School High is worth the watch, not only because it is a Zuckerman production, but because it is a very well written spoof.
Jon Lovitz is great as a Michelle Pfiefer (Dangerous minds) teacher type, going into the inner city and changing the lives of his students while turning the community around in the process.
The movie does push the edges of acceptable gag material, whether its dirty dancing at its dirtiest or Tia Carrere (the school's secretary, I mean administrative assistant) character being nearly drowned in a fish tank.
This movie isn't bad, and it has some chuckles in it, but in the end this film simply couldn't sustain the joke.
At any rate...The plot is that Richard Clark(Jon Lovitz) leaves Wellington Academy to go teach at Marion Barry High School against his father's best wishes.
Richard believes that he can make a difference there and on his way he falls for a gorgeous teacher called Victoria Chappell(Tia Carrere).High School High was a spoof on those troubled high school kids movies like Dangerous Minds, Lean On Me and Stand And Deliver.
Tia Carrere was gorgeous as well as funny and Louise Fletcher was funny too as the irascible school principal.
and Naked Gun should find themselves right at home with a 1996 comedy called High School High.The film stars Jon Lovitz as Richard Clark, a teacher at a well- known private school run by his father, who, in order to get out from under his father's thumb, decides to take a job teaching at Marian Barry High School, a tough inner-city high school where most of the students are barely literate.
The simple story finds Clark working to raise the GPA's of his students in order to win a citywide school contest while pursuing romance with an attractive co-worker (Tia Carerre).This film takes pot-shots at films like The Blackboard Jungle and Dangerous Minds, but does it in an outrageous way, but that is to be expected from a film like this.
There are some fun supporting turns from Louise Fletcher as the hard-nosed school principal, Mekhi Pfifer as a troubled student, and Guillermo Diaz as a gang leader, but it is the lightning-swift tempo of the comic gags that keeps this one relatively entertaining for most of its ride..
And it's not.Jon Lovitz plays Richard Clark, the Michelle Pfeiffer character.
But, as Richard Clark has taught there for some time, the school starts smartening up.
The zany rude humor that whipped up gales of laughter in the riotous "Naked Gun" trilogy wanes in the shallow but mildly funny "High School High," a spoof of recent high school sagas such as "Dangerous Minds" and "The Substitute." Scenarists David Zucker of "Airplane," Robert LoCash of "BASEketball," and Pat Proft of "Brain Donors" aren't as successful with this half-baked entry.
Although it boasts more jokes per screen minute than "Airplane" and "Top Secret" or the "Naked Gun" trilogy, this production manages at least to amuse, even though it cannot intoxicate.Weasel-faced comedian Jon Lovitz of "City Slickers 2") plays Richard Clark, a sympathetic but naïve educator who quits teaching history at a 'rich kids' academy to work in a poverty stricken ghetto school.
Clark gets more than he bargained for at the inner city Marion Barry High School.
Word-plays and sight gags constitute the best of what little comedy punctuates "High School High." The funniest scenes include a send-up of the Russian roulette duel in "The Deer Hunter," an attempted rape in the school library, and Clark's rain-splattered expulsion.
Indeed, "High School High" features a couple of truly inventive gags, but the movie suffers because there is not enough funny stuff.The writers stretch jokes and ides far beyond their limits, and "High School High" looks like a labored sit-com.
A high school spoof movie.
In the case of this movie, High School High, I expected it to be as stupid and as sucky as was Spy Hard, which is in a similar vein.
He decides that he wants to go out on his own and takes a job at Berry High (the joke becomes apparent at the end of the movie) which is the roughest school in the States.I guess the theme of this movie is you can do anything if you put your mind to it, and just because society says that you are something, does not mean that you have to fall into that mould.The humour is simply taking the believability to the point of stupidity.
I am not saying that the humour is bad, just that it is not intelligent.This is an okay movie, and I would simply say that it is only worth watching to shut ones' mind off..
It's a comedy concerning a teacher-with-underachiever-students, having little spoofs of some movies here and there.The formula is familiar since Blackboard Jungle (1955), and To Sir with Love (1967).
And the result didn't contain things like being forced, bad taste, toilet humor, or all what I watch in the comedies of today!
Although I love the guy, I even watched the movie more than once to savor him better, but sometimes his confused moves do bug.The twist of the Principal being the bad guy, who forged her students' results, was wild.
Even at one point the movie delivers a sad scene in a very special way; and I mean the moment of Richard Clark leaving the school, feeling the failure, with a rain over his head only, namely departing "under a cloud" literally.
I love the genius blues melody in the background, the serious – rarely seen – performance of Lovitz, and the smart lines during it.Some criticized it as a predictable, formulaic...Well, so most of the comedies, rather most of Hollywood movies.
High School High is a comedy that seems to pull in several directions.
On the other hand, it wants to be serious at times, like many romantic comedies, where you get emotionally invested with the people and the story.
These two styles don't cohere.I guess the problem is that the movie does too good of a job getting you to like the characters and wanting them to succeed.
Jon Lovitz as a dedicated teacher who turns his community around was halfway believable.
I enjoyed High School High, and there are PLENTY of genuinely funny moments.
High School High (1996): Dir: Hart Bochner / Cast: Jon Lovitz, Tia Carrere, Mekhi Pfifer, Louise Fletcher, Malinda Williams: The sight of bagged liquor bottles dispensed through soda machines is the one brief sight joke that works in this failed formula crap.
Tired of his old school, teacher Jon Lovitz accepts a position at an inner city school where his car is stolen but his steering wheel lock remains.
Thin Line Between Spoof And High School High Life.
Jon Lovitz stars as a sweetly idiotic idealistic teacher, who thinks he can make a difference at a troubled inner city high school with its own cemetery, no less.
Mekhi Phifer and Malinda Williams are the high school kids that Lovitz could lose to the gangs.
The first half of the movie was pretty funny and consistently enjoyable, but then the second half deteriorates into a mishmash of scenes that are out of sync with the times (like the drag race), or plot turns that are out of sync with the tone of the film (like the drug plot).
It makes the mistake of trying to come out with a happy ending, as if it were a genuine movie made about high school life.
John Neville adds credibility as Lovitz' high brow father and Louise Fletcher does a wild turn as the "bitch" of high school principals. |
tt0192071 | Get Over It | Berke Landers (Ben Foster) and his girlfriend Allison (Melissa Sagemiller) were the quintessential high-school couple who grew up together and eventually fell in love, but she breaks up with him immediately after the film begins. This leads to an opening musical number of "Love Will Keep Us Together" by Captain & Tennille, imagined by Berke. He seeks advice from his embarrassing parents Frank (Ed Begley Jr.) and Beverly Landers (Swoosie Kurtz), who are hosts of a relationship advice show called Love Matters, but they don't help with the situation and constantly focus on his sex life and sexuality throughout the film. Allison then starts a relationship with Striker (Shane West), a 'foreign' student who was once the lead singer of a boy band called the Swingtown Lads. When Allison and Striker audition for the school's upcoming musical, Berke desperately tries to win Allison back by also auditioning for the play, despite having no theatrical talent and having a busy schedule as a member of the basketball team. Meanwhile, Berke's friends Felix (Colin Hanks) and Dennis (Sisqó) try to find a new girlfriend for him.
With the help of Felix's younger sister, Kelly (Kirsten Dunst), a talented songwriter and singer, Berke wins a minor role in the play, a modern musical version of Shakespeare's comedy A Midsummer Night's Dream called A Midsummer Night's Rockin' Eve, written and directed by the school's domineering drama teacher, Dr. Desmond Oates (Martin Short). Striker plays Demetrius, Allison plays Hermia, Kelly plays Helena, and Lysander is to be played by the school's star actor, Peter Wong (Christopher Jacot). But after Peter is injured in a freak accident, Striker nominates Berke to take over the role of Lysander, and, still intent on winning Allison back, Berke accepts. He gradually improves with continuing assistance from Kelly, but remains unaware of the growing attraction between the two of them. While searching through props backstage, Kelly accidentally shoots Berke in the arm with an arrow gun, thinking it's a prop. Meanwhile, Oates blames Kelly's singing for his own poorly written song and rejects her suggestions to improve it.
Felix and Dennis set Berke up on a date with Dora (Kylie Bax) a very attractive but accident-prone woman. The date ends horribly when Dora inadvertently causes a fire in the restaurant. They try again by taking him to a strip club. However their attempts fail when Burke is locked into a harness and whipped by a dominatrix named Mistress Moira (Carmen Electra). The night ends with the club being raided by the police, Felix and Dennis abandoning Berke who is then picked up by his parents who, to Berke's shock, congratulate him.
At a party at Berke's house, Kelly kisses Berke, but he insists that a relationship between them could not work because she is Felix's sister. She leaves him, annoyed at his unwillingness to move on with his life, and Felix, coming across the two, punches Berke. At the same party, Berke and Allison catch Striker cheating on Allison with her best friend Maggie (Zoe Saldana), and so Allison breaks up with Striker. Meanwhile, Frank and Beverly return home to the party and once again congratulate Berke. Berke lampoons them for constantly embarrassing him and not acting like normal parents would to these types of situations.
On the play's opening night, the first half of the performance goes smoothly except for some onstage scuffling between Berke and Striker. During the intermission, Allison confides to Berke that she wants to get back together with him, leaving him with a difficult choice between her and Kelly. Meanwhile, Striker bribes two of the theater technicians to try and blow up Berke using stage pyrotechnics. Before the play resumes, Felix gives the orchestra sheet music for a love ballad written by Kelly to replace Oates' unpopular tune.
After the curtain rises, Kelly sings her song so beautifully that Berke is reminded of their time together and finally realizes he loves her. As the fourth act begins, he abandons his lines from the script and makes up his own verse professing his character's love for Kelly's character Helena. The audience applauds as Berke and Kelly kiss. Striker protests this change, but unwittingly signals the technicians to set off the explosion, blowing him offstage. Felix saves Dora's life and they become a couple. Dennis kisses Kelly's friend and his dancing partner Basin (Mila Kunis), who kisses him back, suggesting that they also begin a relationship. Kelly and Berke leave the theater after the show, looking forward to their future together as they discuss the next night's performance. The film ends with Sisqó and singer Vitamin C singing and dancing along with the cast to the song "September" as the credits roll. | romantic, humor, comedy, fantasy | train | wikipedia | I often find myself fast-forwarding to these scenes when I don't have the time to watch the whole thing.Good movie for when you want to shut off your brain and just enjoy mindless entertainment..
OK, i picked this film to watch on a night in with the girls because it looked funny and it had Kirsten Dunst in it, and lets face it everyone loves her!
I love Martin Short as the over dramatic Play director (being a drama student i have had directors very similar to him!) The movie does constantly slip in and out of reality but the amazingly funny songs do hold it together and leave the the audience with the tunes stuck in there heads for days!
I KNOW it's just another teen romance movie, but for me the acting of the two main characters, Ben Foster and Kirsten Dunst, as well as the singing that they actually did themselves, combined with the fact that parts of the movie are just plain weird, somehow captivates me into watching it...oh...maybe 25 times now.
In the new tradition of taking a classic work and casting it as a high school romance (I guess this tradition began with "Clueless", which is still the best of the bunch), "A Midsummer Night's Dream" gets turned into "Get Over It", but as a nice (if occasionally heavy-handed) twist, the movie revolves around a high school production of that play.
Berke is Helped and Hindered by his friends along the way leading to some hilarious scenes.However, Berke is so blinded by his love of Alison, he completely misses Kelly's (Kirsten Dunst) attempts to gain his affections.However Best-over-acting-and-getting-away-with-it award goes to Martyn Short, who steals the show as the manic producer of the school Drama based on Midsummer Night's Dream.As the film progresses, so does the humour..
Brilliant songs and musical score, however I challenge anyone not to be enraptured by Kirsten Dunst when she sings 'Dream of You' SIGHHHHH!!Give this film a try, it does not use Semi-Nude girls to sell the film (there is one short swimming pool scene which is Most Pleasant (DROOL), but thats about it.8/10..
Trying to cash in on the recent spate of teen Shakespeare updates such as the enjoyable "Ten Things I Hate About You", the filmmakers serve up a lame teen break-up movie centered around a painfully unfunny parody of a high school musical production of "A Midsummer's Night's Dream".
It's definetely better than writer/director Tommy O'Haver's last film ("Billy's Hollywood Screen Kiss").I'll list the bad and good things about this movie: The bad: Foster is way too nerdy to be likable; West's imitation of an English accent is hysterically bad; Martin Short is really REALLY irritating as the school drama coach and some jokes are real groaners.The good: Dunst is very good and stops the show when she sings "Dream of Me"; the songs and dances aren't half bad and full of color and energy; Sagemiller is beautiful and very appealing; West (accent aside) is really handsome and hunky and dir.
Shane West was cool, but his character's arrogance annoyed me a little.Despite all this, I think it was a really good film, and I'd love to see it again!.
Combine some funny shtick by the hilarious Martin Short and some really ultra-hip permissive parents played by Kurtz and Begley with a spritz of musical theater and I all spells fun for teens.
(This doesn't include the Austin Power's rip-off ending where everyone dances infront of some weird back drop, where she has more equal screen time to the rest of the cast.) So, for those of you who like a bit of T&A in their movie going experience, wait until this movie comes out on video as an "Unrated Version" then rent something completely different!
I remember wanting to watch it when I had my huge crush on Kirsten Dunst but for whatever reasons I couldn't just rent it.The situations are funny and somehow entertaining with some bright editing and musical numbers.
Kirsten Dunst demonstrates she's a really good actress and singer.The plot is the typical from any teenager film but it somewhat takes the direction to a comedy oriented for a younger audience.
I think I could imagine the original purpose of the film, making a teen movie adaptation of a well-known Shakespearian play, but I'm amazed by what a misfire it turned out to be.
It's obviously geared towards a 13-16 year old audience, and absolutely no one out of this age group would fail to recognize it as what it is - absolutely mediocre, or worse, in every way.The plot is the usual lame affair: a guy called Berke gets dumped by his longtime girlfriend Alison and joins his schools production of a Shakespeare play in order to impress her and get her back.
Will Shakespeare would have turned over in his grave: it's like they took his play, ran over it with a steamroller and then hacked it to bits with a chainsaw for good measure.Comparing 'Get Over it' to another Shakespeare-teen-comedy like 'Ten Things I hate about you' easily highlights just how bad GoI is.
These are for Kirsten Dunst's acting (despite being trapped in a substandard role), the fact that GoI is NOT a teen comedy about sex (which I really did appreciate), and that the movie did have 3 or 4 mildly enjoyable scenes.But really - don't waste your time watching this.
It's too bad because, if not for the play turned musical concept, West and Short, this movie could've been good.
Now, in conclusion, to all you Kirsten Dunst fans who haven't seen this sweet movie that's sure to touch you, make you feel warm inside, and make you laugh, I highly recommend it..
It's funny, the characters are compelling, the music is fun, there's a one shot sequence at the beginning that must have taken forever to shoot, the actors and actresses are great and I love the chemistry between Burke and his two best-friends.What can I say.
Yes I know some enjoy this movie but me no no no way would I ever torment myself into watching this movie.I enjoy Kirsten Dunst as a actress but this clearly wasn't one of the finest movies in her career nor Zoe Saldana, Mila Kunis.Now I do enjoy teen movies like American Pie and films like that but this one clearly is one apple that fell way off the tree and hit every branch on the way down.Story wise is pretty much what you would expect in a Teen movie and what makes it sad is that the plot is not even worth paying attention What ruin the film is pretty much the characters are more or less complete idiots and I can't see how this film was even consider being made because clearly it was made to make a buck or two so.The comedy in the film is simply bad it try to be funny but clearly the film comedy is just rude, gross, and in the words of a famous character "This is bad comedy".
Martin Short's character summarized Foster's entire acting job in this movie when he approached him during one of Foster's "daydreams" during class and asked "Are we having a little R.E.M?" Why does no one in this film see that Ben Foster's character is mentally ill and in need of treatment?
With his best friend Felix (Colin Hanks)'s sister Kelly (Kirsten Dunst), they follow Allison into the school's musical "A Midsummer Night's Dream".Martin Short is absolutely annoying as the drama teacher.
The main plot point, about a boy being dumped by his girlfriend, who then begins dating a minor celebrity who happens to be a douche bag, had interestingly enough been a subplot in another high school comedy released two years earlier: "She's All That" (1999).Even more interestingly, this movie's screenwriter, R.
Still, there are other elements of this movie that feel mercilessly ripped from other teen comedies.Most notably, the love story within this movie loosely follows the non-supernatural plot line to William Shakespeare's "A Midsummer Night's Dream", which, not coincidentally, happens to be the play in which the movie's characters participate.
Berke doesn't seem to explain that fact at any point in the movie, either, and it hurts his case.Finally, in the film's opening credits, you see Berke, departing Alison's house after she lay down the bad news, being followed by Vitamin C and an accompanying band as they lip synch Captain & Tennille's classic "Love Will Keep Us Together".
Vitamin C mouths the song very well, but would feel less out-of-place in that scene if she were actually mocking Berke on his walk of shame.So Berke tries out for the spring play, a musical version of "A Midsummer Night's Dream", specifically to spite Alison and Bentley (Shane West).
When Kelly Woods (Kirsten Dunst), a cheerful, magnetic girl who happens to be the sister of Berke's best friend Felix (Colin Hanks), offers to help Berke with his lines, you pretty much know how the story is going to go.Kirsten Dunst gets top billing in this movie despite having fewer lines and scenes than Ben Foster, but she totally deserves it.
Despite an energetic ending sequence where he and Vitamin C sing a rendition of Earth, Wind, & Fire's "September", Sisqo has a thankless role as the Token Black Guy. On the other hand, it's better to remember Sisqo from this movie than for his only hit, the atrocious "The Thong Song".While Foster is on emotional autopilot along with the love story, Dunst actively makes the best of her role.
One of her best scenes is when she sings "Dream Of Me", a touching song her character wrote and included in the play against the wishes of Dr. Desmond Forrest Oates (Martin Short), the production's narcissistic director.
Dunst is one of the few actresses and singers to make that song more heartbreaking and less cheesy, and she sells it."Get Over It" has its good moments, and the climactic final showing of "A Midsummer Night's Dream" lives up to more than the entire film ultimately does.
If you like seeing Martin Short in an over the top and very funny role, accompanied by some great musical numbers then this is a must see.
it thought the first half of this film was pretty good.instead of being your standard teen romantic comedy,it actually had some slapstick thrown in,some of which was quite amusing.to me,that was kinda different for this genre.at least it was something i hadn't seen before.not that that means anything.and the movie also had a bit of a musical bent to it,which i liked.sure,most of the movie is fairly predictable.but then most movies are,at least to a point.anyway,the movie moves along fairly well for the first 45 minutes or so.but then it gets really bogged down.you kinda know how things are gonna end up,but it seemed to take forever to get there.as a result,i just wanted it to finally end.for me,because of the slow(and to me,boring)second half, i can only give Get Over It a 5/10.
It is what Hollywood does best, a good old fashioned shallow love story where rich middle class teenagers follow their hearts in a squeaky clean high school that only exist in the movies.
In the process he meets his best friend's little sister, Kelly (Dunst).This movie shows how teens go about looking for love, but ultimately miss it when it is right in front of them.
Besides Ben Foster, Kirsten Dunst, Melissa Sagemiller, they have Colin Hanks, Marton Short, (many quotables, like "I need you...not really" or "ahh, those were the salad days...but these are nice.), Shane West, Mila Kunis and of course Sisqo (love the ending song/video September Love.)Like I said the plot is simple, but it is filled with quirky scenes designed to have you feel the emotion or the Main Guy Ben Foster day dreaming about one thing or another.
Martin Short's character is absolutely hilarious with his blunt insults - "I would tell you it was good, but that would be a lie." To his overbearing actions of taking the play WAY too seriously, he reminds us all of our high school theatre teachers.
This is some silly teen comedy but I like this movie, especially first scene and end credit.
Lets be honest so would 99% of male teenagers, so this stupid dumb act of "I didn't realise she liked me".To make the story slightly credible, make the Kirsten Dunst character ugly, then it would be more realistic.In every movie do we have to have this close-up of the 'penny dropping'.
And this film more or less follows the Shakespeare plot.This amusingly ironic premise underpins a rather corny love story about a boy (Ben Foster) getting dumped by one girl (Melissa Sagemiller) and accidentally finding another one (Kirsten Dunst).Dunst (still a Virgin but no longer a Suicide) lights up the screen as usual and Foster gives a deadpan portrayal of the aptly named Berke.
Relax, just 'cos it's an american teen comedy it doesn't mean you have to find something bad about it.Why on earth were you watching it if you hate this kind of film?Why rip into peoples singing or accents when it's just not necessary.
operates on the loose premise that a high-school nebbish, played by Ben Foster, would waste his time pining for his childhood sweetheart (Melissa Sagemiller) when his best friend's drop-dead gorgeous younger sister (Kirsten Dunst) is staring him in the face the whole time..
I also enjoyed basically all the scenes involving the high school theater kids...they were very true to life, everything from crazy pre-opening night mishaps to the off-beat stage crew members.My main complaint lies in the way in which the plot of the movie was likened to "A Midsummer Night's Dream." This allusion was a little bit shaky, if only because they had Berke (Ben Foster) and Stryker (Shane West) in the wrong Shakesperian roles.
That would be my other complaint...I know it's a teen movie and therefore it must end that way, but the director and writer could have saved us some grief by NOT having Berke change around the plot.Overall though, I thoroughly enjoyed watching this movie if only because it was fun and made me laugh at the insane silliness of it.
The Reason why I say this because I found the storyline in this movie very good.And I like the chemistry going on with Berke who is played by Ben Foster and Kelly who is played by the sweet and beautiful Kirsten Dunst.The movie was really good and I really enjoyed how it ended up in the end.There were some flaws A lot of flaws.First off they said this was a comedy movie hmmm nothing in this movie was funny to me.The only person who I thought was Martin Short he was the only hilarious person throughout the movie everyone else tried and yet they have failed.Another problem with this movie is the singing oh how man I do not know why they had to sing in this friggin movie it was really crappy.Kirsten Dunst however had a beautiful singing voice she probably was the only person in this movie who sanged really good.Well that's it for my review In conclusion I give the movie 5 out of 10 stars.
Anything with Kirsten Dunst in it will have at least that going for it, but the creative direction and bizarre sense of humour behind this film turned it into a brilliantly funny and original subversion of the generally cliched teen-comedy genre.
Get Over It is the best movie I've ever seen, I watch it as much as I possibly can, Ben Foster (Burke Landers) was the best actor for this part and Kirsten Dunst (Kelly Woods) has been one of my favorite actresses for a long time and she and Ben made a great couple in the movie.
You've got Kirsten Dunst (2001's Teen Queen), Shane West (Once and Again and Whatever it Takes), Colin Hanks (son of the ever wonderful Tom Hanks and Roswell resident), Sisqo, and the return of a loveable actor: Ben Foster (popular on Disney's Flash Forward!).
Kirsten Dunst and the guy who she helps with the play are pretty good in it too and have some funny scenes together.
Halfway original sight gags and surprisingly decent acting from Foster and Colin Hanks (son of Academy-Award nominee Tom), who plays Kelly's older brother, keep the movie from going the way of `10 Things I Hate About Julia Stiles.' Surprisingly, Martin Short delivers one of his most hilarious performances, with a disturbingly accurate portrayal of a high school theatre director.
The main character, Berke (played by Ben Foster, who I could have sworn was the red-haired kid from "Big") gets dumped by his girlfriend, and then tries to impress her the rest of the movie by joining the school play, which is directed by Martin Short, playing a wannabe actor/songwriter.
True belly-laughs by Short.Along the way, Berke gets help from his best friend's sister, played by Kirsten Dunst, and the plot is predictable from there.
At the same time Kelly (Kirsten Dunst) is trying to get Berke to open his eyes, and fall in love with her.
Kirsten Dunst and Martin Short are spectacular, and all in all, a very nice mood throughout the movie..
Get over it is simply a fun movie, it is your usual teen film but it works very well.
But I found it surprisingly funny especially the end when the play is finally performed.All the main actors are very good in particular Martin Short as the failed actor turned Drama teacher and Kirsten Dunst as the aspiring musician.Overall this film is well worth watching and a very enjoyable 90 minutes, and unlike recent teen comedies it uses more mature humour rather than gross out humour which is a refreshing change..
Carmen Electra, in a very short cameo, seems wasted.In the end, the movie is funny, Kirsten Dunst is, as always, wonderful every second she's on screen, and the rest of the cast gives her adequate, or more than adequate, support.. |
tt0029662 | This Is My Affair | US President William McKinley (Frank Conroy) is put under great pressure by everyone, even US Bank Examiner Henry Maxwell, to do something about a gang of bank robbers nobody has been able to bring to justice. He sends U.S. Navy Lieutenant Richard L. Perry (Robert Taylor) undercover without notifying anyone, not even the Secret Service.
Perry, using the alias Joe Patrick, makes a pass at singer Lil Duryea (Barbara Stanwyck). Her stepbrother Batiste (Brian Donlevy) not only owns the casino in Saint Paul, Minnesota where she performs, but is also one of the ringleaders of the gang. Lil takes a liking to the young man, but since Batiste's hulking right-hand man, Jock Ramsay (Victor McLaglen), considers her his girl, she tries to brush Joe off. Joe is undeterred and soon persuades her to go out with him whenever Batiste and Jock leave town on one of their robberies.
When Batiste learns that Lil loves Joe and is convinced that he is a bank robber himself, Batiste invites Joe to join the gang. Later, though, Lil tries to talk Joe into running away with her. He agrees, even writing a letter of resignation addressed to McKinley, but changes his mind. He has yet to learn the identity of the mastermind behind the whole thing. As a result, however, Lil breaks up with him.
Joe notifies the President about the next robbery, hoping that when they are caught, he can find out the boss's name. Batiste is killed and Jock wounded when they put up a fight.
In prison, Joe works on Jock, finally getting him to reveal that the Bank Examiner is the mastermind. However, McKinley is shot before getting Joe's letter. Nobody believes Joe's story, and both he and Jock are sentenced to death.
When Lil visits him, he confesses everything and begs her to go to see Admiral George Dewey (Robert McWade). Embittered that he lied to her and got her stepbrother killed, she refuses, but as the executions near, she rushes to Dewey. Together, they go to see the new President, Theodore Roosevelt (Sidney Blackmer). He does not believe her until an official finally remembers McKinley instructing him to read a secret paper in the event of a letter being received with a certain symbol on it and him being unavailable. Convinced, Roosevelt telephones just after Jock's execution and before Joe's. Afterward, Joe and Lil are reunited. | melodrama | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0165710 | Detroit Rock City | In Cleveland, Ohio, fall of 1978, a middle-aged woman (Lin Shaye) is relaxing at home and puts on a vinyl record to listen to. While sipping a red wine and reading while humming The Carpenters' "We've Only Just Begun", she becomes agitated as rock music plays. When she discovers the record being Kiss' Love Gun album and a secret cache of Kiss albums, she is revealed to be ultra-conservative when she says "Kiss, the devil's music". She then leaves the house.
Meanwhile, four rebellious teenage boys in a Kiss cover band named "Mystery" practice the Kiss song "Rock and Roll All Nite" in one of their members' homes. The band, consisting of guitarist-vocalist Hawk (Edward Furlong), bassist-vocalist Lex (Giuseppe Andrews), lead guitarist-vocalist Trip (James DeBello), and drummer-vocalist Jeremiah "Jam" Bruce (Sam Huntington), become elated to have tickets to see their idols in concert in Detroit the following night. Later, the same woman from the beginning races up to the house where the boys are hanging out and drags Jam home. She is revealed to be his mother, Mrs. Bruce. Later discovering the tickets, she burns them and has Jam transferred to a Catholic boarding school.
The three remaining boys hear a radio contest for tickets to the show and Trip ends up winning them. The boys then plan to rescue Jam from the boarding school. Under the guise of pizza delivery for Father Phillip McNulty (Joe Flaherty), the Catholic priest who serves as the chaplain and rector, they place some hallucinogen mushrooms on the pizza he ordered. When he interviews Jam, the three boys deliver it and succeed in drugging him. With him drugged, he tells Jam that he can leave and the boys sneak out. With them reunited, they set off for Detroit in Lex's mother's car.
On the freeway, Trip throws a slice of pizza out of the window, where it hits the windshield of a Trans Am, driven by two rude disco fanatics, Kenny and Bobby, along with their girlfriends, Christine (Natasha Lyonne) and Barbara (Emmanuelle Chriqui). The enraged Kenny pulls over, pulls Hawk out of the car, and rubs his face on the cheese-covered windshield. Upset by Kenny's behavior, Christine leaves. Using improvised weapons like a belt with a Kiss buckle, a wallet chain, and drumsticks, the boys engage in a fight with Kenny and Bobby. They win and, after leaving Kenny and Bobby tied to the guardrail with Kiss makeup on, they drive the Trans Am into a ditch. Continuing on their way, they come upon Christine and offer her a ride to the city.
Upon arrival, the boys discover that Trip did not stay on the phone long enough to give the radio station his information, forcing them to give the tickets to the next caller. Back outside, Lex notices that the car has been stolen. They suspect Christine, who they left in it. Hawk then suggests that they go their separate ways in order to find Kiss tickets, and agree to meet in the same place in an hour and a half. Hawk finds a scalper who suggests that he enter a strip contest to raise money for tickets. He doesn't win, but is offered payment for his company by an older woman (Shannon Tweed). They go to her car and she takes his virginity. Using the money she gave him, he locates the scalper. However, he is sold out.
Trip goes to a local convenience store in the hopes of mugging a younger child. He grabs a kid in Ace Frehley's Spaceman makeup, not knowing that he has a bullying older brother, Chongo. Suddenly, Chongo and his friends threaten to beat Trip if he doesn't give them $200. He then plans to rob the store with a fake gun, but ends up thwarting a real robbery attempt there. He earns a $150 reward. He encounters Chongo and his friends in an alleyway behind the store and gives them the money he earned, but they steal his wallet anyway.
Lex sneaks backstage with the Kiss loading crew, but is soon discovered. He is subsequently tossed over a fence where a group of vicious dogs menace him, but he wins them over with a frisbee. In a nearby building, he discovers a chained-up Christine and the car in a chop shop with two car thieves. He then uses his newly befriended dogs to chase the two thugs, saving Christine and the car. He and Christine share a passionate kiss.
Jam encounters an anti-Kiss rally consisting of conservatives named "Mothers Against the Music of Kiss" being booed by passing crowds. When he discovers his mother leading it alongside another conservative (Kiss frontman Paul Stanley's then-wife Pamela Bowen), she spots him. She forcibly grabs and takes him to a nearby church across the street for confession, taking away his drumsticks. There, he is seen by Beth (Melanie Lynskey), a classmate who is in the process of moving to Ann Arbor, Michigan. They rush into a confessional booth where she reveals that she's been in love with him since freshman year. He admits that his feelings for her are mutual and they make love. They leave the church and eventually say goodbye.
Jam, imbued with new confidence, goes back to the rally and angrily berates his mother for her domineering ways and her hypocrisy, and he demands his drumsticks back. His mother does and apologizes to him, remarking to the crowd, "They grow up so fast". When the boys meet up again, they beat each other up to make it appear that they had been mugged of their tickets. Upon arrival at the concert venue, the guards are skeptical, but Trip points out Chongo and his friends, who are just entering the concert hall, as the culprits. When the guards find Trip's wallet (with his Kiss Army picture ID and money), they confiscate Chongo's tickets along with Trip's wallet and give them to Trip and the boys.
Astonished and elated, the boys enter the concert hall as Kiss plays the title song of the film. As it ends, drummer Peter Criss throws a drumstick and Jam catches it with joy and excitement. | cult, comedy | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0230804 | Sonic Underground | The show takes place in a separate canon and continuity than any other Sonic the Hedgehog media. Queen Aleena, the former ruler of Mobius, was overthrown by Dr. Robotnik and his lackeys Sleet and Dingo. Robotnik seized control of the planet and forced Queen Aleena into hiding. To preserve the dynasty, Queen Aleena separated her three children: Sonic, Manic, and Sonia after the Oracle of Delphius told her of a prophecy, proclaiming that one day, Queen Aleena would reunite with her children to form the "Council of Four," and overthrow Robotnik. Meanwhile, Dr. Robotnik did his best to set up an autocratic government, and legally turned anyone who stood against him into robots devoid of freewill, and forced the nobles into paying large amounts of money to him as tribute.
When Sonic, Manic, and Sonia grew up, the Oracle of Delphius revealed the prophecy to them. After that, Sonic, Manic, and Sonia decided to go on a quest, searching throughout Mobius for Queen Aleena. Dr. Robotnik, with the assistance of the Swat-Bots and his bounty hunters Sleet and Dingo, tries constantly to capture the royal hedgehogs and prevent the prophecy from being fulfilled.
The Oracle of Delphius has assigned the three siblings powerful "medallions" that can change into musical instruments, and can also be used as weapons. Sonic's medallion is an electric guitar, Sonia's medallion is a keyboard that functions as a smoke machine, and Manic's medallion is a drumset that can be used as an "earth controller" with cymbals that can deflect laserfire. All of the medallions can be used as laser guns. The three use the amulets not only to fight Robotnik's forces but to also as instruments for their underground rock band, "Sonic Underground." | psychedelic | train | wikipedia | Sonic Underground was a little bit like the SatAM series but not a whole lot because all the other freedom fighters from the SatAM are left out and so is Snively and the power rings.
Another thing is that Sonic's Uncle Chuck was only in the first episode and they never see each other again.
Sonic Underground is the 3rd Sonic cartoon that came out 2 years later after Sonic the Hedgehog (SatAM) was canceled again off of USA Network showing reruns.
In this cartoon, Sonic and his siblings Manic (Sonic's brother) and Sonia (Sonic's sister) are the hit rock 'n' roll band on Mobius called the Sonic Underground but in reality they are the children of the lost Queen Aleena, the queen of Mobius.
Now Sonic, Manic and Sonia must fight Dr. Robotnik and save the planet Mobius and find their mother with the aid of their medallions.
I missed Tails and the other freedom fighters from the 1993 ABC Series but at least I was glad that Knuckles the Echidna was in this series because I think Knuckles is one of my favorite characters in the whole Sonic the Hedgehog franchise along with Sonic!
The only one thing I didn't like about this show was Gary Chalk doing the voice of Dr. Robotnik because he didn't make Dr. Robotnik sound scary and evil!
I think Jim Cummings should have done this Sonic cartoon just like he did the voice of Dr. Robotnik from the ABC SatAM version.
But the only thing I liked about Dr. Robotnik in this series was that he looked exactly the same as he did in the SatAM Sonic cartoon!
I liked Sleet better than Dingo because I thought Sleet was cool looking and I thought Maurice LaMarche was excellent to provide the voice of Sleet!
Just like the Sonic SatAM cartoon got to have more than one season!
I first discovered this series when I was checking what was on TV the next day and I saw Sonic Underground on there and I asked myself, "Since when did Sonic come up with another cartoon?".
At first I thought it would be a series that picked up where Sonic the Hedgehog (SatAM) left off but instead it sort of looked like a spin-off or a prequel.
This series was pretty good along with Sonic the Hedgehog (SatAM) and Sonic X!
This series also has great animation!User Rating: 10/10BOTTOM LINE: WAY PAST COOL ALONG WITH SONIC THE HEDGEHOG (SATAM) AND SONIC X!.
I've seen a lot of episodes from this series and I love them!OK it may not have all the main characters that we love from SATam but it has new people.OK Sonia's voice is annoying but you get use to it and Manic's pretty cool as well and it has a darkish storyline with the whole mum having to give up her babies in order for them to defeat Robotnik and Robotnik doesn't seem all happy clappy annoying unable to do anything right OK he can't do much right but he seems pretty evil and not drawn to look stupid,like SATam,kinda scary and menacing.
The Songs are pretty addictive after a while some may be annoying like Where's there's a will etc but the rest aren't that bad.
All in All I love this series way way better then Sonic X but not as much as SATam. Recommended.
I loved Sonic Underground when i was a kid and Still do to this day.
Oh well I still run around trying to be Sonic or Manic, or Sonia whichever suites my fancy at the time.
I watch a lot of old cartoons but Sonic Underground has to be one of my fav top tens.
Did anyone know the singing voice for Sonic in Sonic Underground now plays Martin Mystery?!
:) But I know Sonic will be around for years to come and I will be there for every new show, comic, game, or toy.
The setting takes place in an apocalyptic future where Robotnik is the head of the oppressive government and Sonic and his siblings Manic and Sonia fight for freedom.
Sleet the wolf/dog was a cool character.SU had excellent animation, but it did take place in a dingy city, so that might have lessened the impact.
I liked the music-video songs that they sang; some were good.
All the intrigue of the hedgehogs trying to find their mother the queen, Sonia getting mixed up in Robotnik's politics because of her friend Bartleby, the character humor, nice music and sound effects, and the variety of settings and plots makes this one of the best cartoons I've seen!
Sonic Underground is much better than this new Sonic X series, which has slower, less interesting plots..
Now, in conclusion, if you have children, nieces, or nephews, I strongly recommend this really cute, fun, and entertaining show based on a series of classic video games.
Their mother(The Queen) had to separated them because of Robotnik taking over Mobius(which is similar to what he did in the previous series).So the Queen left each of her kids a music medallion which has the power of sound waves and music.
That can wipe out Robonik's forces of robots.Throughout the series, the hedgehog trio travels around Mobius in their own van, and try to search for their own mother.
As mentioned that when they're reunited again, they'll be able to overthrown Robotnik for good.Despite it being the weakest of the DiC Entertainment Sonic cartoons.
The series does have great animation, character designs, and interesting stories.
And pretty much something the British would come up with if they were given a task in creating their own Sonic the Hedgehog.I only seen 9 out of 40 episodes for this series.
Giving Sonic Underground credit in enjoyment.Overrall not highly recommended for those who liked SatAM Sonic, as very few elements from that series exist in this one.
One thing that the show does really well is create a Sonic storyline which is a bit out of the norm, admitabley the songs in the show get very tiresome after just a few episodes but they're not a deal breaker.The characters are okay, they're back story's are explored to a decent extent and it does provide an interesting insight into the Sonic universe.
That's pretty much where the praise stops, I mean I like watching the show but as much as I do I'm not blind to seeing it's pitfalls.
I first watched the series when I was ten years old and loved it.
I hadn't watched the older sonic cartoons so I didn't mind the big changes they made for this show.
I liked the story lines to it and the episodes were fun and entertaining.
I adored the real 'freedom fighter' theme it has and the action parts.The only things wrong with this show are that it was never given an ending, due to the show being cancelled, and people over the age of ten will hate the songs.Overall, I think it's a good cartoon that you can watch over and over.
However, if you're a big sonic fan, you probably won't like it because it's different to what you're used to and it doesn't have some of the characters from the old ones..
I love "Sonic the Hedgehog" and I watch it religiously.
The voice acting is good and well served with some decent writing, with Maurice LaMarche coming off best and Jaleel White spirited as the three hedgehogs Sonic, Sonia and Manic.
While most of the story lines are good, some are predictable, same with the songs they aren't bad but they could have been better timed.
This show came out in fan's favor of wanting a new Sonic series; however, they became mortified to found out there would be no reference to the original Freedom Fighters many of us had grown to love.
The only two characters we know are Sonic and Robotnik; Tails and the others have been replace by Sonic's stereotypical sister Sonia and thieving brother Manic.
well, dingo.In the 1993 - 95 series, a great message was sent to younger viewers as Bunnie struggled to use her handicap to the best of her abilities.
In Sonic Underground, many wrong messages are sent as Sonia is the picture of stereotypical girls.
She's always worried about her hair and looks; younger girls who watch this will think they need to be like this.
These shows shouldn't be used as role models anyway, but certainly there were better messages sent out in SatAM.Another problem is though the show is aimed for younger viewers, many times the plot would be hard to follow for them.
The love he has for his brother and sister are peanuts to the love he had for Sally in the SatAM series.One good thing is the songs in the episodes are usually done quite well, but the singing voices don't always sound like the characters.
Other times, the songs will be the plot filler which is really annoying.Poor writing, the lack of well-known and loved characters and confusion are what make this series a shame to carry the name of Sonic the Hedgehog..
I liked the ABC show and the Adv. of Sonic show and thought this would be just as good or better.
It's not bad as far as cartoons are concerned, but compared to the other Sonic shows, it stinks.
Sonic Underground is a wonderful kind of bad.
"Sonic Underground" is the last Sonic cartoon to be produced by DIC Entertainment.
"Adventures of Sonic the Hedgehog" was somewhat close to the games.
The second one "Sonic the Hedgehog" or "Sonic SatAM" was close to the games, but it made the story bigger, more complex, more interesting and it most likely took place after the games due to Robotnik being ruler of Mobius.
The next one was a direct-to-video movie that was very close to the games, except the fact that it got some names wrong, like Planet Mobius being instead called Planet Freedom.
Also the only familiar characters in the show are Sonic, Robotnik, Uncle Chuck, and Knuckles.
The Robotnik in the Sonic games was an evil, goofy-looking, scientist bent on ruling Mobius.
In this one he has a very bad voice actor who doesn't even come close to the wonderful job Jim Cummings did in Sonic SatAM, and also his personality here is just boring.
Sonic's brother and sister are BOTH voiced by Jaleel White, and he is good as Sonic and Manic, but he sounds WAY too much like Steve Urkel for Sonia.
However despite my complaints there are a few good things about the show: While the lyrics were stupid, the songs they sang were actually kinda catchy.The animation was very well-done.
It looks better than it did in the previous Sonc cartoons.I liked Robotnik's henchman Sleet and Dingo.
After watching a few episodes I got from the Internet, as well as reading all I can about the show, I have decided to give my opinion on it at last.First off, this isn't like any Sonic-related thing before.
The only characters they have from anything else are Sonic and Robotnik, and that's only because they're a necessity in anything Sonic cartoon.
However, the show creates two siblings for Sonic: a brother named Manic and a sister named Sonia.
Every other character (including Tails, sadly) is missing, except for Knuckles, who appears in a few episodes.The animation is pretty well done.
Robotnik's voice gets on your nerves quickly, and I can't listen to Sonia for more than five seconds before thinking that gnawing my own leg off is a better way to spend my time.The storylines for each episode are a bit formulatic; if you've seen one other kid show before this, you've seen every plot this show uses.
Also, the singing, while pretty good compared to most shows, is horribly overused; as in, every episode overused.If you're expecting another Sonic show, you'll be dissapointed.
I've only seen a few episodes of this series, but I can tell you that this show is not that good.Characters Well, we've got Sonic in there and Eggman (or Robotnik, whatever) Knuckles also appears along with Athair and Uncle Chuck, (Archie Comics) and of course there's Sonic's triplet brother and sister (?) and of course we all remember Sleet and Dingo (?)What?
Apparently, DIC thought that having the recognisable characters whom we have come to know and love was a bad idea so make way for these forgettable idiots.Manic, the cactus-green kleptomaniac hedgehog and Sonia, the pink pansy princess hedgehog.StoryQueen Aleena, Sonic's mother whom we have never heard of, is warned by some freaky reptilian-anteater (I forget to mention that they had aliens in this show as well) that Robotnik will somehow take over the planet of Mobius without actually doing anything.
(and yet they play no rock songs) and travel Morbid Mobius to find their mother, even tough she tends to directly intervene with their battles.Wait, if she knows their exact location, why doesn't she just meet them there and end this awful series?
I keep hearing people going on and on about how well this series was animated and how great the character designs are, even the people who DON'T like it.
In one scene, while The Sonic Unrground (Yes, it's meant to be said with a The) is in a sewer, some robots come and we see their commander, Sleet the Wolf, pointing at the hedgehogs while standing perfectly still.
And Sonic and Manic just look fat.
Nothing looks like it should be in Sonic the Hedgehog.VoicesYeaaaah....not that great.
Jaleel White voices Sonic again like the other series, but he also voices Manic and Sonia.
Most of the time he sound like he forgets to add punctuation to his words.
Sonia's meant to be a girl, so why is she being voiced by a man?They also have this annoying rule in which they must cram one song into every single episode.
If it was a short series, like 6 episodes maybe, but not 40.
To be fair, I DID watch this when I was younger but got past like 4 or 5 episodes because I got bored.
I really did not enjoy this show as much as I did when I was younger and I feel its very dumb for Sonic to magically have a brother and a sister and fight Robotnik with freaking instruments.
It's different from the other "Sonic" shows because this time, Sonic has a brother called Manic and a sister called Sonia and all three of them are in a rock band called Sonic Underground- hence the title and it's not a sequel or a spin-off of one of the other "Sonic" shows; it's a new series altogether (also, there's always an original rock song that the trio belt out in every episode).Another change is that Sonic, Manic and Sonia's mother is a queen called Aleena who had to abandon them as babies for their safety from Robotnik but will reunite with them when it's time.
We don't know when it's time but what we do know is that if Aleena does it too early, then it will seal Sonic, Manic and Sonia's fate.The last changes are that, other than they don't have the voice actors from the other series, is that Tails isn't in this one.
"Underground" introduces Knuckles ,however, in his first appearance, he's bad and Sonic ends up fighting him, but then he turns good.But don't let the changes ruin it.
Now that I'm in my mid 20's, I love taking trips down memory lane and by watching the first two Sonic cartoons and playing the games I'm back to being a Sonic fan.
But they're not as bad as the songs in Sonic R.
We have to look at grey, orange and purple throughout.Now, this is the first of the American Sonic cartoons to feature Knuckles and his episode was the first I saw of this show.
At least his voice in Sonic Heroes was great.Also, Jim Cummings did a great job playing Robotnik in Satam with that ultra cool voice.
There's so much deviation in settings between Sonic continuities that to say that one's bad because it doesn't take place in the Green Hill Zone is a waste of time in my book.But let's just look at the concept, shall we?
They've attacked me for this stance, saying that I shouldn't attack a Sonic series like that if I'm a "true" or "real" fan of the franchise.And I'm sorry.
The fact is: I'd like to've been an 'SU' fan - but when a series is what I feel is sub-standard, I'm not going to put up and shut up just because it has Sonic's name attached.
This is the show that, of the three American Sonic the Hedgehog cartoons, takes the story the most liberally - and falls with it.
With little success.Sonic has two siblings in these series: Sonia and Manic.
When her children grow up and find each other, they scour Mobius and fight Robotnik as the "Sonic Underground", a supposed rock band (though you will come to doubt that during the course of the series), in aid of the anti-Robotnik movement, the "Resistance".
Other plot holes ruin matters; such as Sonic's uncle Chuck (who makes one wonder why Sonic and siblings were given up to another family when Queen Aleena went into hiding).The series does have its considerable good points, however.
Dingo and Sleet's loyalty to Robotnik (and each other) goes down the drain for good, and Sonic and siblings go to Knuckles' help to contain the emerald and save Mobius.
These two characters would have worked great in a series of their own (maybe someday they will).
Dingo and Sleet, as well as my personal favourite episode "When in Rome..." (featuring Sonic giving a Minotaur lessons in coolness), light up the canvas considerably.
My opinion with this as a musical really shocked me like Sonic would normally have awesome soundtrack but this show just gave me a hanky to cry on, it was horrendous. |
tt0049038 | Bus Stop | A naive, rambunctious, overly enthusiastic and socially inept cowboy, Beauregard Decker, and his friend and father-figure Virgil Blessing take the bus from Timber Hill, Montana to Phoenix, Arizona, to participate in a rodeo. Virgil has encouraged the 21-year-old virgin, Beau, to take an interest in "girls". Initially reluctant and frightened of the idea, Beau declares that he hopes to find an "angel" and will know her when he sees her. Making trouble everywhere they go, he continues his unsophisticated behavior in Grace's Diner. In Phoenix, at the Blue Dragon Cafe, he imagines himself in love with the café's singer, Chérie, a talentless but ambitious performer from the Ozarks with aspirations of becoming a Hollywood star. Her rendition of "That Old Black Magic" entrances him and he forces her outside, despite the establishment's rules against it, kisses her and thinks that means they're engaged. Chérie is physically attracted to him but resists his plans to take her back to Montana. She has no intention of marrying him and tells him so, but he's too stubborn to listen.
The next day, Beau gets a marriage license, and then takes an exhausted Cherie to the rodeo parade and the rodeo, where he rides the bucking bronco and then competes in the calf roping and the bull riding. Beau intends to marry Chérie at the rodeo, but she runs away. He tracks her down at the Cafe, where she jumps out a rear window and flees. Beau catches her, and forces her on the bus back to Montana. On the way, they stop at Grace's Diner, the same place the bus stopped on the way to Phoenix. Chérie tries to make another getaway while Beau is asleep on the bus, but the road ahead is blocked by snow and the bus won't be leaving at all. They're all stranded there. The bus driver, the waitress and the café owner by now all have learned that Beau is kidnapping and bullying the girl. Virgil and the bus driver fight him until he promises to apologize to Chérie and leave her alone. He, however, is unable to do so because he's humiliated about having been beaten.
The next morning, the storm has cleared and everybody is free to go. Beau finally apologizes to Chérie for his abusive behavior and begs her forgiveness. He wishes her well and prepares to depart without her. Chérie approaches him and confesses that she's had many boyfriends and is not the kind of woman he thinks she is. Beau confesses his lack of experience to her. Beau asks to kiss her goodbye and they share their first real kiss. All Chérie wanted from a man was respect, which she'd previously told the waitress when they sat together on the bus. This new Beau attracts Chérie. He accepts her past and this gesture touches her heart. She tells him she'll go anywhere with him. Virgil decides to stay behind. When Beau tries to coerce him to go with them, Chérie reminds him that he can't force Virgil to do what he wants. Having finally apparently learned his lesson, Beau offers Chérie his jacket and gallantly helps her onto the bus. | romantic | train | wikipedia | Whether acting or if it's the real Marilyn Monroe, she conveys loneliness in front of a packed saloon; the feeling of recognition and appreciation when the Don Murray (Bo)character berates the patrons to show respect to her while she sings; and the out-and-out sexiness of her when she is lit up in red flames.
Alternately puzzled, lost, desperate, lonely, confused and unexpectedly radiant with happiness, Marilyn Monroe, with a mixture of humor and pain scores her greatest triumph in Joshua Logan's "Bus Stop" creating a complete and deeply touching character...Singing 'That Old Black Magic' to a noisy crowd of cowpokes who couldn't care less about her efforts to entertain them, Cherie is pleased to discover a fan in Bo, a young and innocent cowboy who has come to make his fortune at the Rodeo and finds himself an Angel to take back to his Montana ranch...The kiss she gives him in appreciation, determines him then and there to be his beloved wife...Logan gives Don Murray his first and best-remembered screen role, as the gauche simple-thinking cowboy who romances the glamorous 'chantoose'...
Murray was Oscar-nominated for his performance...There are other fine performances in the movie: Arthur O'Connell, delightful as the cowboy's pal who big-brothers him with loving patience; Eileen Heckart amusing as the old time friend; Betty Field, strong enough as the bus stop owner; Robert Bray, firm as the driver of the bus and Hope Lange, so auspicious in her screen debut whom Cherie reveals details of her past...With a modern Western background and rodeo atmosphere, and with panoramic long shot and overwhelming close-ups in color and CinemaScope, "Bus Stop" is a comedy-drama very well done, and a modest entertainment in familiar American vein...The film had one of Monroe's most touching songs: 'That Old Black Magic' was as funny as it was heartbreaking.
Not to detract from Monroe, but what really pushed Bus Stop over the top for me in terms of quality--in addition to the fine, allegorical story--was the hilariously over-the-top performance of Murray and the sheer absurdity of his character.But maybe my different view on this, and why I love the film so much, is because I'm a huge fan of absurdism.
And it's not to say that Monroe and Murray do not have chemistry together--they do; if they hadn't, the film wouldn't have worked.But without Murray's bizarre but funny character, which he plays to a tee, I'm not sure I would have thought Bus Stop was a 10.
The film is still good at that point--still definitely a 9, but I found myself slightly missing the hyperactive comedy of the earlier scenes.The story for Bus Stop was originally a one-act play by William Inge called People in the Wind.
Well, it was disappointing: not because of Marilyn - she was fine - but the story was incredibly stupid.Part of the problem might be the way our society has changed, although I doubt even 50 years ago - when this film came out - a guy could do what "Bo Decker" (Don Murray) did in here and get away with it.
Monroe ("Cheri") and friend Eileen Heckart ("Vera") are fine, as is the other main character, "Virgil" (Arthur O'Connell) but Murray is so loud, abrasive and stupid that he ruins the movie.
Bus Stop has been rightly hailed as Marilyn Monroe's breakthrough performance in a movie as a serious dramatic actress.
Him and Cherie coming together at the end of the picture is unbelievable and spoiled the movie for me...I always wanted her to get away!Bus Stop is more enjoyable from the Monroe point of view as her playing is spellbinding and marked a turning point in her career..
I like to cut Norma Jean a fair bit of slack on the subject of her acting ability and will go a little out of my way to watch some of her lesser-known movies when they air on the schedules but I found this country bumpkin nonsense almost toe-curlingly unwatchable.I'm struggling really hard to think of any redeeming features but I find I can't.
However her co-star, "introducing" Don Murray (how I wish he'd been introduced to oblivion!) gives the most lunk-headedly irritating performance I think I've ever seen as a hayseed country boy who gets the hots for Monroe's down-at-heel showgirl with plenty, in fact, far too much a-whooping and a-hollering for normal patience to bear.
I see to my horror that Murray inexplicably got an Oscar nomination for his I hesitate to call it acting which must surely have given hope to every non-actor of the day!The direction is almost as dumb and the dialogue dumber again, - I defy anyone to not laugh out loud at Murray and Monroe's big "at long last love" scene where their faces fill the screen and unfortunately the world's worst dialogue simultaneously fills your ears.I guess the producer and director were seeking to cash in on Marilyn's ascending star with a light-hearted country-style romantic comedy but really do yourself a favour and give this particular bus the widest possible berth and wait for the next one, no matter how long it takes.
It takes him several mistakes and character flaws to overcome, but, with the help of Marilyn Monroe, everything comes to a happy (and quick) ending, like most 1950s films.Overall, 'Bus Stop' is an engaging and funny film and it is worth a watch.
I approached this film from a different angle, attracted by the apparent similarity in source material to the 1943 'The Lady Takes a Chance', a bus/rodeo-set romantic comedy starring John Wayne, of all people, which to my surprise I had very much enjoyed.In this case, I was disappointed.The first ten minutes of the film is pretty fair comedy material; the last thirty finally introduces some much-needed emotional subtlety and character development.
I expected Bus Stop to be a comedy drama where dramatic elements were focused more upon, not some sketchy vile humorless drivel.The acting is atrocious; Don Murray's character is badly written and badly played – it had to potential to show a person's obsession for another but it never happens.
As I expected, it was.There are many great films that were made in the forties and fifties with very talented actors and actresses and I advice everyone to watch those movies rather than spending two hours on Bus Stop.
I have always loved Marilyn Monroe, but bless her, more for her beauty and intrigue than her acting (although I found her genuinely funny in movies like Gentlemen Prefer Blondes and How to Marry a Millionaire).Bus Stop was rated by many as some kind of dramatic achievement for Marilyn, and that's what Monroe lovers, such as myself, are looking for when we finally get around to watching the film.
Furthermore, if people didn't know so much about Monroe's life-story and her (now mythologised) struggle to be 'taken seriously' as an actress, her performance in this movie would be written off as nothing more than cringe-worthy, both back when it was filmed and today.In terms of other actors and general plot line, Bill Murray plays the cowboy 'Bo' as well and as tolerably as any other actor could have, considering the obnoxiousness of the character (at one point Bo captures his unwilling love interest 'Cherie' with a lasso and then forces her onto a bus).
Obviously, Bus Stop was filmed in an era when feminism had not yet gained a stronghold, but even back in the 50's it's hard to imagine, particularly female audiences, warming to a lead character that doggedly pursues a woman and then eventually decides the only way to get her is to kidnap her.
Instead of bouncing off him and/or providing a nice contrast to his character, Marilyn's sappy, over-dramatic portrayal of Cherie simply brings Bo down (in fact, she makes him look like much more of a creep than I think was intended) and in places where you guess you should be laughing, you simply can't because Bo just seems like too much of a villain (who knows though, maybe that is more of a feminist contribution on Marilyn's part than anything?!).Anyway, the other characters in the film just seem to fade into the background and you more-or-less end up wondering why they're even there, and the movie can get quite boring and laboured in parts, so rather than being taken on a journey, so to speak, you feel the need to forcibly keep account of what is going on.Overall, I found Bus Stop a disappointment although I must say I wasn't shocked by this - Hollywood has long proved it's ability to hype the mediocre up to mammoth proportions - before, during, and long, long after the event!!.
The only relief is when the bus driver beats the cowboy up to stop him from pestering the poor young woman any further.There are some comic moments in the film, but it's too frustrating watching Monroe's character treated like an animal.
Don Murray (in his film debut) plays a rodeo star who falls head over heels in love with saloon entertainer Marilyn Monroe.
Not William Inge's best work but BUS STOP offers an astonishingly good performance by Marilyn Monroe as the talentless "chanteuse" who meets up with the green cowboy (Don Murray).
Top support from the likes of Eileen Heckart, Arthur O'Connell, Hope Lange, Betty Field, and Robert Bray.This is definitely Monroe's best performance and she's exceptional in the "Old Black Magic" number.
Marilyn Monroe, Don Murray, Arthur O'Connell and Betty Field are all at the "Bus Stop," a 1956 film based on the play by William Inge and directed by Josh Logan.
They're snowed in, however, and have to stop for the night at a restaurant on the route, run by Betty Field.Logan seems to have directed this like a play, and Murray's performance through most of the film is very stagy - big and loud.
Bus Stop does have some good music too, and while her character isn't the most likable of all in her career Marilyn Monroe is very beautiful and charming.
Being a Marylin Monroe fan I expecting so much more from this film, and admittedly I barely read the synopsis as her being in it was enough for me to watch, however half way through I found myself pressing information on my remote control to find out what was going on, only to see it being described as a 'Romantic Comedy' I was so confused, not once had I laughed and I had yet to see any romance blossom between Marylin's character 'Cherie' and Don Murray who played an obnoxious cowboy called 'Beau' and who I can only describe as a deranged fool who basically began to stalk Marylin, and then even went as far as kidnapping her.
In the scene, when I saw her sing a song in the bar, I honestly felt that I wanted to take care of her, from the bar owner who abused her mentally and physically.Appearing as the character of a Bo Decker, played by Don Murray, was a perfect choice to star opposite Marilyn.
BUS STOP has got to be one of the most enjoyable and entertaining Western/Comedy/Romances that I have ever had the pleasure of watching.With an excellent cast, showcased by the likes of the voluptuous Marilyn Monroe and the virile Don Murray, BUS STOP is a Western/Romance that's certainly worth a second view.When husky Montana rodeo-champ, Bo Decker, finds his "Angel", it's love at first sight.
Before you know it, it's suddenly cheers and happy times ahead when Cherie realizes that, yes, she is, indeed, in love with this impulsive, but basically good-hearted cowboy-dude.Released in 1956 - BUS STOP is, most definitely, Western/Comedy/Romance at its rootin'-tootin' best!.
Starring in this film Marilyn Monroe gave one her finest performances of a career noted for brilliant work: All About Eve, Bus Stop, Some Like It Hot, The Misfits et al.
Marilyn Monroe plays a hillbilly bar-hostess in Arizona who is swept off her feet by young Montana cowboy Don Murray; he isn't worldly and knows nothing about women, but his naïve romantic notions nearly convince her this might be true love.
When l'd watched this picture for first time l saw something familial that l used to see when my dad was a bus driver, in this has the same kind bus driver that my father looks like mainly in their same behavior with the girls, so this has a special meaning for me, in other hand l has to confess that whatever l wrote over Marilyn is totally under fan's eyes only, apart the plot was well-crafted and a stunning performance by Murray and O'Connell my goddess Marilyn was convincing and sexy in every frame, saying this in others words means that Miss Monroe was unique in movie's history, acctually she put all things in a high ground, she has something special indeed, just reconized after his sudden and predicable death for this self-destruction behavior and mental instability!!!Resume:First watch: 1985 / How many: 4 / Source: TV-DVD / Rating: 8.
Then recently, and for the first time, I watched Bus Stop all the way through and was amazed.It's clear that Marilyn was drawing on her own experiences in portraying Cherie, the put-upon saloon singer.
She proved herself to be a real actress and while Don Murray was Oscar-nominated, Marilyn's work was ignored by the Academy, as it would be for the rest of her life.Watch Bus Stop and be amazed..
Don Murray is also very good in this film, playing a rough and tough cow boy, named Beau, who learns the facts of life and love in a very funny and dramatic way all at the same time.
Marilyn Monroe is lovely in this film and I can't think of anyone else who could have played the part of Cherie any better.It's hard to imagine that someone like Bo could have been doing the rodeo circuit for this long and still been this naive about women, but Don Murray somehow makes it slightly believable.I enjoy movies-from-plays that try to duplicate the original theater experience, where you can concentrate on the characters because extravagant sets don't get in the way.
"Bus Stop" has a bit of pretty scenery but it never detracts from the story or the characters, which are always foremost and well-defined.Personally I don't give Bo and Cherie much chance on a lasting relationship because Cherie will always have the dreams of a being a big-city gal and will once again be stuck in a small town, but the ending leaves us with the hope that she'll be happy with a man who truly loves her..
The rest of the story is really about his pursuit as Cherie tries unsuccessfully to escape from Bo's persistent efforts, and it all ends up in a snowbound diner on the way back to Bo's Montana ranch.Kim Stanley played Cherie to great acclaim on Broadway, but it's safe to say Marilyn Monroe makes the role her own.
We see the process come full circle after they are stranded at the "Bus Stop" near the end and Monroe is given increasing depth in the script - but "Bo" and "Cherie" remain caricatures throughout...In one of many strange "Academy Award" moves, Murray was nominated as "Best Supporting Actor" of the year; he is inarguably the lead actor in this film.
A catchy theme, Ken Darby's "The Bus Stop Song (A Paper of Pins)" by The Four Lads was a hit single, though the film is not a musical and Monroe wisely sings "That Old Black Magic" off kilter and in character.******** Bus Stop (8/31/56) Joshua Logan ~ Marilyn Monroe, Don Murray, Arthur O'Connell, Betty Field.
Don Murray is charming in a simplistic, but necessary role as the naive, goal-oriented, frisky cowboy, looking to bring home an "angel", against which Marilyn can play the confused, semi-willingly manipulated girl who isn't sure she knows what real love is, or how to give in to it when it comes.
A naive but stubborn cowboy (Don Murray) falls in love with a saloon singer (Marilyn Monroe) and tries to take her away against her will to get married and live on his ranch in Montana.So, Don Murray was nominated for best supporting actor (he lost to Anthony Quinn for "Lust for Life").
Marilyn's an Angel, the Film is Not. Although dated and visually pedestrian, "Bus Stop" has one of Marilyn Monroe's most vulnerable performances and an energetic debut by Don Murray.
But the romantic Hollywood movies have to end in a good way, so they don't change this time.Marilyn Monroe did a great job as Cherie but it isn't her best film.
I have never seen a movie this willfully stupid in my life.Neither Beau (Don Murray) or Cherie (Marilyn Monroe) can think.
Therefore, the movie almost plays like an review of Monroe's life and how she could have wound up if not for the fact that she somehow had real sense about her career and own image.The film is supposed to be a comedy but has later been seen more as a human drama and I think that makes more sense since the character Beauregard, played by Don Murray, is really too annoying and sometimes frightening to be funny.
Bus Stop had a run of 478 performances with Kim Stanley and Albert Salmi in the roles of that Monroe and Murray played.
That Marilyn Monroe and Don Murray can overcome bad accents, pathetic and obnoxious characters, and humanize them at the end really surprised me.
"Bus Stop" (1956) / Cinemascope and Technicolor / Directed by: Joshua Logan / Written by: George Axelrod / Based on the 1954 Broadway play by: William Inge / First viewing 12/11/2010* * * Film* * * 1/2 Acting performance of Marilyn MonroeGood writing, most of the way through, along with Marilyn Monroe and Don Murray's exceptionally fine acting performances, make this comedy-musical with heart, worth watching.
Marilyn Monroe was nominated for a Golden Globe Award for her role as Cherie in "Bus Stop", but did not win. |
tt1700844 | The Deep Blue Sea | In 1950, Hester Collyer, the younger wife of High Court judge Sir William Collyer, has embarked on a passionate affair with Freddie Page, a handsome young former RAF pilot troubled by his memories of the Second World War. Freddie throws Hester's life in turmoil, as their erotic relationship leaves her emotionally stranded and physically isolated. For Freddie, that tumultuous mix of fear and excitement that was once in his life seems to be no longer present.
The majority of the film takes place during one day in Hester's flat, a day on which she has decided to commit suicide. Her attempt fails and as she recovers, the story of her affair and her married life is played out in a mosaic of short and sporadic flashbacks. We soon discover the constraints of Hester's comfortable marriage, which is affectionate but without sexual passion.
As Hester's affair is discovered she leaves her life of comparative luxury and moves into a small dingy London flat with Freddie. Hester's new lover has awakened her sexuality, but the reckless, thrill-seeking Freddie can never give her the love and stability that her husband gave her. Yet to return to a life without passion would be unbearable. The film takes its title from her dilemma of being caught between the Devil and the deep blue sea – two equally undesirable situations. | dramatic, suicidal, flashback | train | wikipedia | Thus, Hester (played by a wonderful Rachel Weisz) can fascinate those of us who care about the inner working and emotional vicissitudes of a self destructive woman and who will learn about the human condition by considering her behavior.
In this film, she gives in my opinion the best female acting performance in the last few years, giving a complex and rich performance with a character that could have easily been botch by even a great actress, especially with a screenplay that is more into itself than the audience watching the movie.
Masterfully told, with fantastic acting from Rachel Weisz, the film tells the story of Hester and ill-fated love affair with Freddie Page.
After an overly slow beginning, the director paces his film quite well using sounds, silences, and pauses in the characters' reactions to their conversations most effectively in telling his tale of a love undone.The film sporadically uses these moments to tell the story of the makings of a passionate love affair, but its fragmented structure never allows us to understand Hester's attraction and her rationale to her self-proclaimed changes in her life.
The Deep Blue Sea is a dramatic romance which takes place around the post-war (WWII) period where the young wife of a British judge starts having a love affair with a royal air force pilot.
Rachel Weisz is mature and amazing as a leading actress, and then comes Tom Hiddleston who unveils a beautiful supporting performance and freshens up a little bit the foggy mood of the film.Terence meets Terence and a wonderful theatrical film comes to life.
'THE DEEP BLUE SEA': Two and a Half Stars (Out of Five) Rachel Weisz has received much critical praise and award recognition (including a Golden Globe nomination for Best Actress) for her starring turn in this melodramatic romance based on the 1950's play, of the same name, by Terence Rattigan.
We find this out in flashbacks from a day that begins with Hester attempting suicide in the down-at-heel digs she shares with Freddie.Lush photography and emotive thesping from Rachel Weisz can't save this film from a glaring hole in the narrative - Hester's all-consuming passion for Freddie is impossible to understand.
The meat of the tale of this affair has been skipped over.The music is almost hysterical in its attempt to manipulate the audience, and William's mother is brought on as a one-note character to ram home the fact that Hester is suffocating - as if one look at William wouldn't tell us that already.I came to this film without any knowledge of the Terrence Rattigan play.
Unless, of course, you feel like wallowing in depressing celluloid for two hours.I am all for a bit of melancholy and darkness in an art film but insist that it is balanced out with an interesting story, memorable scenes and zest.
It was as if we were missing an entire chunk of plot to explain why this all happened - actually, what all happened?Yet despite all of this, with what little she was given to work with, Rachel Weisz did make me understand her character, the importance of appearances and the stiff upper lip, the unexpectedness of the mid-life blooming of her teenage passions and the coming to terms with all of this stuff that is not in the sonnets or old masters that she was brought up with...It is not just a case of subtle undercurrents in a restrained British film being missed by an American audience - those moments really are not there.
"Love, that's all." (Hester responds to her husband when he asks her what happened.)No film in recent memory is as depressing as The Deep Blue Sea, Terence Davies' adaptation of Terence Rattigan's play.
In either venue, the story of Lady Hester Collyer (Rachel Weisz) and her infidelity will sear your brain in recognition of the perfect storm of love and lust sung to the tune of 1950's conservatism, which largely meant staying with a spouse regardless if it's a loveless marriage.Freddie (Tom Hiddleston), a WWII Brit flyboy, hasn't graduated yet from the romance of that war to the responsibilities of true love in civilian life.
Hester unfortunately is ripe for romance with him as her older husband, a high court judge and a peer, is caring but far too reserved to provide a tender woman with the love she needs.This is a simple film of measured speech in the tradition of West End thespian greatness.
You need to have way more than just a depressing atmosphere and style to your movie, in order to turn it into an effective or intriguing enough movie to watch.Yes, I understand very well that the movie its dark, cold and lonely atmosphere is a reflection of the main character, played by Rachel Weisz, her state of mind but instead of strengthening its emotions or any of its drama, it makes the movie a very slow and seemingly pointless one, that is hard to ever feel involved with, in any way or form.I just could never care enough about anything that was happening in this movie.
THE DEEP BLUE SEA is set in the 1950′s and flashes back to the War years of the 40′s – so it is appropriate that the title also features in a popular song lyric of the time ' we are all between perdition and the deep blue sea'.London in 1950 was still very much showing the effects of the War and amid this drab and shattered cityscape, in a small dingy flat, Hester ( Rachel Weisz) has decided to commit suicide using the gas meter, but is revived.
The story takes place over a single day about ten months after Hester leaves her husband.This was originally a Terence Rattigan play that first went to screen in the 1950′s with Vivian Leigh in the lead role and Kenneth More as Freddie and Eric Portman as the stern judge.
The other has Hester and Freddie dancing in a pub, smoke sits heavy on the air, the light is fractured through the window slats and the Jo Stafford song that was so popular at the time ' You Belong To Me' has the patrons singing with it.The film was both written and directed by Terence Davies.
Perhaps because both Terences ( Rattigan and Davies) were / are gay men, there is a nuanced sympathy for Hester whose life from its start as a Vicar's daughter, through to her marriage to a hidebound upper class man whose mother loathed her as unfit for him, and culminating in her last chance at happiness and love being smashed because Freddie is a shallow and fickle man whose greatest time was as a RAF pilot during the Blitz and he will never move on from that.A mature, well crafted film, with occasional echoes of BRIEF ENCOUNTER, it has many strong points, but none stronger than Rachel Weisz.
It was Willy what got drownded in the deep blue sea"- American Folk Song.Based on the 1952 play by Terrence Rattigan, Terence Davies meshes personal pain with the struggles of the British people to overcome the effects of a devastating war in his latest film, The Deep Blue Sea. Known as the British Terence Malick, Davies has directed only seven films in the last 35 years including masterpieces such as The Long Day Closes, Distant Voices, Still Lives, The House of Mirth, as well as his recent documentary Of Time and the City that depicted the sad demise of his home town of Liverpool, England.
The Deep Blue Sea, set in London just after the war, is filled with nostalgia for a world that is long past, but is also universal in its theme of loneliness and alienation.The story centers on Hester Collyer, a woman (Rachel Weisz) in her forties who is locked in a loveless marriage to Sir William Collyer, a much older judge (Simon Russell Beale).
She finds this passion, however, in her love for Freddie Page (Tom Hiddleston), a former RAF pilot who has returned from the war, but is still emotionally tied to its "glories." Freddie, however, cannot return her love and Hester's frustration threatens her ability to retain her emotional balance.She swallows twelve pills and lights the gas furnace on her room in a suicide attempt, apparently sending a message to Freddie not to leave her and inflicting guilt on her husband for requesting a divorce.
It's safer." Guarded enthusiasm, however, is not in Hester's DNA.Though music plays a large role in The Deep Blue Sea as it does in Davies' earlier films, it is used selectively and features only six pieces.
The beautiful second movement of Samuel Barber's Violin Concerto occupies a full nine minutes at the film's beginning, and the use of communal singing brings back memories of a time when people used music as a means of coming closer to others, not keeping them away with ears plugged into mobile devices.
Music is also used to memorable effect in a panning shot that takes place in a flashback during the war as people huddle together for shelter in a tube station as a soldier sings "Molly Malone," the unofficial anthem of Dublin.The Deep Blue Sea could have easily become a soap opera, yet Davies has crafted a film of physical and emotional richness that can stand as one of his finest achievements.
The Deep Blue Sea is a period romance focusing on Hester (Rachel Weisz), the wife of a judge who embarks on an affair with the reckless RAF pilot Freddie (Tom Hiddleston).
There was also good performances from smaller characters, most notably Hester's husband Sir William (Simon Russell Beale) who's role was vulnerable and gentle, an opposite to the rival of his wife's affections.The Deep Blue Sea is quite a powerful and interesting love story, but sadly I felt that the possibility of this film being a great classic romance was tarnished somewhat by the lack of clarity in time shifts.
English actor, screenwriter and director Terence Davies' fifth feature film which he wrote, is an adaptation of a play from 1952 by English playwright Terence Rattigan (1911-1997) which was inspired by the suicide of a young man that Terence Rattigan had loved.
It tells the story about a woman named Hesther Collyer whom is married with a High Court judge named Sir William Collyer, and who during the 1950s in Great Britain falls in love with a Royal Airforce pilot named Freddie Page.Distinctly and precisely directed by British filmmaker Terence Davies, this rhythmic fictional tale which is narrated by the protagonist and from multiple viewpoints, draws a moving portrayal of a middle-aged woman who leaves her older husband after starting an affair with a younger man in London.
While notable for it's atmospheric milieu depictions, sterling production design by UK production designer James Merifield, cinematography by German cinematographer Florian Hoffmeister, costume design by English costume designer Ruth Myers and use of music, this character-driven, dialog-driven and romantic period drama contains a prominent score by American composer Samuel Barber (1910-1981).This internal study of character which is set against the backdrop of post-war England and which examines a woman's indescribable love for a man whom is not capable of reciprocating her unconditional devotion, is impelled and reinforced by it's fragmented narrative structure, substantial character development, subtle continuity, the expressive acting performances by English actress Rachel Weisz, English actor Tom Hiddleston and the fine supporting acting performances by English actor Simon Russel Beale and English actress Ann Mitchell.
An abridged and incisive love-story which gained the award for Best Actress Rachel Weisz at the 78th New York Film Critics Circle Awards in 2012.The emotional depths and the cinematographic excellence of this impressionistic, elegiac, at times humorous and modestly sensual character piece is undeniably commendable, and this low-keyed story about a middle-class woman who is driven more by the will of her passion then by her reason steers away from becoming as melodramatic as it potentially could have been and ultimately reaches a level of astuteness that encourages contemplation.
Rachel Weiss plays Hester trapped in a flat and dull marriage she finds physical and emotional release in the arms of Freddie (played by Tom Hiddleston) a magnetic yet damaged WW2 pilot who is struggling to adjust to post-war life.
Weisz is a woman in a doomed love affair with a young man (a total jerk as he's portrayed by Tom Hiddleston, so much so that you wonder what attracted her to him in the first place) and with a dumpy husband (Simon Russell Beale) who still loves her.
As much as I love both Tom Hiddleston and Rachel Weisz, I watched this film with a sense of forced emotions.The dialogue seemed too theatrical/staged.
Terence Davies captures the passionate intensity and searing emotion of the story very well, there are some very affecting moments here and the tea scene at the mother's house is very well written and acted and the ending is powerful.Rattigan's writing shines on the most part, heavy on talk (true of the play and Rattigan in general) but intelligent, sharply observant, thought-provoking and full of pathos and insight.However, some aspects of 'The Deep Blue Sea' frustrate annoyingly.
This wit and verve is completely lost here and as a consequence the film feels too dark in terms of mood and overly gloomy and the leaden pace in some scenes, which felt like it was stretched to pad things out, disadvantages it further.Didn't know what to make of the music.
While Weisz and Hiddleston are quite good here, playing a chemistry that is solid and when things fall apart (Weisz's Hester tries to commit suicide and despite trying to cover it up dear Freddie finds it out in the worst possible way) it is effectively harrowing to see unfold emotionally, as is the husband character (Simon Russell Beale, an actor I'm not too familiar with but plays the "regular" chap with a problem connecting with his emotions excellently, which on the flip side Freddie has no problem doing so Hiddleston does that as well), I wish there had been more development of our main character.
Whatever happens in this world where everything goes or has to go fast and more and more digital, Terence Davies remains the same director with his slow pacing style which I like so much.Everything in this movie works excellent: the first ten minutes with the magnificent music of the Violin Concerto of Samuel Barber brings you immediately in the right mood of the movie.
This is chiefly due to a lack of sympathy with the characters: we do not really understand why Hester Collyer (Rachel Weisz) should feel as she does, while Tom Hiddleston as Freddie Page is badly miscast.
The film also represents an uneasy mix of Davies' and Rattigan's concerns; there are new musical sequences inserted (for example, a scene in a local pub, and a flashback to wartime London) which have strong echoes of Davies' earlier work (THE LONG DAY CLOSES comes to mind), but which deflect attention away from Rattigan's character-driven piece.
The Deep Blue Sea. It is supposed to be a romantic love story between a married woman "Hester" who is a young wife married to a judge ( an old man )actually.
For while, in spite of their obvious misgivings, the couple in "Encounter" clearly enjoyed being in one another's company, the same can not necessarily be said of the lovers here, who seem to share very few moments of genuine joy and happiness throughout the course of their relationship.The 1952 Terrance Rattigan play focuses on Hester Collyer (Rachel Weisz), the young, attractive wife of an elderly judge (Simon Russell Beale) who falls in love with Freddie Page (Tom Hiddleston), an ex-RAF pilot, in post-WW II London.
In a bold move for the time, Hester leaves her husband and moves into a flat with Freddie, but we know immediately that things are not going well, for, as the movie opens, we find Hester attempting suicide, with much of the rest of the story exploring, through a combination of contemporary and flashback scenes, how she's reached this low point of desperation.One of the key elements of the Rattigan play is that it is scrupulously fair to all its characters.
Hester is violently jolted back to the reality she now has to face.So ends the overture to Terence Davies's latest film, an adaptation of Terrence Rattigan's play "The Deep Blue Sea".
The beautiful young Hester (Rachel Weisz) is bored by her marriage to an old-before-his-time William (Simon Russell Beale).
Terence Davies rewrote some of "The Deep Blue Sea" for this film adaptation, released in 2011 and starring Rachel Weisz and Tom Hiddleston.Set in the 1950s, Weisz plays Hester, a young woman married to an older man (Simon Russell Beale).
In this film, he has a perfectly awful mother (Barbara Jefford) - she's not in the play, as I recall.Hester meets a returning air force pilot, Freddie Page (Hiddleston), and the two fall in love, or seem to -- clearly, like Anna Karenina, the physical side of the relationship is something all-encompassing and new to her, and she revels in it.
But it's too late for that.The last scene is shattering -- Hester, desolate, looks out her window and sees life going on -- people on their way to work, children playing, people beginning their day...and the camera stops at a bombed out shell and stays there.Sounds like I loved it.
Terence Davies' "The Deep Blue Sea" based on Terence Rattigan's 1952 play takes us back to that time to tell a poignant, haunting story of doomed love.
Basically, set in around the 1950's, Hester Collyer (Golden Globe nominated Rachel Weisz) is a young woman married to the older High Court judge Sir William Collyer (Simon Russell Beale), and is having a passionate affair with handsome young former RAP pilot Freddie Page (Thor's Tom Hiddleston) who is still haunted by memories of the war, and he almost feels no fear and excitement in life anymore. |
tt0105810 | Where the Day Takes You | Fleeing abusive families, a group of teenage runaways form a protective family on their own, with King as their leader. King is a man in his early twenties who has been living on the street for more than six years. In and out of jail, he spends most of his nights with Little J and Greg. Having spent two months in jail for being falsely accused of murder, he feels that the group fell apart in his absence. His friend Brenda, a lot of the time bullied by Little J because of her weight, introduces him to Heather, a 17-year-old girl from Chicago. He soon takes her under his protection and includes her in his revenge on Tommy, the man responsible for the death of his former girlfriend Devon.
One night, Greg and Little J get into a fight while stealing stereos out of cars. Greg, mad that the group always takes Little J's side, seeks refuge with his drug dealer Ted and his girlfriend Vikki. He sends him away, however, because he doesn't have any money. Greg, not knowing what to do, goes home, but his father has him arrested for grand theft. Meanwhile, King and Heather have trouble earning money, but he insists that they won't get into prostitution, unlike Little J's friend Kimmy. Little J is lured into prostitution by his friend Rob, but while servicing his client Charles, he is reminded of the sexual abuse he suffered as a child at the hands of his uncle. In jail, Greg admits to being addicted to drugs and a social worker gets him into a rehabilitation center, which will grant him parole.
Meanwhile, Tommy, after threatening and beating up his crippled friend Manny, finds out where King is staying. He beats him up and almost stabs him, when Little J shoots Tommy in the back. The group decides to run away, leaving Tommy to die. King and Heather get away, but their friend Crasher is soon arrested. King advises Heather to return to Chicago, but she refuses to go without him. After a day begging for money, they decide to go to a hotel and spend the night making love. She later admits to him that she ran away from home because her brother raped her. Little J, meanwhile, takes refuge at Kimmy's for a while, but he is kicked out by Rob and decides to contact Charles again. Greg runs away from the rehabilitation center in the meantime, but he is unable to find the group. He goes to Ted, who is worried about him because he hasn't slept for four days and tries to help him by shooting him up with heroin.
When Crasher is out of jail, he tries to convince King and Heather to go with him to Dallas, announcing that the police are looking for them. King doesn't want to leave without Greg and Little J and starts to look for them. He is shocked to find Greg lying in his own puke, high on drugs at Ted's place. He promises to go with him, but he is arrested by the police before he can. They next find Little J under a bridge, being kicked out of Charles' house and regretting having shot a person. King, Heather and Little J decide to leave without anyone else. Meanwhile, Greg, out of jail after having talked to the police about King's whereabouts, returns to Ted and overdoses on heroin. On their bus, going to a new destination to start a new life, King decides to get out to look for Greg, but he is arrested by the police. Little J tries to save them and attempts to shoot the police, which forces them to shoot Little J. King, however, jumps in front of him and is shot and killed. Heather witnesses this and is left in tears. She decides not to leave Los Angeles, but to wait until Little J is released from jail. Together, accompanied by Brenda, they return to the streets, using the practice that King taught them. | romantic | train | wikipedia | I pretty much rented this movie because the cast on the cover was rather impressive, and one of the people I work for told me it was really good.
All I can say is, those people that raved about Kids have no idea what they are talking about, this is a much more realistic and true look at life on the street than Kids ever was.
Small parts from Will Smith and Alyssa Milano (you won't recognize her till you see her name in the credits at the end) stand out strongly and Sean Astin gives a very good performance that is unlike most of the films you would see him in (Rudy for example).
I really don't want to give away anything about the plot because I rented it not knowing hardly anything about it and I think that's the way it should be watched.
This overlooked film about teens surviving on the streets of Los Angeles came and went pretty quickly when initially released.
King(Durmont Mulroney)is the leader and protector of an assortment of kids that include druggie Greg(Sean Astin), Little J(Balthasar Getty), smart-mouthed Brenda(Ricki Lake), and newcomer Heather(Lara Flynn Boyle), whom King takes a shine to.
The film follows then through their days of riding boxcars, sleeping under overpasses, and hanging out in public places while avoiding cops, drug dealers, and pimps.
While the film downplays some aspects of the streets( the violence and emotional devastation of child prostitution is acknowledged but not conveyed directly), others are show with uncomfortable intensity.
Sean Austin's fate as the speed-freak Greg is disturbing; the final shot of his character in the film haunted me for days..
I absolutely love this film but I can only watch it once a year because it makes me so sad, I have never cried so much in a film ever, I'm left a nervous wreck, I don't know if it's because I'm happy or sad the way things worked out, but my hat is off to the writer, director, and all the actors, especially Sean Astin's portrayal of Greg.
Rocco took an amazing group of actors and made a beautiful piece that not only refrained from glamourising and sugar-coating life on the streets, but kept a low-key tone to the show rather than play up the idea of a movie with some of Hollywood's best young actors in it.
It presents a real issue in a very real way, and was also a movie you were drawn into, rather than taking on a news broadcast tone.
The downside to this movie is that it is one of those indy films that few will sit down and watch.
Sean Astin(Greg) was really good in this film he played his part well and you feel for him and try to understand how it must feel living life the way they all do on the streets.
Great cast line-up and it was good to see Will Smith in there.
All the characters seemed real not just movie stars playing homeless kids..
The exploits of the kids in this film are way too real.
I used to live on the streets and this film is the first time I've seen street life without the Hollywood polish on it.
Granted all the faces are familiar, and everyone in the film is a star, they play the parts with grit and realism.
It's really great to see that this lifestyle is portrayed as less than glamourous, because all too often "homeless" movies make it seem like it's easy to get out of it.........
Seeing all those big names (Sean Astin, Will Smith, Dermot Mulroney & Rikki Lake) before they all really became famous was great.
They all played thier parts amazigly well and the way the movie was done was great.
I found it very true to the way life on the street is and think more movies like this should be done, but I suppose it's just that every so often you find one of these movies, and that they're unreplaceable..
"King", was by far my favorite character in the movie.
Although the entire cast did a fantastic job of acting out their parts, "King", was my favorite because at the time I watched this film, I was a lot like him; except the being homeless part.
As far as Sean Astin and the part he played, I couldn't relate very much at all, but that didn't matter because his role was extremely powerful and believable!
One more thing, if it wasn't for Melissa Etheridge and her incredible talent, I do not think this movie would have touched as many people as it did.
Gritty and touching film about homeless youth in Hollywood,CA.
"Where The Day Takes You" is about the homeless youth who come from all over the country to escape their dysfunctional families to live on the streets of Hollywood.It is here that this youth form surrogate families with other homeless youth.This film chronicles one such family of homeless youth headed by King who is the father figure.A violent confrontation with another homeless leader turns for the worse and King finds himself desperately trying to keep his family together while avoiding the law.The movie is surprisingly honest about dangers of living on the street and yet portrays the real sense of community that this homeless youth shares with each other.My only issue with this film was perhaps the Melissa Etheridge music which distracted me.It got more tolerable with repeated viewings of this film but to be fair I am not much of a Melissa Etheridge fan.If you like movies about Hollywood or films featuring young attractive actors playing disaffected youth then I would suggest this film..
Most of the cast in this film have gone on to become bigger stars (some MUCH bigger as in the case of Will Smith) in far bigger budget movies, but they'll all have this one to look back on as something to be truly proud of.
Sure, one can quibble with the fact that these people, despite being "glammed down" for the street look, are better looking than "real" homeless youths, but this is Hollywood after all.
A promising feature from director Marc Rocco, who went on to make another movie, and now I haven't seen anything from him for half-a-decade.
All in all, this movie is superbly acted, cinematicly beautiful, and will leave a lasting impression on you for quite some time..
I must admit, I had seen this movie when it first came out, and I totally fell in love with Dermott Mulroney.
There are so many famous actors, that people don't even know are in this movie.
Lara Flynn Boyle, Alyssa Milano, Dermott Mulroney, Rikki Lake, Laura San Giacomo, Sean Astin, Balthazar Getty, Will Smith, Nancy McKeon...This movie is the best movie out there and if you haven't seen it, rent it, buy it, have a party and let everyone come over and watch it!
I was crying like a baby at the end of it, and have seen it maybe 50 times since, and last year I finally found a copy of it that I could buy.
Storyline goes as follows; A group of homeless kids on the streets of LA, lead by the young man King (Dermot Mulroney) struggles with drugs, cops, love, life, each other and themselves.
Heather (Lara Flynn Boyle) is the new comer to the group, and King takes a liking to her.
Greg (Sean Astin) has delved into drugs, Little J (Balthazar Getty) is trying to deal with aggression and growing up.
A love story about all the things you want and need, but is hard to make happen in an impossible world.Mentions also to Will Smith, Ricki Lake, James LeGros,Laura San Giacomo, Kyle McLachlan and Alyssa Milano.
A story that could easily be a true one, considering how many homeless kids there are on our streets.
It is one of my favorite movies of all time!
Dermot Mulroney, Balthazar Getty, Sean Astin and Lara Flynn Boyle give fantastic performances!
It does make you appreciate what you have and makes you realize how some people, kids, can end up and what can happen to them.
But I have to admit that, even though it's a bit of a slow starter, it really is a good movie especially at the end.
You'll get a good insight on what these people's lives are like.
In Los Angeles, the gang of teenagers leaded by King (Dermot Mulroney) survives on the streets begging, prostituting and stealing money.
Among King's best friends are Little J (Balthazar Getty), who is a gay prostitute; Greg (Sean Astin), who is drug addicted capable of stealing to buy drugs with the dealer Ted (Kyle MacLachlan); and the paralytic Manny (Will Smith).
When the newcomer and runaway from Chicago Heather (Lara Flynn Boyle) meets King, they fall in love for each other.
But when Little J kills Tommy Ray to protect King, he is falsely accused of murder and chased by the police, with tragic consequences."Where the Day Takes You" approaches an important and delicate theme, the life of teenagers on the streets, but unfortunately following the glamour and asepsis of Hollywood movies.
In "Where the Day Takes You", actors and actresses are handsome and beautiful, there is no message in the end, and it is almost a kind of incentive for teenagers with problem with their families to run away home, provided they do not use smack or buy a gun.
Marc Rocco writes and directs us into the world of homeless runaways on the streets of Hollywood in this often overlooked early-nineties gem.
(Will Smith, Kyle MacLachlan, Tara Flynn Boyle, Rikki Lake, etc...) Life on the streets has rarely been conveyed so well, and the themes and social issues raised are wrapped in an extremely appealing package..
This is one of the best movies I've ever seen,because I like movies that show all the types of emotions that living on the streets can give you.
I really think they pulled all the kids in this movie off of the streets and stuck them in front of a camera and just told them to do what they normally do because they were so good..
Melissa Etheridge's film debut as an arist, the timing of the song with what's occurring in the scene is amazing.
I too spent a good deal of time learning life's lessons as a homeless teen.
Spending some time being a homeless teen in California, when I first watched this movie it felt like they ripped the script from the pages of my life.
I highly recommend that this movie be placed in everyones 'to watch' file and maybe people will stop looking baffled when I mention it from now on..
For a Hollywood movie filmed in Hollywood about Hollywood, "Where the Day Takes You" is surprisingly lacking in authenticity.
Those who believe this film about the street kids of Hollywood is the real deal haven't spent much time with such kids.
On the downside, there's little story to be found between the scenes as we bear witness to a trite, cliched, and obviously fabricated Hollywood screenwriter's version of Hollywood street kids who in real life comprises a subculture which is far more hip, resourceful, structured, and networked than are the characters in this film.
Where The Day Takes You (1991)Plot In A Paragraph: A group of teenage runaways try to survive on the streets of L.AWhat a cast, what performances, what a great little movie.
If anything it suffers from his famous most of its cast became through various TV and film roles.
Dermot Mulroney is the main actor here as The King, a sort of leader of the runaways.
Sean Astin (in what I now consider his best performance) and Beltzhar Getty are his closest allies, as for Will Smith, he portrays Manny, a legless cripple, who is on the fringes of being in with The King.
Considering the cocky, outgoing public persona Smith was portraying in public at the time, and the light comedic tone of The Fresh Prince Of Bel Air, this was certainly an interesting first movie for Smith.Despite only a $3 million budget, Where The Day Takes You was a commercial flop, grossing only $390,000 at the domestic box office..
This movie is depressing and great a the same time.
It casted actors known for jolly and friendly characters (like Sean Astin from "Goonies" and Will Smith from "Fresh Prince"), and challenges them to portray hopeless kids who are self destructive and refuse help from the adult world.The story is about this pack of teenagers who are surviving in the streets without taking showers or changing clothes (despite having those luxuries available in charities), and they live mostly under a bridge.
The first thought in my mind is that that place probably must be rat infested, but the kids seem to enjoy their lifestyle.It is hard to understand why they live like that, but the movie doesn't judge.
Laura Flynn Boyle gets a little grubby, you know like the average Hollywood run away.And, WORST OF ALL, Melissa Etheridge contributes her rehearsed caterwauling...
Melissa Etheridge is to Janis Joplin as this 'film' is to gritty realism..
Saw this movie when it first came out and loved it ever since.
I don't know anything about how realistic it might be cause I've got no experience with living on the street like the kids in the movie do, but I can relate to kings effort in trying to hold the gang together even though it put a strain on him.
It is also the only drama movie I have seen where the music score fits perfect with the mood of the film.
I also like how king say it's not hard nor easy it just IS Its and excellent movie it's dark and gritty yet good.
The cast is fantastic their performance is great and to me they look believable.
I simply can't say enough good things about this movie.
I just got this movie on DVD and me and my brother laughed, cheered the group led by King, and felt sad all at the same time.
Dermot Mulroney and Balthazar Getty should have got nominations for portraying King and Little J respectively.
A great movie is anything that could touch you in every way possible and this film does it!!!
Sean Astin showed the chops of a great actor he shows now.
A poignant and powerful portrait of the gritty plight of homeless urban street kids.
Dermott Mulroney gives a very commanding and outstanding performance as King, a tough, street smart, ask-for-no-favors recent parolee who lives on the mean streets in and around Hollywood Boulevard; he relates his arduous everyday experiences to prison psychologist Lara San Giacomo and basically acts as a wise, protective father figure to a ragtag bunch of hapless, homeless, penniless runaway youths trying to eke out a meager existence in the City of Angels.An incisive, absorbing, down and dirty look at the unceasingly grim, tense, often distressfully uncertain day-to-day lifestyle of destitute, on their own abandoned derelict kids and the bleak drug and violence-infested hellhole they exist in, "Where the Day Takes You" manages for the most part to be appropriately harsh and hard-hitting, rarely pleasant or overly cloying.
While Mulroney clearly dominates the picture with his sterling, supremely charismatic portrayal of King, the other cast members who play equally on the skids adolescents are just as fine: Lara Flynn Boyle as a guileless new runaway who bolted away from home because her brother was sexually abusing her, Sean Astin as a pathetic, doomed heroin addict (the scene where Astin vomits all over himself is very powerful and his ultimate fate is unforgettably chilling and disturbing), Balthazar Getty as a sullen male hustler, Will Smith as a brash crippled smartaleck, James LeGros as King's loyal best friend, Peter Dobson as a brutal punk hood, and, yes, even tacky, tubby tabloid TV show host Rikki Lake as a peevish, abrasive fat chick are all superb.
'Where the Day Takes You' is a highly underrated drama that seems to only survive via word-of-mouth as one of those odd early 90s well-done social commentary films with a solid (and mostly then-unknown) cast.There were several movies in the late 80s and early 90s that looked at homelessness and runaways, though some of these were human interest documentaries.
'Where the Day Takes You' portrays the commonly ignored castaways in a more honest way than say, the major headlines playing up the situation every once in a while.
Most of all, unlike similar stories, this one does not dare acquiesce to the Hollywood happy ending nor any other trappings of the Hollywood industry.The title says it all of our characters, an assortment of runaways living on the streets of Los Angeles, bonded together as something of an unofficial family.
For the most part, they aspire to no certain future, and live according to 'Where the Day Takes You.' Mulroney is King, the oldest of the group recently released from prison.
This hard-to-find movie is really worth watching (though plug your ears at the Melissa Etheridge soundtrack moments), and one that deserves more credit as part of these actors histories..
anyway - One of the best things about this movie is the second opening shot(not kings narration).
the way the panning shots of H boulevard show all the public going about there daily business and living life on a normal day is excellent.letting us see cast member,by cast member hidden away as if they are just normal average people.
but for me, i was at a real low point in my life when i first watched this movie.
i really liked king and the way he cared for all the kids.
please empathise with me on the fact that if your going through a bad time in life a movie like this can sometimes be that lift you want!! |
tt0049031 | The Broken Star | A deputy marshall (Smeed) kills a ranch hand and steals a sack of gold. He claims it was a fair fight but the marshal of Arizona's Southern Territory (Forrester) has his doubts. Unknown to Smeed, there was a witness to the murder (Nachez). While the investigation unfolds, Smeed tries to cover up the evidence and eliminate people who can implicate him.
Another deputy (Gentry), who has always admired Smeed, defends him to his girlfriend (Alvarado) but is astonished when Alvarado translates the written eyewitness account (from the Spanish) by Nachez. Smeed kidnaps Nachez, taking him to a mine, where he kills him and hides the body. Gentry shows up at the mine but is over-powered by Smeed, tied up, and left to be buried in a cave-in caused by Smeed setting a charge.
The marshal arrives with his posse and hunts down Smeed inside the mine, using an alternate entry. In the meantime, Gentry, who survives the cave-in, unties himself and joins the hunt. The posse corners Smeed, who draws first, and is killed by Gentry. In the closing scene, Gentry (with his new bride, Alvarado), is presented with a new badge by Forrester and congratulated for being appointed to the position of marshal of Arizona's Northern Territory. | murder | train | wikipedia | Under Cover Of The Badge.
Every now and then TCM runs these obscure films that turn out to be real finds.
The Broken Star, a black and white B western, certainly is a find with Howard Duff as a deputy sheriff gone bad.Right up front we see Howard Duff shoot down an unarmed man and steal something from his house.
It's $8000.00 in gold, but unfortunately Duff has left a witness, an old Apache who works for the deceased.Under cover of the badge, Duff tells his story that he shot a suspected rustler who drew on him first.
Neither believing or disbelieving him, Sheriff Addison Richards investigates, in much the same manner a shooting team from a modern police force does.
It's then up to another deputy, Bill Williams to bring in his colleague who also is someone who saved his life once.The film is set in the beginning of the 20th century when the old wild west was becoming somewhat tame.
Early forensic science is what sets people's suspicions on Duff in the first place.The Broken Star is a good B western with an adult plot befitting the Fifties, the era of the adult western.
Make sure you catch it when next broadcast..
precise, "no frills", entertaining western.
Lesley Selander knew how to make a precise, no frills, western.
Here, there is something different from the "run of the mill" b movie, the main character is the bad guy, Frank Smead (Howard Duff), the Deputy Marshal.
He kills a man to get 8000 dollars,and tries to come out with a good story , pleading self-defense.
Contrary to most westerns of this type, (where the hero is an outlaw) the spectator's sympathies do not go to Smead, but to whoever is going to uncover his malignant plot.
There is Nachez (Joe Dominguez), a witness, who can not tell what he saw because he does not speak English, Conchita the sexy girl who sings "I hate you" ,with a whip, in the "cantina", played by Lita Baron (was married to Rory Calhoun).
There is also the big shot, W.C.
'Doc' Mott, Coroner, (William 'Bill' Phillips) who threatens Smead while orienting a square dance.
Besides having an unusual plot, there are good action scenes, which make this an entertaining western..
50s noir western.
An obvious western version of a story that was done twice in 1954 (as SHIELD FOR MURDER and PRIVATE HELL 36--with Howard Duff!) where a good lawman goes into business for himself.This has all the elements: ruthless crime boss, two hired goons, a blackmailer, desperate escape and even a sultry chanteuse singing in a nightclub -er- saloon.
Duff's playing is typically stoic, but this adds a bit to his bluff, duplicitous character (the kind Fred MacMurray used to play in DOUBLE INDEMNITY and PUSHOVER)and the rest of the cast does quite well under Selander's assured (well it certainly should be assured by this time!) direction.
I particularly liked Douyglas Fowley as the crooked blackmailer.
The scene where he and Duff negotiate -- each obviously planning a double-cross -- has a fine, greasy tension to it..
Powerful western murder mystery.
SYNOPSIS: A marshal is unconvinced that his deputy killed a man in self-defense.
He asks another deputy to investigate.COMMENT: Excellent.
There's no reason why a conventional western should not also incorporate a murder mystery, so full credit must be given to the taut, well-characterized script provided by John C.
Higgins (author of T-Men).
True, Lesley Selander's direction is a cut or two above his usual capable (though hardly major league) standard, whilst William Margulies has lensed some striking location photography.
Paul Dunlap too has also risen to the occasion with a powerful background score.
What will interest the fans is that the action sequences are vigorously staged.
Bill Williams even seems to be slugging and fighting without use of a double.
The rest of the players, led by Howard Duff are nothing if not thoroughly convincing..
"What the heck kind of a fandango was that"?.
It could be I'm overdosing on movie Westerns, this one just didn't seem to have any life to it at all.
Maybe it was Howard Duff in the lead role, not your usual Western hero.
Or maybe the story was just too lackluster.
There did seem to be an attempt made at introducing forensics into the solution of a murder committed by Duff's character, Deputy Frank Smeed, in the opening part of the story.
The coroner says the fatal shot was fired from an angle looking down on the victim, while Smeed's description of his 'self defense' position was from the ground looking up.
That's as far as it went though, as no trial was going to make it into the picture.The positives here really have nothing to do with the main story.
Lita Baron shows up as a singing cantina senorita with a whip!
as part of her performance, making me believe she might have made it past the first round on American Idol.
Then there's that wild saloon brawl between Deputy Gentry (Bill Williams) against the two henchmen Messendyke (Joel Ashley) and Van Horn (John Pickard).
Fairly well choreographed and energetic, it could be a top ten contender.What it boils down to is Frank Smeed symbolizing the broken star, a corrupt lawman who tries to take the money and run.
It's eight thousand dollars in gold, but the owner will spend ten times that to get it back.
This isn't likely to turn out well for Howard Duff, translating Spanish badly and running out of luck at Lost Doggy Creek.
Better stick with the cop shows. |
tt0058063 | Ercole contro i tiranni di Babilonia | Asparia, Queen of the Hellenes, has been captured by the Babylonians, but she manage to hide her identity and lives as a common slave in Babylon. Hercules, played by Peter Lupus (credited as Rock Stevens), is sent to free her. The Babylonian slavers begin to hear rumors and stories of a single man who can overcome any army he faces. Asparia conspires with another slave to send a message of her whereabouts to Hercules, who soon is heading towards Babylon.
The three siblings who rule Babylon—beautiful Taneal, warlike Salman Osar and more conservative Azzur—are visited by King Phaleg of Assyria. Phaleg showers the three with gifts, offering up untold riches in exchange for all of the slaves in Babylon. The siblings are suspicious of Phaleg's motives, thinking he means to raise an army from the slaves. Taneal seduces and drugs the Assyrian king, discovering that he intends to find Queen Asparia and marry her, creating a powerful empire of Assyria and Hellas. The siblings agree to stop this, and send troops to ambush the king. Hercules discovers the plan and aids the Assyrians, as the Babylonians are his enemy, and saves the life of the king. Phaleg makes Hercules take a loyalty oath, and then sends him to Babylon, along with several of his men, to retrieve Asparia.
In Babylon, each of the siblings is conspiring against the other; Salman Osar and Azzur both wish to marry Asparia and form an empire, while Taneal intends to steal the wealth of the city and then destroy it by the means of a giant subterranean wheel which supports the foundation of all Babylon. Hercules is able to locate Asparia, and then begins to turn the giant wheel and destroy the city. Salman Osar kills his brother, then is crushed by falling debris while attempting to kill his sister. As Hercules' Assyrian escorts attempt to steal Asparia away to Phaleg, Taneal takes the Queen hostage herself. Phaleg and his large contingent of cavalry ride in to claim his new bride, but they are met by Hercules as well as the freed Babylonian slaves. Phaleg is killed by Hercules, and his soldiers routed; Taneal seemingly poisons herself rather than face the judgement of Hercules and Asparia. In the end, Hercules leads Asparia and the Hellenes back to their homeland. | cult, murder, violence | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0034428 | Across the Pacific | In late 1941, Captain Rick Leland (Humphrey Bogart) is court-martialed and discharged from the U.S. Coast Artillery after he is caught stealing. He tries to join the Canadian Army, but is coldly rebuffed. He subsequently boards a Japanese ship, the Genoa Maru, in Halifax, apparently to make his way to China via the Panama Canal to fight for Chiang Kai-shek.
On board, he meets Canadian Alberta Marlow (Mary Astor) and Dr. Lorenz (Sydney Greenstreet), a professor of sociology who makes no secret of his admiration of the Japanese and is thus not popular in the Philippines, where he resides. Leland, in his turn, makes it clear to Lorenz that he has no loyalty toward his country and would fight for anyone willing to pay him.
During a stop in New York, Leland, revealed as a secret agent trailing Lorenz, reports to Colonel Hart (Paul Stanton), an undercover Army Intelligence officer. Lorenz is a known enemy spy, but Hart and Leland are uncertain about Marlow. Upon returning to the ship, Leland surprises a Filipino man (Rudy Robles) who is about to shoot Lorenz, thus gaining Lorenz's confidence. Second-generation Japanese-American Joe Totsuiko (Victor Sen Yung) embarks as a passenger. Lorenz attempts to gather details from Leland concerning the military installations guarding the Panama Canal. Meanwhile, Marlow and Leland engage in a light-hearted romance.
As they arrive in Panama, the captain announces that the ship has been denied passage through the strategically vital canal and will be forced to take a long detour around Cape Horn. Leland, Marlow and Lorenz disembark to wait for another ship. Several crates are unloaded addressed to a Dan Morton at the Bountiful Plantation. Lorenz asks Leland, who was once stationed in the area, to procure up-to-date schedules for the American planes that patrol the canal. Leland meets with his local contact, A. V. Smith (Charles Halton), and convinces him to provide the real schedules, as Lorenz could easily find out if he were given fake ones. The date is December 6, 1941 - the eve of the attack on Pearl Harbor.
Having delivered the schedules after haggling with Lorenz over their price, Leland is knocked out. He wakes up several hours later and finds out that both Lorenz and Marlow have left the hotel. He immediately calls Smith and warns him to change the patrol schedule, then, on a tip from an informer (Philip Ahn) inside a movie theatre, heads out to the Bountiful Plantation, where he sees a torpedo bomber being prepared. He is captured, however, and brought inside to Lorenz, Marlow, and Totsuiko. Marlow turns out to be the daughter of the plantation's owner, Dan Morton (Monte Blue), a drunk whose weakness was exploited to provide a base for espionage activities. To Leland's relief, Marlow's only stake in the affair is concern for her father.
Lorenz reveals that they killed Smith before he could have the schedule changed, and that they are planning to torpedo the Panama Canal Locks. After Lorenz leaves for the landing field, Leland overpowers Totsuiko after the latter shoots Morton. Leland makes his way to the field where he takes over a machine gun and shoots down the bomber aircraft, piloted by no less than an Imperial Japanese prince, as it is about to take off. Leland dispatches Lorenz's men in the ensuing firefight. Returning to the house, he finds a defeated Lorenz attempting to commit seppuku, but his nerve fails him and he begs Leland to shoot him in the head. Leland refuses, saying his prisoner has "a date with Army intelligence." | murder | train | wikipedia | A good spy caper starring Humphrey Bogart as Rick Leland, a court-martialled US Army officer who finds himself in the middle of a nifty little bit of espionage work on board a Japanese freighter bound from Halifax to Yokohama via the Panama Canal just before the attack on Pearl Harbour.
Surrounded by a rather suspicious group of characters, from his love interest Alberta Marlow (Mary Astor) to Dr. Lorenz (Sydney Greenstreet), Leland slowly uncovers a Japanese plot to attack the Canal Zone (presumably also on December 7) and sets himself to preventing it.This was a good performance by Bogart, along with good performances from Astor and Greenstreet.
All the action in the movie takes place either on the Japanese freighter as it travels south down the ATLANTIC coast of North America or in the Panama Canal Zone (with some minor scenes in Halifax, where Leland is rejected by the Canadian Army, and in New York City, where he snoops for information.) The only Pacific connection to the movie is that the freighter was Japanese.
And remember, of course, that this was made in 1942 (after Pearl Harbour.) The depiction of the Japanese isn't especially flattering (although I thought it was more a play on stereotypes than openly antagonistic), and the closing shot of the film is the wartime requisite showing off of American military strength.All in all, though, I enjoyed this movie immensely, and would highly recommend it.8/10.
The events that follow involve a love interest (Mary Astor) and an enemy agent (Sydney Greenstreet) and a trip on a passenger ship from New York to the Panama Canal.
Humphrey Bogart as an American spy is convincing in a role that might have been played by Sean Connery 20 years later.The subplot of a Japanese plot to torpedo the Panama Canal and put it out of action was a case of truth being stranger than fiction with the recent revelation of Japanese submarines which carried planes designed to knock the canal out, but which were never used.
Only the majority of the movie was completed for John Huston went off to join the war effort(another filmmaker involved with the film named Vincent Sherman ended up filming the final scenes)..
When dishonorably discharged Army Officer Humphrey Bogart is revealed to be a spy staking out a powerful Japanese sympathizer aboard a vessel to the Orient, the portly commander was originally supposed to be supervising the bombing of Pearl Harbor.
Bogart (playing 'Rick', sometimes 'Ricky') is in jovial spirits throughout, especially when comparing gun sizes with Sydney Greenstreet (never better) or fingering Astor's back after she's acquired a sunburn; his blithe, easy performance makes the film enjoyable.
Same principle actors -- Bogart, Mary Astor, Sidney Greenstreet -- no Peter Lorre fondling the handle of his cane, alas, and no gunsel -- and, for the most part, the same Director, John Huston.
(To be fair, the last one is Korean, not Chinese.) If the characters are not nearly as much fun to watch as in "The Maltese Falcon," the plot is no more than a simple war-time mystery involving secret information that the Japanese want to use to start the war by torpedoing the locks of the Panama Canal.
Mary Astor, while not the pretty face that she was built up to be here and in "The Maltese Falcon", gives another great performance, and unlike Bogart, she was always able to give characters in a similar vein (in this case, the mysterious woman), each their own personalities.
Victor Sen Young, who played a great shark grinned scumbag in "The Letter", does good here, looking very happy that he at least was able to speak coherently for once in a motion picture.Huston's direction is really worth looking at, especially visually stunning during a sequence at a movie theater.
The final 15 minutes seem extremely out of place with the rest of the film, and its a shame Huston wasn't around a little bit longer to round up what could have been a quintessential piece of a feature 40's pulp movie.Worth seeing, its a film that falls short of greatness, but man is it entertaining..
Even though there are parts of this film that will probably be offensive to some of the more delicate modern viewers, it is still a rousing tale of espionage, murder, treason and heroism.I have watched ATP several times, and have enjoyed it thoroughly each time, looking past its warts and bumps to the heart of a fun pulp story acted out by some of my favorite actors (Bogey, Astor and Greenstreet).
He meets a mysterious woman on a boat while supposedly going to work for Chiang Kai Scheck in China (strange little point to make) and has all kinds of strange encounters and adventures along the way, falling in love, saving the day, and fighting those evil Japs...By the way, the film actually does make a certain responsible choice to demonstrate that not all Japanese people are bad guys.
Coming soon after The Maltese Falcon, Across the Pacific is something of a mystery movie too.Rick Leland (Humphrey Bogart) is a disgraced military man with dubious loyalties.
Films made around this time always have an interesting behind the scenes story, and "Across the Pacific" from 1942 is no different.Rick Leland (Humphrey Bogart) is court-marshaled and booted out of the service; he then heads for Canada and attempts to enlist, but the Canadians know who he is and say they can't use him.Leland then leaves on a Japanese ship for the Orient, making no bones about the fact that his talents are for sale!
Huston said, "That's your problem!" and left.Originally this film had to do with stopping an attack on Pearl Harbor, but we all know what happened there, so the plot was changed to the Panama Canal.I liked this film - there is a lot of light repartee between Bogart and Astor, which is fun and makes the film less intense than it might have been.
Bogey spends the entire film trying to figure out not only what the dastardly scheme is, but just how Astor fits into it, because he's fallen for her.World War II was the greatest time for employment for oriental players except Japanese ones.
Leland (Bogart) goes undercover among a shipload of suspicious characters to foil a Japanese plot on the Panama Canal.No movie with the great Sydney Greenstreet can afford to be passed up.
He is reunited with his co-stars, Astor and Greenstreet, both in fine form, and director Huston from "The Maltese Falcon." Unfortunately, the script is rather convoluted and rambling, seemingly written in a rush to cash in on the success of the earlier film.
It strikes me as one of the movies that Bogey made in between The Maltese Falcon and Casablanca, and thus overlooked as it was in between his two greatest film accomplishments (treasures of the Sierra Madre, Key Largo and The Big Sleep excepted).#1 The cast of Bogart, Astor and Greenstreet are amazing.
First I have to disagree with the person who wrote that it shows the standard and expected stereotypes of a 1942 movie (set in war time).I found that many touches in the movie - such as the explanation of Ju Jitsu, Japanese poetry, and generational differences, as well as subtle looks as different generations and political beliefs, gave quite a fresh world view.Though I must say everyone should see all of them - I'm in the middle of a Bogart marathon and it's great to hear that he uses "Angel" and other terms of endearment in all his films.
Across the Back Lot at Warner Brothers
A Rush Job. Entertaining Studio Wartime Production with Major Stars Humphrey Bogart, Sydney Greenstreet, and Mary Astor Reunited with Director John Huston.
The Film will Never get Mentioned as Bogart or Huston's Best as the Film is Basically just a Hurried A-List Product of it's Time.The Setting was Supposed to be Pearl Harbor but was Changed because it seemed too Close for Good Taste.
I'm mostly going to echo previous sentiments, such as - this has nothing to do with the Pacific; the last third of the movie is quite different from what precedes it; you keep flashing back to the Maltese Falcon as you watch it, which isn't necessarily bad (I wish Bogie or Huston could have come up with an endearment other than Angel).
"Across the Pacific" was a film that re-united three actors from "The Maltese Falcon" and was also directed by the same director, John Huston.
The character Sidney plays (Dr. Lorenz) makes a great psychological nemesis for Bogie (Rick Leland) as they do in most of their films together.
Across the Pacific (1942) *** 1/2 (out of 4) Suspenseful war-time thriller from Warner has Humphrey Bogart playing the bitter Rick Leland, a man who turns his back on his country after being court martialed.
He finds himself on a Japanese vessel heading towards the Panama Canal where he meets Dr. Lorenz (Sydney Greenstreet) who has spent the past thirty-years working in the orient and a strange woman (Mary Astor) who maybe hiding many secrets of her own.
Having Bogart fight off the Japanese the day before we know about the real Pearl Harbor adds some nice suspense to the film because it makes us realize that this type of plot really could have happened and this is one of the best examples of mixing fact and fiction to create a neat little thriller.
Across the Pacific is a must-see if you like The Maltese Falcon, since Humphrey Bogart, Mary Astor, and Sydney Greenstreet are reunited in another exciting film noir.
Think Humphrey Bogart, Mary Astor, and Sydney Greenstreet along with John Huston and what do you come up with?
In fact the movie seems to have ended in the early morning hours of December 7, 1941 Panama time something like eight hours before the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor actually happened.Capt.
All this made the film a bit odd by realizing that the war-like action was happening before the first Japanese bombs, and torpedoes, struck the Pacific Fleet docked at Pearl Harbor..
As for Bogart, Greenstreet,Astor and Huston, see "The Maltese Falcon", they play the same roles and the movie is much better..
He travels then on a passenger ship from New York to the Panama Canal, its actually a Japanese ship and on the journey he is joined by Mary Astor and Sidney Greenstreet.
its a film with Humour, Adventure, Drama and action, and with Greenstreet, Astor and Bogart who also appeared in ' The Maltese Falcon' together, you could blink and in certain scenes think you are actually watching The Maltese Falcon.
Not only did "Across the Pacific" add some brightness to Bogart's rising stature as an actor, it more than justified the promise shown by director John Huston after his success with "The Maltese Falcon."The story begins on November 17, 1941.
Lt. Rick Leland (Humphrey Bogart) is being cashiered from the Army at Governor's Island, New York
The reasons are vague, but before five minutes have passed, Bogie is decked out in his familiar trenchcoat
Leland tries to enlist in the Canadian army, but his disgrace is so widespread that they won't have him
Wondering aloud if perhaps the Japanese will take him on, Leland buys a ticket on the 'Genoa Maru' bound for Yokohama via the Panama Canal
On board the freighter, Leland meets Alberta Marlow (Mary Astor), who lies about her past, and Dr. Lorenz (Sydney Greenstreet), a sociologist with an undisguised affinity for all things Japanese
It's really not spoiling anything to reveal that Leland is engaged in counterespionage because neither Huston nor the screenwriters take the material very seriously
For most of the film, they're more interested in the cutesy shipboard romance between Leland and Albertagetting seasick, drunk, sunburned
As a thriller, the film doesn't really get wound up until the third act, when it has a few fine moments, most memorably a long chase scene in a Spanish-language movie theater, and a conventional conclusion
Sydney Greenstreet was excellent as a jovial yet cunning Japanese sympathizer and Mary Astor played a doubtful role with the same mental adroitness she had displayed in "The Maltese Falcon." Bogart, of course, carried the story line here and it was a delight to watch his enigmatic character change from one of calculated indifference to that of relentless determination....
This is a good vehicle for Humphrey Bogart, who plays a GI pretending to be kicked out of the military to act as a sort of spy on some Americans that are up to no good with the Japanese, scheduled right around the bombing of Pearl Harbor, However, in this case the action is taking place centered around the Panama Canal.
Director John Huston, right from the big success of THE MALTESE FALCON, recruits Humphrey Bogart to play ex-Army officer Rick Leland in this World War II propaganda flick.
He has some crackling good dialogue to share with Mary Astor and Sydney Greenstreet and director John Huston keeps things moving at a lively pace with the usual amount of twists and turns.Only problem is this is one of those espionage tales full of hidden identities--a bit disconcerting considering how complicated the plot is.
Bogey's immediately pre-Casablanca movie re-unites him with his co- stars Astor and Greenstreet and his writer/director of The Maltese Falcon, John Huston.
Although the script doesn't measure up to Maltese Falcon standards, it's entertaining enough if not taken too critically and provides some wonderful opportunities for star turns by Bogey, Astor, Greenstreet and a wonderful support cast of delightful oriental off-beats led by Victor Sen Yung as a cheery thug, Chester Gan as the philosophical ship's captain ("It is the Japanese way.
Directed by John Huston, though finished by Vincent Sherman when Huston was called into war service, with a screenplay by Richard Macaulay that was based on a story by Robert Carson (or Garson, depending upon the source), this war adventure attempted to recapture the magic that director Huston shared with three of its leads in the previous year's The Maltese Falcon (1941).In this one, Humphrey Bogart plays Rick Leland (in his next film, he would play his most famous Rick; Blaine in Casablanca (1942)), Mary Astor plays Alberta Marlow, and Sydney Greenstreet plays Dr. Lorenz.
All three are involved in an intrigue that couldn't have been more timely, a Japanese attempt to blow up the Panama Canal (the original story involved Pearl Harbor, hence the film's incongruent title, which actually was attacked during the production).
Across the Pacific (1941)This is some kind of cross between "Maltese Falcon" and the "Casablanca" and it has a cast that covers both movies, even though it is usually matched to the former since it shares the same director, the great young John Huston.
Not long afterward, the Japanese contact Rick (Humphrey Bogart of "The Maltese Falcon") and arrange his passage to Panama on Nipponese freighter Genoa Maru.
He should know, he was there for both, reuniting with fellow co-stars Humphrey Bogart and Mary Astor in a tale of espionage and intrigue touted with the tag line "behind every smile an invitation to disaster".The film opens on November 17, 1941, with Bogie's character Rick Leland summarily dismissed from the Army for the indiscretion of borrowing military funds.
This aging movie, made right after The Maltese Falcon, was probably seen as a lark by John Huston, Humphrey Bogart, Mary Astor and Sydney Greenstreet.
Bogart and Greenstreet give the movie energy, and to see Mary Astor, if you have any sense, is to fall in love with her.
On board he meets Dr Lorenz (Sydney Greenstreet) a sociologist and a man who openly admires the Japanese and the beautiful Alberta Marlow (Mary Astor) who says she's on vacation.While it's not as good as The Maltese Falcon (from which it draws four of its principals) the film still has some wonderful elements reminiscent of former film including some wonderful dialog, particularly the flirting between Bogart and Astor but almost any conversation is enjoyable.The story works both as an effective spy thriller but also as one of the first propaganda pieces to be put out by Hollywood following the attack upon Pearl Harbor.
So, the wonderful acting of Bogie along with Mary Astor and Greenstreet (both who appeared with Bogart in THE MALTESE FALCON), the acting is the best part of the film.
It is noteworthy she is about 7 years younger than Bogie, yet he looks good in this one.Even though this is war propaganda, it plays pretty much like a noir film as far as Bogies role, as he plots to try and stop a spy ring whose plan is to bomb the Panama Canal on the same day Pearl Harbor is bombed.
Although, this time the leading character is not a private detective and Mary Astor and Sydney Greenstreet are NOT vying for a bird made of gold, it has the same intrigue and the same actors as the famous murder mystery, The Maltese Falcon.This 1942 movie is set in the month of November and December 1941, the month leading up to the devastating attack on the U.S. Navy at Pearl Harbor.
After the Former, Mr. B.'s resume qualified him as a more than competent Leading Man in Action film; whereas the Latter proved his worth as a Romantic lead.WITH THE RELEASE of this wartime drama, ACROSS THE PACIFIC (Warner Bros./1942), we witness the re-uniting of THE MALTESE FAlCON's Director, John Huston with Bogart, Mary Astor and Sydney Grenstreet.
Though I personally cannot see what our boys fighting the Axis saw in Bogart's co-star here, Mary Astor, apparently she had a role in another previous effort from Humphrey, THE MALTESE FALCON, along with a fat dude named Sydney Greenstreet, who rounds out a trio reunited for PACIFIC.
Still, This is vintage Bogart, directed by John Huston, supported by Astor and Greenstreet, and that isn't a bad combination at all.The most disturbing character is that portrayed by Sen Young, of a second-generation Japanese-American working for the Japanese. |
tt0280653 | Amen. | During World War II, Kurt Gerstein (Ulrich Tukur), a Waffen-SS officer employed in the SS Hygiene Institute, designs programs for the purification of water and the destruction of vermin. He is shocked to learn that the process he has developed to eradicate typhus, by using a hydrogen cyanide mixture called Zyklon B, is now being used for killing Jews and other "undesirables" in extermination camps. Gerstein attempts to notify Pope Pius XII (Marcel Iureş) about the gassings, but is appalled by the lack of response he gets from the Catholic hierarchy. The only person moved is Riccardo Fontana (Mathieu Kassovitz), a young Jesuit priest. Fontana and Gerstein attempt to raise awareness about what is happening to the Jews in Europe but even after Fontana appealing to the pope himself, the Vatican makes only a timid and vague condemnation of Hitler and Nazi Germany.
Eventually Gerstein travels to Rome to speak to the pope himself but when he arrives the Germans are taking control of Rome and begin rounding up the Jews of Rome to be sent to concentration camps. Fontana begs the Pope to force the Germans to stop the deportation by appearing at the train station in person but the Pope refuses, saying that doing so will cause hardship for the Christians under Nazi Germany. In disgust and sorrow Fontana puts a Yellow badge on himself and allows himself to be taken on the train of Jews going to the concentration camps. When he arrives at the camp Fontana is interrogated by the head of the camp, a 'friend' of Kurt Gerstein known simply as the Doctor (who is believed to be Dr. Josef Mengele), who despite knowing that the war is lost and that Fontana is a Catholic priest allows Fontana to stay with the Jews and be gassed.
Gerstein attempts to save Fontana but he will not leave. The Doctor escorts Gerstein out of the camp after Fontana and most of the Jews are killed; they drive by German soldiers digging up and burning the bodies of Jews in a mass grave near the camp and the Doctor asks Gerstein if he knows any contacts to help get him out of Germany. Gerstein returns home and gathers all his evidence that documents the Nazi atrocities and takes them to the Allies. Despite accepting his evidence he is still arrested and after reading the charges against him he is found hanged in his cell. Afterward the Doctor is seen speaking to a Cardinal in Rome asking for help leaving the country saying "I'm a doctor, just a physician" and the cardinal agrees to help send him to Argentina.
While the character of Kurt Gerstein is historical, the character of the young priest is fictional. Although based on the action of Gerstein to stop and bring global awareness to the Holocaust, the plot is largely fictitious. | murder | train | wikipedia | Costa-Gavras has made an important movie with 'Amen.' which looks at the holocaust-tragedy from another point of view which is seldom showed.
But when you take on the large institutions of society, when you make them accountable and demand that they fess up to their inadequacies, and that they not allow it to happen again, then you get the kind of permanent, positive change that is not eroded by a capricious shift in the political winds.The amazing thing about this film was the powerful effect it achieved with very little, if any, shocking footage.
Instead of making his point with stark images, the way so many other films have, Gavras keeps hammering the shear logistics, the size of the camps, the amounts of the gas needed, the HUGE numbers of people that had to be transported.
Gerstein's confrontation with his old friend, the transportation officer, points out how people could vilify certain nazis (SS and Gestapo), and yet remain conveniently ignorant of their own complicity.The Vatican issued a watered down apology in 1998, admitting partial culpability and asking forgiveness.
"Amen," a film based on the largely accurate account of German SS officer Kurt Gerstein's multiple attempts to alert the Vatican to the ongoing highly efficient mass slaughter of Jews and others - for which he bore no small responsibility as a technician facilitating efficient genocide - is well done with excellent acting.
"Amen's" Kurt Gerstein and his priest friend both believe that would have happened.That argument is at best questionable and, more likely, reflects the human need for the wish to spawn the thought.
Whether one accepts the Goldenhagen thesis of mass complicity by Germans in the Holocaust, the fact remains that when the slaughter began Germany was at war and, as a character in "Amen" notes, defending the Reich and winning the war, to say nothing of staying clear of what would be seen as treasonous ideas, was the only realistic option.Kurt Gerstein is a mystery.
He gives quick and accurate advice to improve destruction of the "units," as the Jews were referred to, and then tries to prevent use of the Zyklon B gas he helped develop with almost unbelievable declarations that shipments are defective and must be buried.This film owes its origin not so much to Friedlander's compelling account but to Rolf Hochhuth's controversial (still so after many years) "The Deputy," presented as a play to the outrage of many.
Hochhuth portrayed Pope Pius XII as insensitive and unwilling to use his moral authority to challenge an extermination program he knew to be in progress.In the film Gerstein is aided by a young Jesuit priest whose remarkable moral and physical courage was demonstrated by a few, or perhaps too few, clerics who knew what was happening.
The Pope Pius of "Amen" lacks the depth a more accurate and compelling portrayal would have provided.The strongest moments in the film are those briefly showing the efficiency of the death camps focusing less on the victims, most of whom aren't shown, but rather on the chillingly competent technicians and logisticians without whose efforts millions could not have been murdered.Director Costa-Gravas deserves much credit for bringing a difficult to tell complex story to the screen.
Saving a long-despised race thought to be the root cause of every world problem is very much another.Gerstein's attempts to alert the Vatican are channelled through an invented character, a young Catholic priest who symbolises the conscience of thousands of individual Catholics who risked their lives to help Jews.
The Eyes of God. The challenge for Kurt Gerstein after the war, in the hands of the allies, and for Costa-Gavras in this film, is to convince us that he, Kurt Gerstein S.S. officer, was bravely acting as the "eyes of God" in watching the holocaust unfold before his eyes.
We follow Kurt Gerheim (an admirable performance by Ulrich Tukur), a perfectly Aryan, protestant SS-Officer who tries to speak out against Nazi attrocities, and Ricardo Fontana, a young catholic cleric (played to the utmost by the marvellous Matthieu Kassovitz) who joins him in his fight.
Both find solace in the hope that they will put an end to the holocaust.This is noticeably a continental European film, with brilliant direction and dazzlingly good acting, more Gosford Park than Schindler's List in terms of pace.
The idealist Jesuit priest Riccardo Fontana (Mathieu Kassovitz) from an influent Italian family gives his best efforts being the liaison of Gerstein and the leaders of the Vatican.I do not have the knowledge of history to know whether this story is accurate or manipulative, but as a movie it is powerful and striking.
Costa-Gavras directs this film about Holocaust based on the history of the German Kurt Gerstein, who unsuccessfully tried to tell the world about the mass murderers in the concentration camps.
With regard to the role of the Catholic Church, I believe the exposition is simplistic and does not show the big picture of the political environment that the Vatican was living in that historical moment, focusing only in the attempt of the SS officer in having an audience with the Pope.
A German SS officer, Kurt Gerstein(Ulrich Tukur), finds out about the crimes against millions of Jews.
That scene with the insouciant fat-and-happy Cardinals and politicians gorging themselves on seafood on a Vatican City balcony overlooking St. Peters probably ranks as anti-Catholic propaganda right up there with the most exaggerated anti-Jewish Nazi propaganda.Of all the concentration camps in Germany and Poland, how did that priest wind up at Kurt's?
That Pius XII was silent in the face of the Holocaust; that he did little to help the Jews; that he was in fact pro-German if not pro-Nazi; that underneath it all he was anti-Semitic--all are monstrous calumnies that now seem to pass for accepted wisdom.
He is virtually accusing the German people of injustice toward Jews and makes himself the mouthpiece of the Jewish war criminals."In February 1942, Protestant and Catholic leaders of Nazi-occupied Holland prepared a letter condemning the deportation of Jews to death camps in "the East." But only the Catholic bishops, "following the path indicated by our Holy Father," read the letter aloud from the pulpit despite threats from the Nazis.
I think we are naive if we think one more hero could have stopped it."It is also naive to complain--as The New York Times did last week--that Pius XII "did not encourage Catholics to defy Nazi orders." He could hardly direct others to court certain death and remain politically neutral himself.
Splendid film dealing with SS lieutenant Kurt Gerstein attempts to inform Pope Pius XII about Jews being sent to concentration camps and massacred.
The picture talks an officer Gestapo named Kurt Gerstein (Ulrich Tukur) in charge of Zyklon B , a deadly chemical gas used for killing Jews in the death's showers from concentration camps as Treblinka , Sorbibor , Auschwitz , Majanek , Manthausen ,....
He denounces and explains Pope Pio XII (Marcel Iures) the situation of the Jews's genocide .The pic is correctly based on historic deeds and famous personages as Pio XII and Nazi chiefs who don't appear in the film but they're continuously named as Goering , Goebbles , Himmler , Eichmann ,thus as notorious events as Stalingrado (1943) where Nazis have the first important defeat and the bombing strikes over the Germany cities (Berlin , Dresde) .
Its story, about the attempt of two people to inform the early 1940s world about the Nazi death camps, accused Pope Pius XII of failing to speak out against the removal of Jews from Rome when his doing so might have saved thousands of lives.
It is along the lines of The Deputy, it does not dig deeply into what the Pope was doing, rather if focuses on a fictional main story between these other two characters (though yes Kurt Gerstein was a real person).The main purpose of this story is very clearly promoting the idea that the Church was too silent and let Hitler have his way.
"Amen" is a moving and disturbing account of the attempt of an SS officer and a young Jesuit priest to inform the Vatican of the atrocities committed by the NAZIS against the Jews and to persuade the Vatican to speak out.
The movie's subject is the neglect of the Catholic Church and Allied powers to acknowledge the annihilation of European Jews, and their collective failure to offer any moral or strategic response to the Holocaust.Adapted from Rolf Hochhuth's six-hour 1963 play "The Deputy," "Amen" is shaped as moral inquiry, a meditation on the consequences of protest and complicity.
It offers a sharp critique of the historical role played by the Church without veering into anti-Catholicism, and it is equally critical of the German Protestant community.On its own terms, "Amen" is a memorably film..
It is an excellent movie that shows us the brutality and cruelty of the Nazis and the silence of the Vatican and some Protestant churches in the Holocaust.
As a Catholic, it shocked me how the Vatican, lots of priests and nuns helped the Nazis in their madness of killing Jews (mostly) and other people such as gipsies, homosexual persons etc.
Everybody must know that the Pope Pie XII and lots of priests, cardinals and nuns kept silent, althoug I must admit that other Catholics really helped the Jews.
He entirely overlooks the fact that until the defeat of Nazi Germany, no tangible evidence of the holocaust was available, and therefore, the world leaders of the time did not have a concrete basis upon which to act, let alone take positions and denounce the atrocities.In the end, Gavras' version of the events is nothing new, but a desperate attempt to underscore the rumours already in circulation.
An interesting side story that was left out of the movie is the fact that Gerstein actually served time in a concentration camp for his anti-Nazi activities before joining and advancing in the SS.
Without being an apologist for the Catholic church, however, I should like to question where fiction and historical facts merge and separate in the film.
Centering on action distracts from the topics that justify the film -- not to mention that this leaves the action script with the minor problem that all viewers know the ending full well: nothing happened to stop the death camps.Thinking Amen had been shot in French, I saw it in French.
As for Fontana, the young Jesuit Vatican diplomat -- The film is very good at showing how every religious superior he faces clearly tells him it's no use bringing coals to Newcastle, or news of the elimination of the Jews of Europe to the Holy Father.
This is somehow what the roman-cahtolic church said, when they were informed about the Holocaust - the killed people were Jews and because of that not in the pope`s business.
Ironically, the two people who knew about that and tried to change the churchs attitude towards the Hitler-Regime ("awful, but better than the Comunists!") were a catholic priest (invented, but representing the priests that fought against Hitler and died), what is not that surprising, and a Top-SS-Officer, Kurt Gerstein to be exact (NOT invented as the whole plot is NOT invented - shocking but true!), the man who delivered the Cyclon-B, which IS surprising.
mass-murdering with the Amen of the Vatikan.This film is one of the most important in dealing with guilt an history - not only for Germany - as one can see, for far more actors than we all thought.
Bold historical drama from political maestro Costa-Gavras deals unapologetically with State and Church reactions during the Nazi occupation in Europe.Centered around one priest and one SS Lieutenant, Amen is filled with history's dark underside during WW2 and is touted as a summation of this important director's career.
But what surprises me is that it is quite difficult to find information about the role of the Roman-Catholic church during the war, let alone to find a movie based on these facts.
For as far as I know, there is only one, this one..."Amen" tells us the story of Kurt Gerstein, a brilliant German chemist who is recruited into the SS during the first years of the Second World War. In his function of sanitation engineer, he travels to Eastern Europe, where he is sent to supervise the water purification for the German army.
The people in the movie talk about certain events that happened in the war, for instance the fall of Stalingrad, and this helps you to situate it all.There might never have existed one priest who was able to go directly to the Pope and probably the remorseful SS-officer never existed either, but that doesn't mean the story isn't any good.
The film is about the Holocaust; more precisely it is about the role the Catholic Church played in not condemning the extermination of the Jews.
One of a plethora of films about the WWII Jewish holocaust, "Amen" is a fact/fiction accounting of German SS officer Kurt Gerstein's futile attempts to ameliorate the extermination of Jews in Nazi death camps; particularly his appeals to Pope Pius XII whose papacy was at the center of a firestorm of postwar criticism for everything from negligence to cowardice.
One of a plethora of films about the WWII Jewish holocaust, "Amen" is a fact/fiction accounting of German SS officer Kurt Gerstein's futile attempts to ameliorate the extermination of Jews in Nazi death camps; particularly his appeals to Pope Pius XII whose papacy was at the center of a firestorm of postwar criticism for everything from negligence to cowardice.
He was approaching 70 when he directed and co-wrote "Amen" in 2002 which, like the other pictures, was based on actual characters and incidents.This time, Costa-Gavras tackles one of the largest moral issues of the last century: the Nazi Holocaust.
Instead unusually the viewpoint is that of a German SS officer and member of the Institute for Hygiene of the Waffen-SS called Kurt Gerstein, a devout member of the Protestant Confessing Church, who astonishingly witnessed mass murders in the Nazi extermination camps of Belzec and Treblinka and made desperate efforts to inform the wider world and specifically to bring amount condemnation by Pope Pius XII.Although an English-language film, most of the actors are German - Ulrich Tukur plays Gerstein - and, although set in Germany, Italy and Poland, all of the shooting was in Romania.
Its was a good fictional story based on a real one about an SS officer Kurt Gerstein who witness the holocaust extermination and tried to warn the rest of the word through the Vatican about the Nazi crimes against the Jews and other minorities, his reports have been used by the Alies to prove the rumors about concentration camps.
In truth the movie only claims that the head of the catholic church did nothing and in the end even helped some Nazis to escape Europe but thats actually a historical fact and its not fiction, it does not means that catholics faith or catholics are bad many have saved Jews by hiding them and even the second protagonist is a catholic priest how tries to inform the pope and save the Jews..
Amen., Costa-Gavras's 2002 movie about the role of The Vatican in World War II was certain to be controversial, as opinions are strongly felt, relevant information is still secreted in Vatican archives, and the movie is based on a controversial play, The Deputy, by an erratic German playwright, Rolf Hochhuth.
"Amen" is an engrossing film about the holocaust that was getting under way in Europe during WW II and the responses, as I see it, of four men: two SS officers and two members of the Catholic clergy, a priest and the Pope himself, Pius XII.
One may well ask what's a fellow of normal moral sensitivity doing in the SS, but he's a legitimate historical character who has left behind much documentation.) The SS chemist, although a non-Catholic, believes in the moral influence of the Catholic church and so informs a Catholic priest, and much of the latter part of the film depicts the priest trying to influence the Pope, when he can get an audience, to speak out publicly and uncompromisingly to the world about the ongoing Nazi genocide of European Jews.Why the Catholic church?
There's no question that the director has taken a critical, perhaps hostile, view of Pius XII and the Vatican in his film of their response to the holocaust.
I have read up on him after viewing this film and have discovered that he allowed Catholic monasteries and churches to shelter Jews throughout the war.
The actor who played Kurt Gerstein was quite excellent; likewise for the guy who played Riccardo, the priest (I think he was in that movie, Amelie).I believe that this film ranks up there with Schindler's List, The Pianist, Night and Fog, and Escape from Sobibor.
For me Amen represents Costa-Gavras' return to good film-making.
And in Amen he explored the touchy subject of the Holy Catholic Church's involvement in the Holocaust.Costa-Gavras' questions are: why didn't the Pope get more involved in opposing the murder of Jews?
The story follows two men: Kurt Gerstein, a Catholic SS officer who discovers the Nazis are exterminating the Jews and tries to warn the allies and the Vatican for them to intervene and save millions; and Riccardo Fontana, a priest trying to get the Vatican to listen to Gerstein.
examines the links between the Vatican and Nazi Germany that stars Ulrich Tukur,Mathieu Kassovitz,Ion Caramitru and Marcel Iureş.It is a German, Romanian and French film written and directed by Costa-Gavras.
One man who does believe Gerstein is Riccardo Fontana, a Jesuit with ties to the Vatican and close contact with Pope Pius XII.
In time, desperate to spread the word of the holocaust, Gerstein and Fontana find themselves joining ranks with Roman Jews being rounded up by Nazi forces in occupied Italy.Amen. |
tt0356159 | Hellbent | The night before Halloween, a gay couple are making out in a car when a bare-chested killer in a devil mask appears and decapitates them with a sickle.
Halloween, finds Eddie at his job as a police technician talking with his police officer sister. He distributes flyers about the murders and dresses in his father's police uniform for a Halloween costume. While distributing the flyers he meets Jake in a tattoo shop.
Eddie meets with his roommates, Chaz, Joey and Tobey, and they head for the West Hollywood Halloween Carnival. They visit the murder scene, the devil-masked killer appears and they taunt him because they think he's cruising them.
At the Carnival, Eddie spots Jake going and his group goes in as well. Joey sees Jared, who he's had a crush on for weeks, and offers his phone number but is dismissed. Joey goes to the restroom with Chaz. Chaz consoles him, then goes to wait for him outside. Chaz takes ecstasy and leaves when he sees a good looking guy. Jared catches up with Joey in the restroom and apologizes. The killer emerges from a stall and decapitates Joey, taking his head as a trophy.
Chaz goes into another club and the killer catches up with him on the dance floor. Chaz becomes hazy and doesn't realize that the killer is slashing his torso. Then he removes his head while the crowd dances on.
Tobey, drunk and angry that no one's hitting on him while he's in his Halloween drag, spots the killer, who's still carrying Joey and Chaz's heads in trick or treat bags. Tobey pursues the killer, who also dismisses him. When Tobey partially removes his drag, the killer returns and collects his head.
Eddie and Jake arrive back at the Meat Locker, but it's been closed following the discovery of Joey's body. Jake hops a fence to retrieve his motorcycle. Eddie goes after him but Jake's circled around and is back outside. The killer appears behind Eddie and swings his sickle, but misses. Eddie locks himself in a small enclosure and the tip of the killer's blade scrapes Eddie's eye. Jake arrives with a cop and the killer takes off.
Eddie and Jake give their statements at police headquarters and Jake learns that Eddie's eye is artificial. They go back to Eddie's place and start having sex. Jake handcuffs Eddie to his bed and goes in search of condoms. As he's returning, the killer stabs him and leaves him for dead. Eddie hears the struggle and calls out. As the killer approaches and Eddie struggles with the cuffs, Jake hits the killer from behind with a baseball bat. Eddie slips a hand out of the cuffs, tends to Jake's wound and heads off to call an ambulance, but the killer disables the phone. Eddie runs to the kitchen. He finds a knife but also finds the heads of Joey, Chaz and Tobey in a closet. Eddie evades the killer and retreats to his bedroom. As the killer chops at the door, Eddie retrieves his father's gun and some bullets. He gets Jake out onto the fire escape and loads the gun. The killer attacks Eddie yet again, this time sucking Eddie's artificial eye out of his head and knocking him over a railing. With Eddie dangling from the fire escape, the killer returns to Jake. Eddie retrieves the gun and fires, first hitting Jake and then hitting the killer square in the forehead.
Jake is packed off to the hospital and Eddie promises to be there when he wakes up. Eddie's sister gloats over the fallen killer, but Eddie realizes that he's still alive. In the final moment, the killer opens his eyes and bares his teeth, disclosing that he still has Eddie's artificial eye clenched in his jaws. | violence, horror, murder | train | wikipedia | Four gay men are out for a night of fun at the infamous West Hollywood Halloween Carnival but make the big mistake to moon at a muscular fella wearing a horny mask.
They are fun loving young men celebrating who they are (as opposed to so many miserable gay characters of the past struggling with their sexuality) and witty as hell, which makes for some funny lines here and there.
Not because it was a gay slasher film, but because I was worried that the characters weren't going to be portrayed as real people, but rather caricatures of gay stereotypes.
and thankfully, with Hellbent, I did.What I got in this film was a really solid slasher flick that was really fun from beginning to end, with beautiful cinematography, plentiful gore, and a very fun locale.
While the killer has no direct motive, it works within the context of the story and the movie never gets bogged down with pacing problems.The characters, while an eclectic bunch, are all believable and keep the story moving along.
The fact that the central characters are gay quits being a gimmick after the opening scene.Judging from other reviews here, it appears as though a lot of people didn't care for this film, but I really did have a good time with it.
I saw Hellbent near the end of the Philadelphia Gay and Lesbian Film Festival.
Four gay men go out in West Hollywood on Halloween night to have a good time, unaware that the previously mentioned psycho slasher has his eye on them.
Matt Phillips is particularly effective, funny and even touching, showing the vulnerability of his character even through drag.I had the opportunity to meet Paul Etheredge-Ouzts and Matt Phillips at the film festival.
I rented this movie last night with friends and at first we were looking for a really bad movie with half naked men in it....actually looking for a homo-erotic horror by David DeCouteau.....what we found was Hellbent.....A really good horror movie....I got scared....it wasn't too campy it wasn't over the top gay....though as in most horror movies the characters sometimes do things...well quite often do things that make you say "why are you parking there?"...or .."Don't go near him."...it was just a group of gay guys ( very attractive gay guys) being stalked and I thought it was great.
I'd recommend it to any horror fan looking for a good slasher flick....the acting is decent and the effects are very well done..
The characters (a group of young gay men celebrating Halloween in West Hollywood)are well-drawn and likable.
The first gay slasher film--too bad it's not really good.
Being a gay man and a horror movie fan I was really looking forward to seeing this...but it's really not that good.Film begins with two men making out in a car--until they are attacked and beheaded by a guy in a Satan suit.
They all fit the typical slasher film stereotypes: the nice guy (Dylan Fergus); the innocent, nervous guy (Hank Harris); the party animal (Andrew Levitas) and the one who wants to be loved for his mind NOT his body (Matt Phillps as a drag queen).
And the dialogue is just dreadful--no gay man (or straight man) talks like these guys.But, all in all, it was fun seeing a slasher film with gay men and showing off some nice partial nudity (no frontal but the guys are shirtless 90% of the time and there is a group butt shot).
I'm giving this an 8 because the guys were just incredible and gave good performances...but I can't say I loved this.Recommended for gay men and horror movie fans who have no problem with gay guys.
It is time for them to "come out" and make a truly gay horror film like this one.
Yes, it is about a serial killer on one Halloween night in West Hollywood, but it also seems to be a light-hearted takeoff on all the silly teenage massacre horror films.
First gay slasher movie ever: Fun, gory, and scary.
Etheredge-Ouzts, who I met at the Philadelphia International Gay & Lesbian Film Festival, directs the first gay slasher movie ever, a fun and scary film that has nothing (other than the gay angle) original about it, but also doesn't pretend to be original.
A serial killer in West Hollywood develops a taste for hunky gay men and sets his focus on a group of gay kids attending a Halloween festival.
If this is any indication, then there will definitely be more gay slasher films (HELLBENT 2 anyone?).
Hellbent is the first gay slasher movie and it's great fun.
A hunky slab of beef is running around on Halloween killing cute young men who're having too much fun, and he's keeping their heads as trophies in this fast-moving horror flick that was surprisingly good.The lead character is a gay wanna-be-cop named Dylan who, despite his hunkiness, has a solid reason why he's not allowed to be a boy in blue (which I will not divulge here).
From the moment the lights went down this film kept the sold out crowd on the edge of their seats.The story follows a group of friends in West Hollywood at a Halloween gathering, and is well written with some predictable yet well executed plot twists.
Filmed on location during West Hollywood's annual gay Halloween parade, this gives the film a freaky feeling of even though you are surrounded by lots of people, you are still very much alone when a crazed psychopath is on the loose!!
Fun Halloween setting in West Hollywood gives the perfect opportunity for four hot guys to be beheaded at the hands of a 'horny' devil.
HELLBENT is gay-themed "mainstream" horror (from the makers of HALLOWEEN and NIGHTMARE ON ELM STREET) that doesn't pander to a homosexual demographic and "fun for the whole family" despite its R-rating, if you know what I mean.
It's a slasher movie where the characters just happen to be gay.
He didn't care if the characters were gay, but I'm sure he thought it would be a novel selling point.Like all good slasher movies Hellbent draws you in with engaging characters, some decent plot development and good death scenes and received a broad UK release through TLA Releasing, specialists in indie and homosexual interest films.
while i applaud the effort to make a "mainstream" horror film with a gay "edge", i have to honestly warn others of the absolute horribleness of this movie.
Take a mindless, murderous psycho, throw in copious amounts of beautiful men, put them all in the West Hollywood Halloween festival, and you've got "Hellbent" - truly a superb gay slasher flick!
Enter our hero, Eddie, with a heart of gold and a weakness for rough trade, and his friends Joey, Chaz and Tobey, who are planning their night out at the West Hollywood Halloween festival.Parking at the very spot where the two guys were killed the night before, they encounter the psycho on their way to the festival, and unwittingly make themselves his obsessive targets.
We follow them (while the killer follows them as well) as Joey searches for his jock crush, Tobey explains to everyone he doesn't usually dress in drag, Chaz parties very hard, and Eddie tries to connect with Jake, the bad boy he wants to get to know better.
Don't go in expecting a backstory on the killer, or why he's out stalking gay men, or too much depth overall - it is, after all, just a quintessential, formulaic slasher flick, just with a queer twist.
It's also fun (without being campy), the acting is good, the boys are hot, and it's a suspenseful and thrilling film that takes itself seriously as a real slasher film.
Hellbent Regency 2004 Color 85 minutes Gay-Horror Dylan Fergus, Bryan Kirkwood, Hank Harris, Andrew Levitas, Matt Phillips and John P.
A traditional tthrowback to the heart of the genre a film that generates goose bumps, laughs, sex appeal and good old fashioned slasher/horror!
there is almost a porn feel to it (or it could be that i've seen too much porn) and i'm getting confused.I wouldn't sell this an seminal gay movie but it's good to see something which is like a mainstream movie in which instead of a girl in a bra running away from the killer you get to see a cute guy scream and run away like a girl, *smile*.
My reason for watching Hellbent is because I love slasher movies, the good, the bad and the ugly.
There simply isn't any other possible way to describe HELLBENT than by saying it is the first gay slasher-movie.
I can imaging a conversation between the producer (P) and director (D), that lead to the making of this film, going as follows:P (enthousiastic): Let's make a slasher-flick and let's make it gay!
While there are low production values (you can see a PA in one shot making room in a crowd scene for the entrance of the four hunky lads walking into the Halloween Carnival), one can appreciate the B-movie flavor of America's first gay slasher film.
If writer-director Paul Etheredge-Ouzts had cast more talented actors willing to imbue their characters with the slightest bit of believability as WeHo gay guys, this movie might have had some credibility as the "first gay slasher" movie.
The film wasn't at all camp, (something one naturally would expect from a gay horror movie) in fact, it was pretty darn intense.
"Hellbent" is a more than entertaining slasher with a new twist to the story.**SPOILERS**Out on Halloween night, Eddie Fitzgerald, (Dylan Fergus) warns his friends Toby Weatherton, (Matt Phillips) Joey, (Hank Harris) and Chaz, (Andrew Levitas) that a serial killer may be on the loose that is targeting homosexual men.
This is a low budget, slasher film set in West Hollywood on Halloween.
That was more suspenseful and more thrilling than "1408" and "Vacancy" combined.In the end, like any slasher film, the killer survives, and I hope there's a sequel set in New York on Halloween.
But for what will more than likely be the very first slasher film with an all-gay cast of characters to hit the mainstream, it's pretty freakin' GREAT!
Having an interest to see a Slasher movie perhaps take a different route from the norm,I was surprised to recently find out that 2004 had been the year when the first ever Gay Slasher film had been made.Intriged by seeing the genre's supreme producer Joseph Wolf connected to the film,I decided to take a look at a movie which would hopefully look at the Slasher genre from a refreshingly different point of view.The plot:With the famous West Hollywood Carnival only a day away,the local police start to suspect that a serial killer is planning to turn the Carnival into a bloody mess,when the bodies of two men are found beheaded in a park.Not wanting to ruin his friends plans for the carnival,officer Eddie decides that he will keep his eyes wide open for the serial killer during the celebration,who will end up getting Eddie and his friends to paint the West Hollywood Carnival blood red.View on the film:Whilst the characters of Slasher films are seen (sometimes wrongly) as being a bit stupid,writer/director Paul Etheredge-Ouzts sadly makes Eddie and his pals some of the dumbest characters that I have seen in any film!.Despite the best efforts from the charismatic cast,Ouzts makes it almost impossible for any emotional involvement with the characters,due to their level of stupidity being miles away from the normal behaviour of having a serial killer constantly trying to chop your head off,with a number of Eddie's friends seriously asking the masked knife welding psycho if he wants a date for the night!.Although his screenplay is a disappointing,first time director Outzts keeps the movie moving at a quick pace and also shows a real flair for the set-piece murder scenes,with a brutal murder taking place in a toilet featuring an impressively done final shot,and a savage killing at a disco being extremely distinctive thanks to Ouzts wonderfully stylised directing..
But I just thought that this movie could have pushed the boundaries a bit more, as it doesn't feature any sex scenes which did kind of disappoint me in a way, but I still found this movie really fun and entertaining and the set pieces were shot brilliantly, like the carnival, the nightclubs and the final chase were all made decent good use off.Another factor that I liked about this movie was the decent cast that could have easily been one dimensional typical gay characters that feature in TV shows but gladly they weren't they were well rounded and well written firstly there was Dylan Fergus who plays the obvious final boy Eddie was just heart-warming and lovable, well at ease in his role and someone to root for in the end.
And finally Matt Phillips as the drag queen Tobey, who to be honest annoyed me at first, I dunno maybe it's the fact that we never see him out of the drag costume, but I warmed to him as the movie went on, okay his acting wasn't perfect but he still had great chemistry with the other cast members.All in all "Hell-Bent" is a fun enjoyable movie that although doesn't offer new (apart from the gay angle) to the slasher genre or change your life in any way, it's still entertaining..
Four homosexual friends take to the streets during Carnival on Halloween night in West Hollywood as a buff serial killer(with a silver devil mask), who uses a sickle to attack victims(taking their heads after decapitation), follows close behind, waiting to strike each one when they are off by themselves.
HELLBENT is probably my first male gay slasher flick and this, I figure, will be a strike against it because homophobes will find it hard to sit through as the movie emerges us into gay culture during a festive, energetic night on the streets where male homosexuals come out to enjoy the Halloween season with grand enthusiasm.
His presence and mask are pretty bitchin', to tell you the truth, and when he appears all you can really say is "Oh, sht!" While I mentioned that homophobes may find HELLBENT maybe hard to adapt to, there's an atmosphere and style I thought earned the movie brownie points; slasher fans, especially gay males, might consider this an underrated gem of a movie considering the genre hasn't too many flicks where the heroes are homosexual men.
OK, so the plot wasn't amazing, and you knew pretty much who was gonna live and who was gonna die, but you know what, that didn't matter - a gay horror flick is just what the genre needed...The direction was good, the actors not bad (although would have been nice to see Matt Philips (Toby) out of drag - damn he's hot), and I would LOVE to see a sequel...
Yeah, yeah, another slasher film with a killer killing people.
It's great that the movie centers around mostly a gay cast and I did enjoy some of the twist and turns, some scares and gross outs, and the acting, but you would think that by today's standards, in the era of the 'smart' horror film, we would get an answer as to why the killer is killing and who is he.
I felt just like the guy at the beginning of the movie who was getting a you-know-what, when the film was just about to reach climax, it cut its own head off!!!.
Billed as 'the first gay slasher film', Hellbent basically takes every genre trait it can and tries to combine them into a singular movie.
I had heard good reviews before finally seeing this movie and am already a fan of the horror genre.For a gay slasher film it was done tastefully.I like a movie like this that is more realistic instead of being b-rated and campy.I am glad the gay characters were more normal instead of showing all the negative stereotypes that a lot of TV shows and movies show.It's refreshing to see a regular gay movie about ordinary(but pretty)people in realistic circumstances.In some ways it's just eye candy since every character was cute and sexy,but no different then a lot of other movies.This movie has a good story,good actors,and nice effects with the right amount of suspense,gore and humor.It is very well directed,produced as well as acted.I hope a sequel is made to understand the motive to the killings and to see who is behind that demonic mask.
**WARNING: SPOILERS ABOUND!**I had a very strange reaction while watching 'Hellbent' last night: I was kind of excited to see a horror movie that was made by an openly gay director, and had played to some fanfare on the festival circuit.
Quite a lot of people around here are referring to "HellBent" as being a genuine throwback to the 80's horror sub genre of slashers, but it isn't one, really.
Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't the whole point of slasher-movies the guessing along for the killer's identity and the search for a link between him/her and the people that got killed?
The film profiles itself as the very first gay slasher movie (although that's debatable) so that's exactly what happens!
HellBent, judging by the title and the fact it's some dude dressed as the devil killing gay guys, is probably meant to be a bit of a send-up of Christian fundamentalism as well as 80's slasher films.
Instead the film, written and directed by Paul Etheredge-Ouzts, mostly plays like any other slasher movie with a young, good-looking cast.Eddie (Dylan Fergus) is a hesitant fellow that really wants to go after this handsome guy (Bryan Kirkwood) he spies at the tattoo parlor.
For a movie that bills itself as "The first ever gay slasher film," one would think there would be something in the film to reflect some aspect of homosexual identity. |
tt0053848 | G.I. Blues | U.S. Army Specialist 5 (SP5) Tulsa McLean (Elvis Presley) is a tank crewman with a singing career. Serving with the 3rd Armored "Spearhead" Division in West Germany, McLean dreams of running his own nightclub when he leaves the army, but such dreams don't come cheap. Tulsa and his buddies have formed a band and perform in various German "Gasthauses", night clubs, and on an Armed Forces stage. In one bar, he even discovers the record "Blue Suede Shoes" sung by someone named Elvis Presley on a jukebox.
To raise money, Tulsa places a bet with his friend Dynamite (Edson Stroll) that he can spend the night with a club dancer named Lili (Juliet Prowse), who is rumored to be hard to get since she turned down one other G.I. operator, Turk (Jeremy Slate). Dynamite and Turk have vied for women before when the two were stationed in Hawaii. When Dynamite gets transferred to Alaska, Tulsa is brought in to take his place. He is not looking forward to it, but must go through with it.
Tulsa uses his Southern charm and calls Lili "ma'am." She at first sees Tulsa as another Occupation Duty GI. Then after a day on the Rhine, Lili begins to fall for him. Tulsa's friend Cookie, meanwhile, falls in love with Lili's roommate, Tina (Letícia Román) from Italy. In the end, Rick's and Marla's baby son Tiger helps Tulsa win the bet for the outfit—and Lili's heart. | romantic | train | wikipedia | null |
tt1567432 | Teen Wolf | Scott Howard is a seventeen-year-old high school student who is sick of being average. Living in a small town, his only claim to popularity is playing on the Beavers; his school's basketball team (which is very unsuccessful) and fawning after his crush Pamela Wells, who is dating his rival Mick. Mick plays for the Dragons, an opposing team who tends to bully Scott on the court. Completely oblivious to his best friend Boof's affections, he constantly rebuffs her advances due to their history together.
After a series of startling changes such as long hair suddenly sprouting, hands suddenly getting hairy, he decides to quit the team, but his coach changes his mind. Scoring a keg with his friend Stiles for a party, Scott and Boof end up alone in a closet and Scott gets rough when they begin making out, accidentally clawing Boof's back. When he returns home, he undergoes a strange transformation and discovers he is a werewolf. His father Harold confronts him and reveals he too is a werewolf, and that he'd hoped Scott wouldn't inherit the curse because "sometimes it skips a generation".
Scott reveals his secret to Stiles, who agrees to keep it a secret, but when Scott becomes stressed on the court at the next basketball game, he becomes the wolf and helps win their first game in three years. This has an unexpected result of fame and popularity as the high school is overwhelmed with "Wolf Fever", which quickly alienates Scott from Boof and from his teammates as he begins to hog the ball during games.
Stiles merchandises "Teen Wolf" paraphernalia and Pamela finally begins paying attention to Scott. After he gets a role as a 'werewolf cavalryman' in the school play alongside her, she comes onto him in the dressing room and the two have sex. Later, after a date set up to intentionally make Mick jealous, Pamela tells Scott that she's still seeing him and is not interested in Scott as a boyfriend, much to his disappointment. Harold tells Scott he is responsible for vice principal Rusty Thorne breathing down his neck, due to a scare he'd given him when he was in high school, and advises him to be himself and not the wolf.
With the upcoming spring dance, Boof agrees to go with Scott, but only if he goes as himself, not the Wolf. Scott goes by himself as the Wolf and has a great time. Boof, however, isn't impressed. She takes Scott out into the hallway and they kiss, which turns Scott back into himself. When they return to the dance, everyone pays attention to him, including Pamela. Mick gets upset and taunts Scott until the Wolf comes out and attacks him. His fans then turn on him and he runs out right into Thorne, who threatens to expel Scott from school. Harold appears and after sending Scott home, tells Thorne to back off. He then reminds Thorne of what he is capable of by leaning into him and growling, causing the Vice Principal to pee himself.
Scott renounces using the wolf all the time, quitting the play and the basketball team, who have come to expect it. During the championship game, Scott arrives and rallies his teammates to play without the wolf in order to win the game. Despite the odds, the team begins to play together and they make ground against the Dragons. During the final quarter, behind by one point, Scott is fouled by Mick at the buzzer. He makes both shots, winning the game and the championship to everyone's delight. Brushing past Pamela, Scott kisses Boof as his father comes down and hugs the two of them. Mick tells Pamela that they should leave, but she tells him to "drop dead" and storms off while everyone else celebrates the victory. | revenge, murder | train | wikipedia | In Twilight, the story surrounds Edward and Bella's relationship; In Teen Wolf, I think the story is more about Scott's transformation into being a werewolf and the challenges it brings him.
I am no fan of that film franchise that everyone seems to overrate, thus, I thought it would not appeal to me and grew annoyed with MTV about to feature another lackluster show, because the network doesn't have much interesting to offer in my opinion.So one night, I decided to give the series a look while on the web, running behind about 4 or 5 episodes and after watching and catching up on all of them, to my dismay, I was hooked on this series!
I have to commend MTV on creating a series that makes me feel upset if I happen to miss it.The show is loosely based on the 1985 comedy-drama film, Teen Wolf, where a young teen, wanting to be more than an average kid, has to cope with bearing the heredity of werewolf genes that derived from his father, and with the extraordinary abilities that accompany his life as a werewolf, makes him popular at school.
I haven't watched the film factually, I only actually managed to seek out the trailer, and it looked pretty cheesy to me anyway so I couldn't care less about it or if the series followed its plot and characteristics bit for bit.MTV's Teen Wolf surely has a darker, suspenseful and edgier premise, and being an avid horror fan, is the reason why I really dig this show.
After discovering his unwanted inner werewolf, and the remarkable abilities he gains from it that help his normal life out, he is forced to balance two lives (hiding the werewolf one) and protect those meaningful to him.Tyler Posey plays the aforementioned character known as Scott McCall and does a pretty good job acting the role.
You also got Holland Roden as Lydia Martin, the mean-girl type and Jackson Whittemore, the lacrosse team captain played by Colton Haynes, both roles of which are being played pretty good.Speaking from a post-teen perspective, Teen Wolf is a superb supernatural teenage series right now on cable television.
When I started watching the first episode, I didn't expect anything, cause I didn't know the actors nor what the story was going to be.
While Twilight is boring to death since it's kind of "ashamed" for dealing with Vampires and the fantasy world, by creating a non sense story as a fake background to hold the pretentious characters and to make it look serious, Teen Wolf is what Twilight fails to be, FUN!
I feel so disappointed when each episode ends and I happen to scream at my TV because the credits roll and I want more.There are a lot of werewolf shows that completely go dead because of lack of interest.
Some people here might have said it's similar to the "Twilight" franchise, but it's only because a teen boy gets bit by a supernatural entity (in this case, a werewolf), plus he is captivated by the new girl at school, but that is where the similarities between the two end.
But if you view it as "loosely inspired by", and as a horror series where the drama is pretty significant, and the humour is more a side bit, and it's easy to see that this series has some impressive potential.This is NOT your daddy's Teen Wolf.If you're a fan of a solid story, fairly decent acting and visual/special effects that are not for those with a weak stomach, then this is well worth checking out.
Look, lets be honest and admit that season1 Teen Wolf wasn't great, it showed signs of great humour, horror and was extremely inclusive in terms of some real life teenage themes.
Again, it wasn't great but it showed potential.Now after finishing it's third season, it is clear that, Teen Wolf has done something that not many shows have the guts to do, and that is, it has matured with its audience.
Also Shelley hennig is amazing 😳In between season Iv been watching true blood/vampire diaries but they don't top teen wolf in my opinion!
Every character plays their role well and the casting is perfect.Season 1 was great it was action packed and had a brilliant story line and perfect music, season 2 it just got better and better, introducing other characters, but not too many to go over the top (like vampire diaries did).
so i have just finished watching the first season of teen wolf (12 episodes) and i can tell you that it is entertaining, it has romance, comedy, action and some drama in it.
In seasons 1 and 2 he's the sarcastic, lovable comedy relief which something like teen wolf needs with it being so dark.The characters all develop well as the plot goes on with some great additions.
This is a series for people who love typical high school movies,but with an grownup story,all from the first episode it gets you involved ,laughter ,scare,tension!Every episode gives you questions of what happens next?
I had a potential once, to be a professional critic, but I did engineering as a profession, and I am very happy with that.The creator(s), I do hope it's only of them, because the person (creator) needs to work overtime to improve this cheesy soap for teens, I fear that the show will last only for a while until other series start showing in September, and I am talking shows like House, Supernatural, Fringe and other TV series that up their game, creatively and consistently.Let's be honest when giving ratings to TV shows, if you like the show just because your favourite actors are in it and you enjoy just looking at them, that's fine (never mind the dialogue attitude), but when it comes to rate, please try to do it as if they were not your favourites, let's have consistency in rating as well on the site, because we want people to watch these shows but if the materials are not up-to-standard, share that as well.I was going to give it 5, but the rating seems to have been rigged by teens and adults with teen-brain, or tiny brain!.
The show may not have the best special effects in the world, and not all the actors seem to be giving it there best some times but the story is good and that's what I look for in movies and TV shows..
The plots seem to grow more intricate each episode (even though good parts of it are still relatively cliché - thank god the combination of elements can make you forget that somewhat).This is not the best show ever, but for anyone who likes genre shows and has an affinity for teen drama, this show is worth a go.
MTV's new "Teen Wolf" television series is darker, edgier, moodier, and much more in line with today's youth culture's fascination with dark and brooding anti-heroes.
I had made it my determination long ago going into "Teen Wolf" that if the lead character took his shirt off just once to pose and flaunt a ripped abdomen, I'd be changing the channel right away (thanks a lot, Taylor).Thankfully the few times that socially awkward high school lacrosse player Scott McCall (Tyler Posey) does take his shirt off, it's only when he's changing his clothes in the locker room, and the camera doesn't linger for a few seconds longer on his ripped pectorals than it should.
(You have to hand it to MTV when they allow its characters to directly reference the original 1941 "The Wolf Man" with Lon Chaney, Jr.; see a particularly interesting sequence in the second episode involving the plant wolfsbane for details.)At first, he does use his abilities to improve his standing on his lacrosse team and at his school, wowing his teammates - especially best pal, fellow outcast, and comedy relief Stiles (Dylan O'Brien) - but also winning the affections of pretty popular girl Allison Argent (Crystal Reed).
But a brutal murder and the mysterious lycanthrope named Derek Hale (Tyler Hoechlin) prove to Scott that a lot more of the supernatural is going on his town than he imagined."Teen Wolf," like most of today's television programming, is incredibly slick and incredibly well-made and well-acted (for this type of material).
(P.S.: The appearance of "Mortal Kombat's" Linden Ashby in a key supporting role also solidifies this series in "B"-movie territory.) And the transformation sequences are quite interesting, but nothing to really write home about (especially when considering the great achievements of Rick Baker when he did the Oscar-winning special effects work in the landmark horror-comedy "An American Werewolf in London" 30 years ago in 1981).Tyler Posey is good as the serially tormented young protagonist Scott McCall.
I'm typically not a fan of all the vampire "fantasy" shows and movies, but I enjoyed the old Teen Wolf movie so I decided to watch the show.
The writing in this show is very bad and characters are plain unlikable, poorly developed, and completely unbelievable (I'm not talking about the premise, but rather they way characters behave).That said, I did notice that most of the people who like this stuff tend to be female and middle age (basically, perverts).
I am only a teen so of course I probably like it more than my parents, but it is a really good watch.
When I first saw the trailer for Teen Wolf, I wasn't too interested because I thought it is rather similar to other young adult fantasy TV series such as The Vampire Diaries, which I gave up watching after about ten minutes - I have no idea why, since I normally like this kind of stuff.After two episodes, though, I realized that I was wrong.
All the special effects are good, the acting is great, the story is fast moving and tense, the atmosphere building is fantastic.Overall, after eighty minutes of watching, Teen Wolf has became one of my favourite TV series..
I started watching it thinking that wow finally after a long time something related to werewolves.First disappointment was the protagonist and his not so good looking girlfriend, along with his stupid looking best friend who is suppose to be a comic character but not very funny.Then comes the plot...
I started watching this series to kill my time , as a waiting period for vampire diaries , but than i just grew fonder of two characters , chill i am not talking about the main lead , I so love Derek & i am not just talking about his body , ha ha ha ,but he is got that serious and sad look in his eyes that just makes me fall for him , and the other one is Stiles , he is freaking genius & has got amazing sense of humor , well this series is full of mystery , teen drama , romance & ACTION ,& it has got twist at the end of each episode , So for all those who have got a thing for Supernatural stuff & also want to compensate the waiting time period of vampire diaries , go watch TEEN WOLF , I must say it brought me closer to werewolves .....
I decided to watch it because you never know, it could be the best thing you've ever seen (like me and Being Human.) Overall, it's not that bad, but not amazing.
Not amazing, I admit, but enough to hold me for an episode or two.I waned a little through the first series, with the "teen romance drama" getting a bit boring and repetitive, but a varied cast of side-characters kept me going.The final episode of the first series was good, not great.
With all the showings, and the decent storyline it will allow a fan base to keep growing.The bottom line is that this show will bring out your imagination and inspire creativity as you wonder what will come on the next episode of Teen wolf..
Scott McCall (played by Tyler Posey), the main character, is mostly believable but every once in a while his representation seems to come up short - I think this more of a directing issue than Posey's skills as an actor.A good watch if you don't make too many comparisons and remember the Lacrosse!.
And after watching it some more I realized this is not twilight it's actually some real werewolf action blood and guts no pretty boy or vampires sparkling (not that I don't like vampires ).
so after all of that I got really pumped and excited to actually watched this show and I really enjoy it and can't wait for the next episode to come out each time now I do have to admit that some times it does appear to be not good acting or fake but most of the time it's a funny action sexy real show.
But after looking at rating I get worried that the show might not go on which I will be really upset about (which happened when I was watching Kyle xy)but then again the ratings are climbing so I hope it keeps going they seem to have a really great crew most just starting out but I think this will be a great series!
I am a older adult male, and I happen to like sci-fi shows.I resisted watching teen wolf because I thought it was going to be a comedy of sorts, based on the Teen Wolf movies.
At times though.....it felt as though MTV was trying to force teen sex issues down our throats, and it made me feel a bit alienated.Anyway......typically during each season we got to see Alpha Scott McCall accomplish another feat in his evolution.
I binge watched two seasons in a weekend and have been to several teen wolf conventions (just to show how much I really did love it)Unfortunately though since then its being going down hill.
They're good at acting, especially the scene stealing Dylan O'Brien, who plays Stiles, the main character's best friend.
I never expected this series to be so amazing and now I am watching 3rd Season .
Well when they started this show on MTV my sisters were like its gonna be awesome and i was like its gonna be just okay.But when i started watching it i just couldn't wait for the next episode So i'm guessing i'm saying that TEEN WOLF is amazing.But out of 10 i'll give it a 6..
Add to this I'm a fan of the original Teen Wolf (number 2 i mean what the hell was that) also watched the cartoon series which I enjoyed.
I think the only thing I'll say is that Teen Wolf has momentarily had a small tendency to throw possible plot lines and characters away, but it doesn't stop this show from being one of my favourites..
Really enjoyed the first 2 seasons as they were on sky and i watched in 2011 season 3 was brilliant best season yet and after that, the series became to "girly" for me no offense but the kissing scenes were made out to be the major part in an episode and this really bugged me as the action died down.since MTV took over i would say the seasons got worse which is a shame because the films were good.overall 8/10.
Teen Wolf is actually a great series.
This is best thing i ever watched i suggest you to watch this amazing thing, starting with first episode i literally felt in love with Lydia character she is beautiful, full with life, amazing girl and in one moment it all crashes she becomes crazy but she still continues to give everybody positive energy till the end of their adventure, Mailia is always there with her half pessimistic ideas which are making all series wonderful, Scott and Stiles are showing what is real friendship, we can learn so much from this..
I've never been that person who was interested in watching TV shows but TEEN WOLF keeps me guessing.
I finally feel like I have something to look forward to when I get home I get to watch teen wolf and it makes me excited.
The show Teen Wolf(2011) had many captivating characters and plot twists for the duration of three seasons.
I didn't expect to like this series, I mean Teens and Wolfs?
Although it tells the story of group of Teenagers, it is probably on the DARK side instead of the other joyful teen series The Characters are great and makes a connection with you after a while and you just can't stop watching it.
If you're thinking on whether to watch Teen Wolf or not, definitely do!
I looked up on google, shows like Pretty little Liars and Teen Wolf popped up, so I thought "okay i'll try it out".
Stiles Stilinski's and Scott McCall's friendship is very well acted, I love how their outside friendship shows in Teen Wolf.
The concept of werewolves and shows have spread so much that you find it difficult to fathom which one is the best, Trust me when i say this, I have watched almost all of them and this is the show which I Love.Waiting for the next season, Rated this 9 because I feel the show deserves and all the cast and crew.Been watching werewolf series for quite sometime now, but this one is the best so far.Scott McCall is perfect for the role.Many people died, that's hurting, But the show must have some emotions too right.I feel like its been decades since the show stopped, Please start it soon.Thanks..
-If you are yet to watch the series, then my suggestion start from season 1 episode 1.
When I first saw this I was like, "Great, another lame stupid teen show like the Vampire Diaries(which I love now by the way because I gave it a chance)." when I watched the first episode, I thought it was a little weird and lame. |
tt0057406 | Pent-House Mouse | Tom is relaxing in a penthouse, while Jerry is struggling looking for food, being forced to tie his tail around his waist to stop his stomach growling. Suddenly Jerry sees a lunchbox at a construction site and jumps into it, eating through to it. However, the steel beam on which the lunchbox is sitting is lifted into the air and the box slides off. Jerry tries to hide in the lunchbox, but it bursts open. The lunchbox then falls onto Tom's head, much to Tom's annoyance, but Tom sees Jerry falling and catches him in a baseball glove inbetween two pieces of bread.
Tom eats the sandwich, but notices he missed eating Jerry. Tom eats the rest of the sandwich, but Jerry escapes by flicking Tom's finger into his eye. Jerry jumps into a rain gutter, but unawarely slides backwards onto the construction site, barely managing to evade a crusher. Jerry jumps into Tom's mouth and closes his ears and eyes, but Tom shakes Jerry out. Tom grabs a flyswatter and flattens Jerry four times, but Jerry angrily stops him and asks him to hand over the flyswatter and flattens Tom's head to escape.
Jerry runs to the end of a flagpole, with Tom following, but Jerry spins the pole counterclockwise. Tom convinces Jerry to stop, but Jerry lets Tom know that he "loves" him before unscrewing the ball to sending Tom's falls down to the construction site and into a building hosting a dog show before the dogs attack Tom.
Finally, Jerry relaxes in Tom's penthouse and drinks some juice but ends up swallowing a whole ice cube before he decides to take a nap. | psychedelic | train | wikipedia | A huge improvement over what was seen with Gene Deitch, but a long way from being one of the classics. Tom and Jerry always has been one of my favourites. A vast majority of the cartoons of the 40s up to about 1956 are classics or very, very good. The ones made when Fred Quimby was no longer in charge were not quite as good but more than watchable with some foibles. The Gene Deitch cartoons however are, with two exceptions(and they're mediocre at best), abominations. The Chuck Jones output generally is mixed in quality and none are what I consider classic Tom and Jerry, but what's for certain is that it is a huge improvement over what was seen before with Deitch. The music is upbeat and catchy, there are some amusing moments, Tom and Jerry are likable characters, some of the colours in the animation look quite nice and the pent-house proves to be a good setting. Some of the animation though is rather scratchy, especially in the character designs(Tom in particular looks odd) and the story is rather routine and not very surprising. But what was disappointing about Pent-House Mouse was that while it was Tom and Jerry in name and there were the characters it didn't feel like the classic Tom and Jerry I loved and still love to this day. I can understand though as this was the first Tom and Jerry cartoon with Chuck Jones at the helm, but there are one too many pieces of evidence that give away that Jones was still trying to find his feet, as seen with the rather plodding pacing, the lack of the classic cartoony violence, sound effects that seemed too restrained and the rather too-generally-organised gags(some are amusing though). Overall, not among the classics but a long way from being a disgrace. 5/10 Bethany Cox. Chuck Jones takes over.. As a kid, I never used to enjoy the Chuck Jones T&J cartoons all that much, despite being a big fan of Bugs Bunny and the rest of the Looney Tunes gang; however, having just sat through all thirteen of director Gene Deitch's contributions to the long running cat and mouse series, I have a new-found admiration for Jones' work.Tom and Jerry are inescapably Jones in style, reminding me at times of Sylvester and Speedy Gonzales, and they definitely take a bit of getting used to, but the gags are on point and the animation is slick, with the action accompanied by perfectly acceptable music and suitable sound effects (none of the reverberating electronic bleepy nonsense that helped to make Deitch's cartoons such a challenge).As far as the story goes, Jones plays it safe for Pent-House Mouse, with a simple set-up that allows for plenty of gags: Tom is lounging in a swanky high-rise apartment while Jerry is on the street starving. When Jerry sneaks into a builder's lunchbox, he is hoisted up into the air by a crane, falls from a great height, and is caught by Tom, who turns the mouse into a sandwich. Cue lots of cat and mouse action, most of which is pretty funny (the 'flag pole unscrewing' gag is priceless!).6.5 out of 10, rounded up to 7 for IMDb.. Doesn't quite work.. Pent-House Mouse, the first of the Chuck Jones Tom & Jerry cartoons is quite funny, but has a lot of unnecessary buisiness that slows it to a crawl at times.[Possible Spoilers]Tom is a luxury cat in a penthouse while poor Jerry is starving on the streets below.(Jerry ties his tail around his waist to stop his stomach growling) Finding a lunchbox at a construction site, Jerry visualises the contents = a full Jerry. While chowing down, the girder the lunchbox was setting on rises to the top of a skyscraper, then the lunchbox falls off! Tom, taking a nap is hit by the empty lunchbox, looking up sees food falling and adds bread + lettuce + Jerry + bread = mouse sandwich! Tom catches the "sandwich" in a baseball mit. After this opening, the cartoon slows down, the gags are non violent, a hallmark of the original series and puzzling (Jerry jumps into Tom's mouth and from inside, pulls Tom's ears and eyes closed.)Also missing,for me anyway,is the sound effects of the original. Tom's "Ahhh!" every time he gets bashed is sorely missed. Chuck Jones claimed his difficulties with the series was from working with characters that he wasn't familiar with. The series got better later on, as he found his own style. It seems all the different incarnations of Tom & Jerry reached their peak when they went their own way instead of imitating Hanna & Barbera. The Rembrant Studio's "The Tom and Jerry Cartoon Kit" (1962) is a good example of this. While basically a good cartoon, it's an uneasy start for Chuck Jones, whose cartoons got better as he progressed. |
tt0083564 | Annie | In 1933, during The Great Depression, a young orphan named Annie is living in the Hudson Street Orphanage in New York City. One night, Annie comforts one of the youngest orphans by singing to her. The orphanage's cruel and alcoholic supervisor Agatha Hannigan hears the singing and punishes the orphans by making them clean up the orphanage. Later while trying to flee in a laundry truck, Annie rescues a dog being tormented by a group of boys. She names him Sandy after convincing a dogcatcher that he is hers and the pair is escorted back to the orphanage. Soon after, Hannigan discovers Sandy and threatens to send him to the sausage factory. However, Grace Farrell, a secretary to billionaire Oliver Warbucks, arrives, saying that he wants an orphan to stay at his mansion for a week to help his image. Despite Hannigan's objections, Grace picks Annie and allows Sandy to accompany her.
Upon arrival, Annie, Sandy, and Grace meet Warbucks' bodyguards Punjab and The Asp, butlers, maids, and servants. Annie quickly endears herself to everyone there. However, Warbucks disapproves, as he originally desired a boy orphan. Meanwhile, Hannigan is visited by her brother, Rooster, and his girlfriend, Lily St. Regis; both are obvious con artists, who ask Hannigan to borrow money.
Back at the Warbucks Mansion, Annie and Sandy thwart a Bolshevik assassin attempt to bomb the mansion. Warbucks and Grace take Annie to Radio City Music Hall to see the Rockettes and a film.
The next day Grace asks Warbucks if they can adopt Annie. Warbucks agrees to adopt her and goes to the orphanage to get the adoption papers signed. Despite Hannigan's attempt to seduce him, Warbucks blackmails her into signing. He goes back to the mansion to tell Annie and is about to give her a Tiffany's locket, but the orphan says she wants to find her real parents. She shows Warbucks the broken locket she wears; she tells him her parents have the missing piece of the locket, and that they will use it to prove their identities when they return to the orphanage someday to retrieve her. Deciding to help, Warbucks makes an announcement on a radio show and offers a $50,000 reward to her parents.
A crowd of would-be 'parents' arrives at the Warbucks mansion. To get Annie away from the sensationalism, Warbucks and Punjab take her by auto-copter to the White House to visit President Franklin D. Roosevelt. President Roosevelt tells Warbucks and Annie about his plans for a social welfare program to help the poor and wants Annie to help as well. Annie performs for Roosevelt and First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt. Back at the mansion, Annie learns that the search for her parents has not yet been successful.
Meanwhile, the Hannigans and Lily plot a scheme to collect the reward, drown Annie, and split the money three ways, and Hannigan reveals that Annie's parents perished in a fire many years back. Hearing what has happened, the other orphans attempt to go to Warbucks's mansion but are locked up by the Hannigans and Lily. The orphans flee and find out that the Hannigans have captured Annie and the money. Warbucks puts out an APB on the felons, and he and Grace search for them while Punjab and another servant search from the auto-copter. Rooster and Lily are sent to jail.
Annie gets her wish of a good family at a party. The Roosevelts, her orphan friends, and the servants are enjoying themselves; Hannigan is reformed; and Grace and Warbucks further develop their relationship. | cult, cruelty, depressing | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0076578 | Pumping Iron | In 1975, bodybuilders are preparing for the upcoming Mr. Universe amateur competition and Mr. Olympia professional competition in Pretoria, South Africa. The first part of the film documents the life of Mike Katz, a hopeful for the title of Mr. Universe. Katz was bullied in his youth for being Jewish and wearing glasses, which spurred him to become a pro football player; when his career with the New York Jets was ended by a leg injury, he became a bodybuilder. His psychological balance is thrown off by a prank by fellow contender Ken Waller, who steals Katz's lucky shirt before the competition. Waller wins Mr. Universe and Katz comes in fourth. Fighting back tears, Katz cheerfully appraises the situation before calling home to check on his wife and children. He then congratulates Waller.
The film then switches focus to the rivalry between Arnold Schwarzenegger and Lou Ferrigno, professional bodybuilders competing for the title of Mr. Olympia. Schwarzenegger, at this point a ten-year veteran of bodybuilding, has won Mr. Olympia for five consecutive years and intends to retire after a final competition. Ferrigno, who at a height of 6 ft 5 in (1.96 m) and 275 lb (125 kg) is the largest bodybuilder to date, is determined to be the man to finally dethrone Schwarzenegger. The film contrasts each man's personality, home environment, and training style: Schwarzenegger is extroverted, aggressive, and works out with other bodybuilders at Gold's Gym and Muscle Beach, whereas the quiet, reserved Ferrigno—who went partially deaf after a childhood ear infection—trains with his father in a dimly lit, private, basement gym. While Ferrigno surrounds himself with his family, Schwarzenegger is accompanied wherever he goes by other bodybuilders, reporters, and beautiful women.
In between interviews and workout demonstrations with Ferrigno and Schwarzenegger, the latter explains the basic concepts behind bodybuilding. Although he emphasizes the importance of physique in bodybuilding, Schwarzenegger also stresses the psychological aspects of competition, crediting meticulously crafted strategies of psychological warfare against his opponents for his numerous victories. The film briefly looks at Schwarzenegger's training partner, Franco Columbu, a favorite to win the under-200 lb division at Mr. Olympia. A former boxer from the tiny village of Ollolai, Sardinia, Columbu returns home to celebrate a traditional dinner with his family, who still adhere to old world values and are skeptical of the overt aggression of boxing and bodybuilding. Nevertheless, Columbu impresses his family with a display of strength by lifting the back end of a car and moving it down a street.
In South Africa, Schwarzenegger wages his psychological warfare on Ferrigno, befriending Ferrigno and then subtly insulting him over breakfast with Ferrigno's family. Schwarzenegger later attends the judging for the under-200 lb class to scope out who his competition will be for the overall Mr. Olympia title, jokingly disparaging Columbu. The appearance of Ed Corney stuns Schwarzenegger, who praises another bodybuilder for the only time in the film, openly admiring Corney's physique and posing prowess. Columbu places first and he moves on to compete against the winner of the over-200 lb category.
Schwarzenegger, Ferrigno, and Serge Nubret prepare to go onstage and compete for the over-200 lb category. In the locker room, Schwarzenegger engages in some last-minute intimidation of Ferrigno, who is visibly shaken onstage and subsequently ends up placing third behind Nubret and Schwarzenegger, who is declared the winner. Schwarzenegger and Columbu engage in a posedown for the title of Mr. Olympia. Schwarzenegger uses his stage presence and intimidating looks to unnerve Columbu, and is declared Mr. Olympia. In a post-victory speech, he announces his official retirement from professional bodybuilding. Later, at an after-party for the competitors, Schwarzenegger celebrates his victory by smoking marijuana and eating fried chicken. With the competition over, he wishes Ferrigno happy birthday and leads the other competitors in singing "Happy Birthday to You" as a cake is revealed. The film ends with Schwarzenegger, Ferrigno, and Ferrigno's parents riding together to the airport. | boring, entertaining | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0290095 | The Tuxedo | Jimmy Tong (Jackie Chan) is a taxi driver notorious for his speed and ability to get his customers anywhere in the least amount of time. His reputation lands him a job as the personal chauffeur of the mysterious but wealthy Clark Devlin (Jason Isaacs). Jimmy does not really know what his new boss' job is, but Devlin's friendly nature, imperturbable demeanor, and willingness to offer Jimmy advice wins Jimmy over and the two become friends. What Jimmy does not realize is that Devlin is a secret spy and undercover government agent, and when an attempt to kill Devlin with a car bombing sends him into a coma, Jimmy ends up with Devlin's recent case notes and a special watch that controls Devlin's rather unusual tuxedo.
The tuxedo is a gadget capable of granting its wearer special abilities (including martial arts, speed, the ability to dance, and various acrobatics) which Jimmy must use to stop the criminal organization responsible for Devlin's attempted murder. The group is a terrorist organization disguised as a corporation named Banning Corporation and is headed by the notorious and ruthless Dietrich Banning (Ritchie Coster). Its goal is to take over the global drinking water supply, starting with the poisoning of major US reservoirs by means of genetically modified water strider insects. These water striders have bacteria that can spread from person to person. By pure chance, Jimmy is joined by a genius scientist with aspirations of field work, Delilah "Del" Blaine (Jennifer Love Hewitt). Blaine is completely new to field work and is delighted to be on assignment with Devlin, only to be very confused by Jimmy as he impersonates Devlin, relying on the tuxedo's special abilities to compensate for his lack of skill and training.
At first, Blaine thinks Jimmy is weird and annoying, and then a fraud when Jimmy's impersonation is finally exposed. She confiscates his borrowed tuxedo and attempts to stop the evil Dietrich Banning on her own by feigning a desire to become a turncoat for Banning Corporation. Meanwhile, Jimmy is ready to give up and go back to his life as a taxi driver, but while packing his belongings he discovers that Devlin had ordered a second tuxedo for Jimmy himself, believing that Jimmy could also be a great agent. Using his own tuxedo, Jimmy defeats the villain, Banning, by throwing a glass containing the queen of the water striders into Banning's mouth. He is then infected with bacteria from the water strider. The other remaining water striders do the same. They attack Banning and he then dies instantaneously.
As compensation for his role in bringing down Banning, the organization uses its resources to orchestrate an operation so that Jimmy can finally meet his dream girl. However, confused by Blaine's and the now-recovered Devlin's conflicting instructions on how to act Jimmy succeeds only in alarming the girl into threatening to mace him so that the operation is aborted as a failure. Consoling Jimmy afterwards, Blaine admits feeling sad that no one had ever tried to do for her what Jimmy had just done, and Jimmy tells Blaine that she has to change and be more accommodating if she ever wants to have a boyfriend. Feeling a tentative attraction for each other, they walk away to buy coffee. | violence, comedy, action | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0273300 | Jump Tomorrow | Three days before his wedding, George meets two intriguing people: Alicia (Verbeke), a Spanish woman who invites him to a party that night, and Gerard (Girardot), an unlucky-in-love Frenchman who has just been turned down for a marriage proposal. To cheer him up, George takes him to Alicia's party. There, George finds himself attracted to Alicia, but she is already dating a British professor, Nathan. A drunk Gerard goes to the roof and attempts suicide, but George talks him out of it by telling him to "jump tomorrow."
Out of gratitude, Gerard offers to drive George to his wedding. On the road, George buys an audiocassette to learn Spanish and secretly fantasizes about Alicia. The movie spoofs Spanish soap operas in fantasy sequences where George imagines himself and Alicia as characters on the show. The compassionate Gerard figures out that George is not in love with his fiancée, a childhood friend whom his family has always expected him to marry. George is a passive individual who does not seem troubled by the idea of marrying someone he does not love.
George spots Alicia and her boyfriend at a gas station, and Gerard talks George into following them. They all end up at a hotel with a love motif and a variety of strange furniture, including a bathtub in the form of a giant champagne glass. Gerard advises George to gain Alicia's attention by making her jealous. A reluctant George ends up inviting to his room a saleswoman who calls herself "Heather Leather." But he doesn't know that she's allergic to cologne, and disaster ensues. He never crosses paths with Alicia, whose boyfriend gives her an engagement ring made of bone. The next day, George wants to resume his journey alone. But Gerard gives a heartfelt speech about love, and he convinces George to stick with him.
Alicia and her fiancé hitch a ride with George and Gerard, thinking their sudden appearance a coincidence. Alicia's fiancé Nathan practices t'ai chi in the rain and argues with Gerard about whether the French language is obsolete. Meanwhile, Alicia and George find themselves falling for each other. When they arrive at the home of Alicia's family, who are meeting Alicia's fiancé for the first time, George wants to leave. But Gerard convinces him to stick around for the night, telling him to "jump tomorrow."
Alicia's fiancé ends up in bed the whole time after Alicia's uncle, a deaf-mute, offers him a spicy dish his stomach can't handle. The uncle takes a liking to George and teaches him a Spanish dance. Gerard finds himself attracted to Alicia's mother, a widow. They all enjoy the party that night, and George gets a chance to make his move, but he is too shy to proceed. Gerard spends the night with Alicia's mother, but in the morning she rebuffs him for moving too fast with their relationship.
Gerard and George leave for the wedding. After dropping off George, Gerard heads towards Niagara Falls, where he again considers suicide until a boy standing there tells him that he gets his best ideas when he is by himself. At the ceremony, George declares "I am Jorge" (the Spanish form of George) and calls the wedding off. He and his fiancée Sophie agree that their intended marriage was for convenience and not an ideal match. Gerard and George catch up to Alicia and her fiancé at the border of Canada, and George finally expresses his love for her. | cult, romantic | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0004022 | Cajus Julius Caesar | The play opens with the commoners of Rome celebrating Caesar's triumphant return from defeating Pompey's sons at the battle of Munda. Two tribunes, Flavius and Marrullus, discover the commoners celebrating, insult them for their change in loyalty from Pompey to Caesar, and break up the crowd. There are some jokes made by the commoners, who insult them back. They also plan on removing all decorations from Caesar's statues and ending any other festivities. In the next scene, during Caesar's parade on the feast of Lupercal, a soothsayer warns Caesar, "Beware the ides of March." This warning he disregards. The action then turns to the discussion between Brutus and Cassius. In this conversation, Cassius attempts to influence Brutus's opinions into believing Caesar should be killed, preparing to have Brutus join his conspiracy to kill Caesar. They then hear from Casca that Mark Antony has offered Caesar the crown of Rome three times and that each time Caesar refused it, fainting after the last refusal. Later, in act two, Brutus joins the conspiracy, although after much moral debate, eventually deciding that Caesar, although his friend and never having done anything against the people of Rome, should be killed to prevent him from doing anything against the people of Rome if he were ever to be crowned. He compares Caesar to "A serpents egg/ which hatch'd, would, as his kind, grow mischievous,/ and kill him in the shell." He then decides to join Cassius in killing Caesar.
Caesar's assassination is one of the most famous scenes of the play, occurring in Act 3, scene 1. After ignoring the soothsayer, as well as his wife's own premonitions, Caesar comes to the Senate. The conspirators create a superficial motive for coming close enough to assassinate Caesar by means of a petition brought by Metellus Cimber, pleading on behalf of his banished brother. As Caesar, predictably, rejects the petition, Casca grazes Caesar in the back of his neck, and the others follow in stabbing him; Brutus is last. At this point, Shakespeare makes Caesar utter the famous line "Et tu, Brute?" ("And you, Brutus?", i.e. "You too, Brutus?") Shakespeare has him add, "Then fall, Caesar!" This suggests that such treachery destroyed Caesar's will to live.
The conspirators make clear that they committed this act for Rome, not for their own purposes, and do not attempt to flee the scene. After Caesar is killed, Brutus delivers an oration defending his actions, and for the moment, the crowd is on his side. However, Mark Antony makes a subtle and eloquent speech over Caesar's corpse, beginning with the much-quoted "Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears!" In this way, he deftly turns public opinion against the assassins by manipulating the emotions of the common people, in contrast to the rational tone of Brutus's speech, yet there is method in his rhetorical speech and gestures: he reminds them of the good Caesar had done for Rome, his sympathy with the poor, and his refusal of the crown at the Lupercal, thus questioning Brutus's claim of Caesar's ambition; he shows Caesar's bloody, lifeless body to the crowd to have them shed tears and gain sympathy for their fallen hero; and he reads Caesar's will, in which every Roman citizen would receive 75 drachmas. Antony, even as he states his intentions against it, rouses the mob to drive the conspirators from Rome. Amid the violence, an innocent poet, Cinna, is confused with the conspirator Lucius Cinna and is taken by the mob, which kills him by tearing him to pieces for such "offenses" as his bad verses.
The beginning of Act Four is marked by the quarrel scene, where Brutus attacks Cassius for supposedly soiling the noble act of regicide by having accepted bribes. ("Did not great Julius bleed for justice' sake? / What villain touch'd his body, that did stab, / And not for justice?") The two are reconciled, especially after Brutus reveals that his beloved wife Portia had committed suicide under the stress of his absence from Rome; they prepare for a war against Mark Antony and Caesar's adopted son, Octavius. That night, Caesar's ghost appears to Brutus with a warning of defeat. (He informs Brutus, "Thou shalt see me at Philippi.")
At the battle, Cassius and Brutus, knowing that they will probably both die, smile their last smiles to each other and hold hands. During the battle, Cassius has his servant Pindarus kill him after hearing of the capture of his best friend, Titinius. After Titinius, who was not really captured, sees Cassius's corpse, he commits suicide. However, Brutus wins that stage of the battle--but his victory is not conclusive. With a heavy heart, Brutus battles again the next day. He loses and commits suicide by running on his own sword, which is held by a soldier named Strato.
The play ends with a tribute to Brutus by Antony, who proclaims that Brutus has remained "the noblest Roman of them all" because he was the only conspirator who acted, in his mind, for the good of Rome. There is then a small hint at the friction between Mark Antony and Octavius which characterizes another of Shakespeare's Roman plays, Antony and Cleopatra. | tragedy | train | wikipedia | Both Sides Of A Human And Historical Man. Herr Enrico Guazzoni's artistic ambition never had limits; since his early kolossal silent epics, he approached what seemed the most difficult and complicated film projects in a successful way. That's to the joy of silent film fans, which have, after so many years, the opportunity to marvel at his historical reinterpretation of the Roman Empire and its many illustrious figures.So, consequently - and keeping in mind these Herr Guazzoni's precepts - one day he probably thought: why not make a film about Herr Julius Caesar??...And certainly he did! In Herr Guazzoni's artistic parameters there are no limits or an impossible project; so to make a film about the most famous of all Caesars obviously meant to produce a kolossal silent film epic in which the life, battles, conquests, family matters and political troubles of Herr Julius must be depicted properly.Certainly Herr Guazzoni doesn't fail facing such ambitious epic film project; "Cajus Julius Caesar" (1914) is an astounding historical film spectacle in the broadest sense of the word. It's an early and kolossal budget film production so characteristic of Herr Guazzoni's silent career, in which every artistic virtue and skillful direction is on display. He applies the technical needs of the time with a lot of imagination.Back in 1914, cinematic film narrative was not the talk of the silent town, ja wohl!, but Herr Guazzoni's mastery fill such needs in the most innovative way that unnoticed even today is its primitiveness in technical questions. That's' thanks to artistic subjects as detailed framing and depth of field; but overlying it all was the fact that Herr Guazzoni didn't suffer "horror vacui". Consequently every frame of his historical films is full of spectacular compositions, namely crowds and luxury décors.In "Cajus Julius Caesar" we have these in great doses. A kolossal epic film like this that tries to depict the life and glory of Herr Julius Caesar, must have a variety of scenery appropriate to the film's hero. This includes the Senate and its conspirators..or .. strange places beyond Rome full of barbarians that must fall under the Rome yoke. Let's not forget the sequences depicting the masses mentioned before.. or.. the human side of Caesar and his troublesome relationship with his son Brutus.The intimate, statesman and military side of Caesar is depicted in "Cajus Julius Caesar". On one side is a great silent film spectacle that shines especially during the conquering Gaul scenes or the final victory parade. These are scenes these full of troops, bloody battles, military artefacts and even galleys. On the other side, are the undercurrent conspiracies at the Senate with Brutus as the leader.So we can watch the power and the glory, military victories but also the family defeats and view both sides of a human and historical man which are perfectly assembled by Herr Enrico Guazzoni who as always achieves a magnificent epic and historical silent film.And now, if you'll allow me, I must temporarily take my leave because this German Count must conquer a rich Teutonic heiress' bedroom. |
tt0057586 | To Beep or Not to Beep | Introduction: The opening scene shows Wile E. Coyote reading a "Western Cookery" recipe book in total peace. Completely unaware that his prey has zoomed up behind him to sneak a peek at his book, he slurps at the prospect of a road-runner banquet featuring "Road Runner Surprise," and gets answered by another slurp. Turning to find himself nose-to-beak with the Road Runner, the Coyote gives himself a real headache responding to a startling "BEEP-BEEP!" from point-blank range.
1. The Coyote places a lasso in the road, and pulls back as soon as he hears his opponent, but he soon realizes that (1) he missed, and (2) there is no room on the cliff behind him to step back. He falls toward the ground, and the end of the lasso latches onto a loose rock on another outcropping as he passes it. Thinking the rock will be heavy enough to support him and prevent the impact, Wile E. ties his end of the lasso around his waist, but doesn't realize that the rope is too long before hitting the ground at full force. Still dazed by his miscalculation and the resulting impact, the Coyote pulls on the lasso and dislodges the rock, which drops on himself, leaving his form coiled up as he walks away.
2. Later on, as the usual chase takes place, the Road Runner goes supersonic and rockets away, causing several cacti to uproot due to his speed. They continue to follow the Road Runner across the landscape, and Wile E. continues chasing until he sees that a bridge has retracted due to the bird's trajectory. Wile E. falls through the ravine, followed by one of the slower cacti that did not make it past the bridge, causing him to leap yelling in pain all the way up to the top of the ravine.
3. Not having learned from previous uses of this device, the Coyote attaches a spring to a loose rock and tries to shoot himself toward the Road Runner, but instead the rock is thrown backwards and it continues to pull the Coyote back like a Newton's cradle until the rock hurtles over the edge of a cliff. Wile E. manages to grab onto the brink and stay put, until the rock flies back the way it came, taking out the entire outcropping and throwing the Coyote across the desert. The two rocks finally detach themselves, but this leads to the broken outcropping forming a see-saw, with Wile E. lying on one end and the big rock landing on the other side. This catapults the Coyote even further, until he falls through a narrow canyon with the rock directly on top, leading to the spring retracting and Wile E. being trapped directly underneath. By loosening the harness, the Coyote escapes and sighs with relief, having escaped with only a fall to the ground.
4. Lying in wait for the Road Runner inside a crane, the Coyote pulls up a wrecking ball to drop on the Road Runner when he passes this segment. However, he pulls it up too far, and the wrecking ball rolls onto the top of the crane and smashes the cockpit.
=== The catapult ===
5. The final segment features six attempts to flatten the Road Runner with a boulder hurled by a catapult. Unfortunately for Wile E., the catapult finds multiple ways to malfunction, resulting in the Coyote being crushed each time.
Attempt 1: Wile E. stands behind the catapult. The boulder simply falls on the Coyote when it is released, due to its weight being too much for the catapult to handle.
Attempt 2: Wile E. stands in front of the catapult and (predictably) gets smashed due to his location.
Attempt 3: Having learned from the first two, Wile E. stands well out of the way of the catapult, out of range, to make the first attempt's failure impossible. However, the catapult flips itself over and squashes its user.
Attempt 4: The Coyote stands to the side and releases the boulder, which is punched up into the air, and unfortunately falls in the wrong direction - toward the Coyote instead of the roadrunner.
Attempt 5: Having been smashed every time in some way or another, Wile E. hides underneath the catapult itself when he releases the string; however, the entire catapult comes apart, crushing Wile E. in the bottom.
Attempt 6: This time, Wile E. hides inside a manhole while he releases the string. However, the catapult jams and the arm does not throw the boulder. The Coyote tries to fix the problem by prodding the catapult's body first, then shaking it violently (and immediately diving back into his manhole after each attempt to avoid injury), but nothing happens. Getting very impatient, Wile E. lodges himself between the arm and the body and stands up, then climbs up the arm on stomps on it, again to no avail. Sliding down to the rock itself, he tries to pry it free from the arm. Suddenly, the catapult finally unjams, something that the Coyote initially fails to notice (as he is still trying to pry the rock free) until he sees a large rock formation ahead of him. Coyote is flattened as his rock flies through the formation, having taken a slice of that with it then falling off. A network of power lines captures the Coyote and slings him all the way back to the top of the catapult's arm, which plops him on the ground to be smashed once and for all by the boulder.
After that final disaster, the audience discovers the reason for the catapult's "artificial intelligence." The camera zooms in towards the manufacturer's nameplate and reveals that the catapult had been built, not by ACME, but by the "Road-Runner Manufacturing Company — Phoenix * Taos * Santa Fe * Flagstaff." The Road Runner on the nameplate gives the audience a "Beep-Beep" and then zooms off. | psychedelic | train | wikipedia | Longer Gags Help Make This Fabulous.
First of all, I agree with others here: this is an outstanding Road Runner cartoon, maybe the best I've ever seen.
It combines great color, great "camera" angles, clever stunts and a very funny Wile (at least his "yeeeeeowwwws!)It begins peacefully with Wile reading a book.
No wonder our favorite coyote is always after the Road-Runner.
According to the "Western Cookery" book, "possibly the most delicious of all western game bird is the road-runner." The rest of it is the normal chase.What's above normal are the two long gags.
I've often said the best ones are those that are drawn out a bit longer.
There is a super one in here involving a big metal spring and a boulder.
It's one of the best and inventive sight gags I've ever witness on a RR cartoon.
The other one, with the catapult is a bunch of little jokes all rolled into one with a surprise ending (regarding the company which built the device.).
Possibly the best Road Runner cartoon of the 1960s.
This entry into the Roadrunner series of cartoons which began in 1949 with 'Fast And Furry-ous' is one of my favourites.
It runs along at a frenetic pace after the initial decision by Wile E Coyote to catch Roadrunner and eat him for lunch.
As usual Wile never succeeds, but the ways he tries to do it are genius.I mean, just how many times can you think of where using a giant catapult to hurl a boulder (in an attempt to squash the fleet little bird) has gone so hilariously wrong in so many different ways?This cartoon rocks!.
Very good.
Very good and thoroughly enjoyable Roadrunner-Wile E.Coyote cartoon, one of their better ones of the 60s in my view.
It is not all that surprising as to how it ends(the story is also a fairly formulaic one in the first place), then again the Roadrunner-Coyote series are not about the stories strictly speaking but about the quality of the gags.
You do miss Coyote's looks to the camera, which were kind of breaking-the-fourth-wall-without-a-word, and despite the clever overhead shot and with the cactus the falling down the cliff gag has been done to death.
The animation has been more detailed before, budget constraints perhaps, but the colours are still really lovely and the drawings and backgrounds are well-rendered.
In short, well-done animation considering any potential constraints but not great animation.
Bill Lava's music is rousingly orchestrated and has a lot of life and isn't repetitive, his work hasn't always worked in the Speedy cartoons but it works wonderfully here and couldn't be more evident in the final gag.
The gags are consistent in how funny they are, the wrecking ball and noose gags do provoke a lot of laughs but the highlight is absolutely Coyote's attempts with a boulder and catapult, as has been noted previously instead of moving on to different methods of catching the Roadrunner it was nice to see Coyote making numerous attempts doing the same thing.
And even more importantly, the gag isn't just funny, it's hilarious, the last part of it especially.
Roadrunner is good, but Coyote has always been the more interesting and funniest of the two and as always he is sly and amusing, but we also feel pangs of sympathy too.
To conclude, a very good Roadrunner-Wile E.Coyote cartoon and one of their better outings of the 60s.
7.5/10 Bethany Cox. The best Road Runner cartoon ever..
TO BEEP OR NOT TO BEEP (1963) is my favorite Roadrunner cartoon ever made.
The best gag is when the coyote tries to catch the roadrunner in a noose.
The catapult gag, originally from ZOOM AND BORED, is even better here.
This only made it to one tape, The Classic Chase.
Too bad, because this is a gem.
The end of this one was surprising.
There's more great gags in between, such as the wrecking ball.
There's never a bad moment in this cartoon.
The best Looney Tunes were made in the sixties, but this tops them off.
Watch this and laugh out loud.Grade: A+.
Fantastic.
A classic Road Runner & Wile E.
Coyote short directed by Chuck Jones and Maurice Noble.
Most of the material from this short was originally made as part of a Road Runner TV pilot.
It's a very funny cartoon with some memorable layered gags that play off one another more than the usual Road Runner & Coyote cartoon that goes from one gag to another with little or no connection.
The highlight of these gags is the final one involving Wile E.
using different types of catapults with each one failing in hilariously different ways.
The animation is excellent with nice, bright colors and great action.
The energetic score from Bill Lava is quite possibly his best work on this series, for which he is known for producing some truly awful music.
It's a fantastic short that, like another reviewer says, is probably the best Road Runner & Coyote short from the '60s..
One of my all-time favorite cartoons..
"To Beep or Not to Beep" is one of my all-time favorite cartoon shorts, and possible my favorite of all the Road Runner and Wile E.
Coyote cartoons.There is only one reason why I say so: the music.
Now, people would say that Bill Lava's music keeps this far from perfect.
I strongly disagree to those who think so.
I think it is most wonderful, especially, and I mean, ESPECIALLY all of the music of the final catapult gag.
(It gets better when it nears the end.) It's my favorite moment of one of my all-time favorite cartoons.I first saw this on the Warner Home Video VHS release of "Warner Bros.
Cartoons Golden Jubilee 24-Karat Collection: Road Runner vs.
Wile E.
Coyote: The Classic Chase" (Anyone else have this tape?) And while all the cartoons on it stuck inside my head for my entire life, this is the one that is probably the best of the pack, and probably the perfect way to end a video..
catapults and stuff.
I remember that I first saw the catapult gags in the compilation movie "The Great American Chase" (more commonly known as "The Bugs Bunny/Road Runner Chase Movie").
Now, I've finally gotten to see "To Beep or Not to Beep" in its entirety.
The catapult scenes are the best, but there are other treats here too.
Clearly, Wile Ethelbert* Coyote is a fanatic according to George Santayana's definition (redoubling your efforts after you've forgotten your aim), but he always comes just close enough to catching Road Runner so that he thinks that he'll succeed next time.
One of the many classics, even if it doesn't give them fake scientific names.*Yes, the E stands for Ethelbert..
Ugly and not funny.
One of my least favourite Road Runner cartoons.
Chuck Jones's 'To Beep or Not to Beep' is one of my least favourite Road Runner cartoons.
My favourite thing about the Road Runner series isn't the gags (although they are frequently great) but the way in which they are so beautifully animated.
The reactions of the Coyote and his fourth-wall-breaking relationship with the audience turn standard gags into great ones.
'To Beep or Not to Beep' is extraordinarily minimal in its animation and look and, frankly, its ugly.
The few genuinely funny gags are underworked, grabbing their quick laughs and moving on.
There's no hopeful or sly looks to camera from the Coyote, he simply gets on with the job in a workmanlike fashion, refusing to acknowledge our existence.
The cartoon ends with an extended set of gags all based around the same catapult.
These longer sequences would often make the Road Runner cartoons more interesting but, like everything else in 'To Beep or Not to Beep', the gags are just knocked out with no energy or flair.
The final catapult gag experiments with prolonging the inevitable but, without the usual sense of Jones timing, when the inevitable arrives it's not funny.
'To Beep or Not to Beep' appeared late on in the Road Runner series and it almost feels like Jones is tired and can't be bothered to meet anything but the most minimal requirements.
Financial constraints or a failed experiment are more likely reasons for the cartoon's atrocious visuals and pacing but, whichever way you look at it, 'To Beep or Not to Beep' is feeble..
"Yeeeeeooooowww!!!".
"To Beep or Not to Beep" is one of the later Road Runner/Coyote cartoons from the early sixties, released shortly before the top brass at Warner Bros.
decided to shut down its cartoon department.
This particular cartoon is quite fun to watch, as we see the Coyote once again fouling up in every attempt to capture the ubiquitous Road Runner.My favorite gags from "To Beep or Not to Beep" include the following (if you haven't yet seen this cartoon, don't read any further).
One of the classic running gags of all the Road Runner/Coyote cartoons involves the Coyote's various catapult mishaps.
On another occasion, the Coyote falls off a cliff in a typically hilarious overhead shot, followed by a falling saguaro cactus, after which the Coyote soars back in the air with a lengthy scream that increases in volume as he gets closer to the camera.
And in another classic moment, the Coyote pulls a rope, misses the Road Runner, falls backward off a cliff, ties the rope around his waist, lands flat on his back, gets knocked out by a huge rock (attached to the other end of the rope), and folds up like an accordion.Under the direction of Chuck Jones, "To Beep or Not to Beep" is, without question, a great cartoon.
It is on Disc 4 of the Looney Tunes Golden Collection Volume 3, where you will find a wonderful restoration of this cartoon with bright colors and sharp, crisp images!.
Warner's at it once again .
. with its trademark eponymous warning to we Normal, Middle-Class, Blue-Collar Americans, epitomized by Wile E.
Coyote in this 1960s animated short, TO BEEP OR NOT TO BEEP.
(This cartoon was perhaps the deciding factor behind our U.S. Congress passing the "Lemon Law," which is occasionally nicknamed the "3 Strikes Statute:" It states, of course, that if three things break on your car during your first three months of ownership, your dealer MUST provide you with YOUR choice of a full refund OR a replacement vehicle of equal or greater value.) When Wile buys a catapult from Road Runner Manufacturing Co., it malfunctions SEVEN times, seriously injuring Mr. Coyote on each occasion.
It turns out that RMC is importing defective foreign parts, with no regard for Consumer Safety.
When Trump whines his way into the White House, he intends to squeeze the juice out of the Lemon Law, which a diverse judge has extended to Bogus "Universities." (That's why Donald always looks like he just bit into a lemon.).
If at first you don't succeed....
"To Beep or Not to Beep" is, without a doubt, my favorite Wile E.
Coyote/Road Runner short, mostly because it's so different than any shorts proceeding or following it.
As any geek will note, this is the only WEC/RR short that does not include a freeze-frame of the characters with their "latin" names, instead opening on our favorite coyote reading a cook book.
In a way, the set-up could almost be used as the first WEC/RR short, because it gives the viewer a great visual start to the chase.
Whether it's for the recipe for Road Runner Surprise in the cookbook, or revenge on the bird for startling him, Wile E.
has found his prey.
The second thing that I love about this episode is the infamous catapult sequence.
This is great because in most other WEC/RR shorts, Wile E.
tries a tactic to catch the Road Runner, and when it fails, he moves on to the next one.
Not so in this short: he keeps trying again and again with the catapult, hoping that the next time will work.
If at first you don't succeed, try and try again.
Of course, for the poor coyote, it doesn't matter how many times he tries.
Fate has spelled it out nice and clean for him: NOT GONNA HAPPEN!Be sure to pick up 'Looney Tunes Golden Collection Vol. 3" and check out this short.
You won't be disappointed.
Oh, and remember, when you buy a giant catapult, be sure to double-check who manufactured it...
it could save your life..
An original-sounding cheater.
Here is one of three Road Runner shorts whose footage was first used in the two-reel "Adventures of the Road Runner" (1962).
The other two, "Roadrunner a Go-Go" and "Zip Zip Hooray," were released in 1965.
They feature a verbose Wile E.
Coyote and music by Milt Franklyn.
"To Beep or Not to Beep" plays more like a typical RR short in which the Coyote utters no sentence.
His only vocalization is a long yell of agony which happens after a spiny cactus tree lands on him.The "Adventures" gags have a whole new soundtrack here, courtesy of musician Bill Lava and editor Treg Brown (who handled the sound effects).
Lava's mechanical style works especially well in the wrecking ball and catapult gags, and no other cartoon score from him sounds as robust.
The strong director's hand of Chuck Jones is so evident aurally and visually that the film comes across as one of Warner's best post-1960 cartoon shorts.-Tony |
tt0057547 | Lancelot and Guinevere | Lancelot is King Arthur's most valued Knight of the Round Table and a paragon of courage and virtue. Things change, however, when he falls in love with Queen Guinevere. A sub-plot concerns Arthur's effort to forestall a challenge from a rival king, a problem that will inevitably catch Lancelot up in a personal conflict.
In order to marry Guinevere, King Leodogran's daughter, King Arthur must find a knight to defeat Leodogran's champion. Arthur chooses Lancelot, who mortally wounds his opponent. On the way back to Camelot, Lancelot foils an attempt on Guinevere's life by Sir Modred, Arthur's illegitimate son; and before the end of the journey Lancelot and Guinevere realize their love for each other. Though Lancelot is loyal to Arthur and Guinevere's marriage to the King takes place as planned, it is not long before the two become lovers.
Modred spies on them and informs Arthur of his wife's infidelity. Lancelot escapes, but Guinevere is condemned to be burned at the stake. He returns in time to save her and then offers to give himself up provided there will be no retaliation. Nevertheless, Arthur banishes him and sends Guinevere to a convent. Years later, Modred murders Arthur for his throne, and Lancelot returns to defeat him, thus ending the civil war that has been raging in Britain. He then finds Guinevere about to take the vows of a nun. | cult, violence, historical fiction | train | wikipedia | In and around the castle Camelot, brave Cornel Wilde (as Lancelot) and virtuous Brian Aherne (as King Arthur) vie for the affections of lovely Jean Wallace (as Guinevere).
Clearly, "Lancelot and Guinevere" was meant as a more realistic, for the times, "Knights of the Round Table" film.
**** Lancelot and Guinevere (6/2/63) Cornel Wilde ~ Cornel Wilde, Jean Wallace, Brian Aherne, Iain Gregory.
A good action film that is reasonably faithful to the Arthurian legends as interpreted (and sometimes actually written) by Thomas Malory in the 15th century.
The individual sword fights seem like hard and deadly work----no dancing and prancing or choreographed acrobatics as in most films of this genre.
Just clanging metal and men straining in their armor, with gory and graphically depicted consequences.The film is indeed part soap opera, as is the Lancelot/Guinevere part of the Arthurian Cycle, but these interludes are done in a matter of fact, rather stark manner.
The dialogue is a bit clipped and less theatrical than in most epics but this only adds to its realistic qualities.An excellent film by a man (Cornel Wilde) very underrated as both an actor and filmmaker..
A stirring tale of knights, chivalry, and the days of the Round Table in the time of King Arthur is brought to the screen with full pomp and pageantry .
It deals with ARTHUR-LANCELOT-GUINEVERE triangle that brings to life again , including a sincere respect , though also fictitious , of the old legend .
Set during the civil wars of 6Th-century England where rules the king Arthur (Brian Aherne) , he achieved to maintain the Christianity and civilization in the west of England , though no exactly congruent with the VI century , time was presumed to have lived but the film is developed in a high medieval panoply .
Wandering swordsman Lancelot (Cornel Wilde) falls for beautiful Guinevere (Jean Wallace) , soon to be Arthur's queen .
Later on , Lancelot fights evil renegade knights , Barbarians invaders and villainous Mordred , Arthur's son .
This period action classic features Lancelot, the bravest knight of the Round Table and the moving story of the romantic triangle starred by Cornel Wilde, who is badly miscast , and his real wife , the lovely Jean Wallace .
In spite of lack real documents about legendary feats of King Arthur , allegedly in VI century King of Bretons , during XII century was created some writings by French notorious authors who romanticized the legend as Chretien of Troyes and Thomas Malory that wrote the Bretons series with their knights looking for the Holy Grail .
Besides , Godofredo of Mormouth publicized in 1136 the ¨History Regnum Britanniae¨ and in XX century John Steinbeck wrote about the events of King Arthur .The motion picture was professionally directed by Cornel Wilde .
Cornel Wilde, who also acted , co-produced and directed this film, as he ambiously romps some Arthurian legends in this spectacular slide of sword , blood and battles .
Other movies on the matter of legends of Arthur resulted to be : ¨Knights of the round table¨(Richard Thorpe, 53) with Robert Taylor , Ava Gardner , Mel Ferrer , Stanley Baker ; the musical ¨Camelot¨ (Joshua Logan), with Franco Nero , Richard Harris , Vanessa Redgrave ; the fantastic ¨Excalibur¨ considered the best and tremendous epic (John Boorman, 81) with Nigel Terry , Helen Mirren , Nicholas Clay , Nicol Williamson , Cherie Lunghi ; ¨Merlin and the sword (Clive Donner , 85) with Malcolm McDowell , Candice Bergen , Edward Woodward; ¨Merlin¨(1998) with Sam Neill , Miranda Richardson , Rutger Hauer , Isabella Rossellini , Martin Short ; First knight¨ with Richard Gere , Sean Connery , Julia Ormond ; and recently ¨King Arthur¨(Antoine Fuqua, 2004) with Clive Owen , Stephen Dillane , Ioan Gruffud , Mikkelsen , Kiera Knightley .
Not a solitary comment on one of the really good medieval flicks of this period?Actually it was one of the last, coming at the end of the cycle that had included KING ARTHUR AND THE KNIGHTS OF THE ROUND TABLE, PRINCE VALIANT, THE BLACK SHIELD OF FALWORTH, THE BLACK KNIGHT....all big moneyspinners in the 50's.
By '63 even THAT had waned, THE LAST DAYS OF SODOM AND GOMORRAH having closed the chapter on epics the previous year.But hey, Cornel Wilde was a ragingly in-form Lancelot and pulled out all stops to impress his lady Guinevere.
But you know, simply nothing overcame life's little set- backs in those days of yore, like crushing a few skulls in with a mace or broadsword and Lancelot was the champion after all.
Some reviewers at the time took exception to Lancelot's french accent (Ah, my GuineVERE, u know 'ow I love you non?, ees not your coleurs 'anging from my lance-tip cherie?) Well ze franch accent or not, Cornel made as good a Lancelot as anyone ever has.
The battle scenes alone were way ahead of there time with gore and spectacle.
Cornel Wilde started as an Olympian master at fencing, and this film must have been something of the ultimate realization of his dreams.
He makes a very convincing Frenchman, and there are two great battle scenes which alone make the film outstanding.
In another version Sean Connery was equally old, but there is nothing in any legend to imply that King Arthur must have been an old man when he married Guinevere.
Both Joshua Logan's 'Camelot' (two years later) and the excellent TV screening of 'The Mists of Avalon' both make the king as young and fresh as Guinevere, and both Arthurs are more convincing.
Of course, the centerpiece is Lancelot and Guinevere, they need no one else, and their story is quite good enough to give Mordred and Morgan as little space as possible.
The highest credit though goes to the script, which actually Cornel Wilde himself was part of besides directing the whole thing himself..
King Arthur sends his trusty right hand man, the knight Sir Lancelot to a rival kingdom to win the hand in marriage of Guinevere.
After a time, they become lovers & when Arthur finds out, their friendship – sabotaged by a rival knight – becomes very strained.Originally released in the United Kingdom as Lancelot & Guinevere, this 1963 adventure film was directed by its star, Cornel Wilde.
Wilde also produces & cast his wife at the time, Jean Wallace, as Guinevere.While not the definitive version of the Camelot story, Sword of Lancelot is still reasonably watchable.
The film has some passable acting &, like most of Wilde's directorial efforts, filled with action scenes.
Wilde & Wallace might be a good pair on the screen but they are both a little too old for their roles.
Having said that, Sword of Lancelot is still a pretty reasonable Dark Ages adventure film, although I still prefer something like Under the Red Robe over this..
Cornel Wilde should be awarded an "E" for effort in The Sword of Lancelot, a gabby, murkily photographed, and surprisingly bloody King Arthurer from 1962.
Wilde as Lancelot sports a dandy little French accent that reminded me of the guy in the tower in Monty Python's The Holy Grail while he fights for the king, until he gets all gushy over the lovely Jean Wallace as Guinevere.There is quite a bit of long-looking and love-talking and smooching between the real-life couple (and a tightly shot post-coital embrace with the two drippy and funky; boy, what did the folks at the Production Code think of that?), but after a good while, you're starting to grumble at the screen to GET ON WITH IT, whatever it might be.The battles swing from the hokey to the excitingly bloody.
You don't see many guys get their heads split down the middle in American movies in 1962, and Wilde does stage a couple of well-thought-out sequences, so there is some benefit to sitting through the kiss-kiss to get to the clang-clang.The whole Arthurian legend is such an appealing story that even though Wilde has two strikes against him--a budget equivalent to pocket change (the film quality is so bad, I honestly checked my glasses to see if they needed cleaning) and the fact that most everyone involved looks a good generation too old for the story--he still brings some real love and passion to the screen.Which is why The Sword of Lancelot should be taken at face value, and even though Jean Wallace is pushing forty in the picture (too mature for a maiden), all I can say is, "What a face!".
Cornel Wilde had an interesting career as stand-by leading man for Tyrone Power at Fox. His biggest role there was in Forever Amber, made when Power was doing another big budget spectacle, Captain from Castile and was unavailable.
Wilde should have had a bigger career, but never got the breaks.He and Mrs. Wilde (Jean Wallace who played Guinevere)dusted off the Lancelot and Guinevere story for another go.
This kind of film really needs the full backing of a big studio.MGM did this far better with Knights of the Round Table.
Wilde dusted off the French accent he perfected in The Greatest Show On Earth and played Lancelot properly as a Frenchman.
But Ava Gardner was a Guinevere to die for as opposed to what Mrs. Wilde did with the part.Brian Aherne plays a noble Arthur.
Lancelot, like Tristan, is entrusted by King Arthur (King Mark) to escort Guinevere (Iseult) to Camelot.
They fall in love during the journey, thanks to a soap that Lancelot jokes about as being a magical charm from Merlin (like the love potion labeled poison that Iseult drinks)..
Countless versions of the Arthurian legend have been filmed, some with emphasis on the romance, some the action and some the supernatural.
This one (produced by, directed by and starring Wilde) virtually eliminates any supernatural aspects (Merlin's primary mystical contribution is the invention of soap!) and focuses on the pageantry, battle and romantic passion of the story.
Aherne is King Arthur, whose attempt to unify all of Britain includes the marrying of Princess Guinevere (Wallace.) Unfortunately, he sends Lancelot (Wilde) to collect her and she grows enamored of him before she's even met Aherne.
Ostensibly virginal Wallace is as well (40) and 61 years seems like a long time for Aherne to have waited to get married!
Her character lacks clear motivation at times (and her hair color and costumes aren't always very pleasing.) Aherne is excellent, showing a lot of charisma and assurance in his role (though he is not given a proper send-off at the end.) Meacham is an appropriately weaselly villain.
This hurts the human side of the story somewhat as the relationships aren't given sufficient screen time to develop as strongly as one might like, especially with such an unnecessarily wide cast of supporting characters.
Wilde really took a chance in producing such an expansive film as this on his own and it was not a particularly strong financial success.
It is, however, preposterous to expect an audience to believe that Wallace, en route to be married to a king, would bathe in the same water, simultaneously, as the knight who is escorting her.
This was made during a time when Wilde was creating most of his own films and starring himself and real-life wife Wallace in them.
SWORD OF LANCELOT, crafted as Cornel Wilde's gift to himself, shows Guinevere as a strong and determined character—far from an 'etiolated princess
--and her character is also played with brio and charm.From the whole tale, the script picked as characters truly brought out the love triangle—the knight, his queen, and the oldster—and, in fact, only the couple of lovers—the others are too marginal
.
As an adventure flick, it features a tournament and a battle with the pagan invaders, and it ends with the defeat of Mordred.Directed by Wilde, the movie has something sincere and straight and respectable, even a note of originality..
Cornel Wilde started his career as a matinée idol specializing in romantic and swashbuckling roles,later going on to direct his own films.Some are best forgotten but films like "The Naked Prey" and "Beach Red" are cult classics.Lancelot and Guinevere,his take on the Camelot legend,while not an unqualified success is by no means a bad film,what does however stretch ones credibility is the ages of some of the leading players.
Cornel Wilde who played Lancelot, although still fit and muscular looking, was pushing fifty.Likewise his real life wife Jean Wallace who played Guinevere was in her forties.Although still an attractive woman no amount of soft focus photography could disguise the fact.For reasons best known to himself Wilde decided to portray Lancelot as a french man so he dusted off the accent he perfected in "Centennial Summer" and "The Greatest Show On Earth",one wonders if that was the inspiration for Peter Sellers role as Inspector Clouseau in the Pink Panther films.Yes its that bad.The love scenes were considered quite explicit for the time but they come across today as more tasteful than erotic.The whole film is down to earth with no magic or mysticism and certainly no Excalibur.Merlin spends his time inventing a wondrous new substance called soap.Indeed is it a product placement opportunity for Proctor and Gamble?
After this there is precious little humour to be found.Wilde uses a good second eleven team of British actors such as Brian Aherne,George Baker,Archie Duncan,Adrienne Corri,Reginald Beckworth,Richard Thorpe,Graham Stark and John Barrie.They all do sterling work but not enough to interest "Oscar".Also the editing is a little abrupt at times perhaps due to budget restraints.Wilde really comes into his own in the battle scenes which are quite spectacular courtesy of the Yugoslavian Army who enter into the spirit with gusto.For those who like looking for goofs watch out for the two extras who thought they were off camera having a crafty smoke with arrows sticking out all over them.The eagle eyed may also notice the odd wristwatch.At the beginning and end of the film there are two particularly bloody hand to hand combat scenes which leave one in no doubt as to the effectiveness of medieval weaponry.For all that by far the best sequence in the film is when Wilde and his men rescue a Saxon village which has been captured by Vikings,it certainly doesn't pull its punches especially in the scene where the village women, who have been violated, watch with grim satisfaction as their attackers are slaughtered to a man.In this reviewers opinion a far superior scene than anything you will find in "The Vikings".Everybody knows the plot,the doomed love affair,the destruction of Camelot and Guinevere finishing up in a nunnery,all very sad.One wishes they could make a version where they all live happy ever after.Come on it is only a fairy tale.Finally I would like to doff my hat to the young lady who plays the french serving maid,her heroic cleavage would not be out of place in a Russ Meyer film,it made for a pleasant interlude among all the doom and gloom.It certainly made a big impression on me as a spotty teenager when I first saw the film..
{{Contains Spoilers }}'Lancelot and Guinevere' -aka 'The Sword of Lancelot' is a movie that seems to be well out of its time even in 1963.
Its acting style, dialogue and costumes (everything used looks at least second or third hand) is more akin to the early 1950s epics (Ivanhoe, King Richard and the Crusades etc) than to say 'El Cid' made only a few years earlier in 1960.Not only is the film set in the Middle Ages - the cast are all pretty middle aged as well - and look it .
King Arthur (Brian Aherne) was over 60 when this movie was made , yet even with a fake beard, he still looks at least 50.
Perhaps he had too much fun in Camelot with the knights to think about marrying but the arrival of Sir Lancelot and his magic soap may make a difference !
A rather mature looking Lancelot (another ageing bachelor it seems ) scares the other 'dirtier' Knights with his soapy ways and also has a French accent which unfortunately reminds you a bit of Inspector Clouseau.
Instead you have the barrel chested Cornell Wilde as the Gallic Knight errand whose new task it to claim Guinevere for King Arthur at a rival's court in a death or glory tournament .
Lancelot wins that encounter and escorts Guinevere back to Camelot.
Besides the absurd sub Shakespearean style dialogue - bouts of weird laughter and back slapping in Camelot every time someone tells a feeble joke, one the glaring daftest ideas for the film was to cast Wilde's wife Jean Wallace as Guinevere.
- and there is no way even the camera can disguise it but this Guinevere looks pretty old to be the most desirable virgin in the land.
Perhaps everyone in this film had a wash down with the magic soap , to believe this casting as feasible or acceptable.The film does get a partial redemption in that more time is spent out on the battlefield fighting against various enemies of King Arthur but overall 'Lancelot and Guinevere' should only be seen by fans of bad films..
It was a little hard to fathom Lady Guinevere (Jean Wallace) looking her true age representing a King's daughter about to be betrothed.
Kind of makes you glad they had that magic soap around.The one thing the film had going for it was the realistic battle scenes, with body blows taking on a gruesome countenance.
At one point we see Lancelot right in the thick of things swinging away with his sword, and a minute later he's perusing the battle field from a distant vantage point as different sets of warriors enter the fray; it almost looked like there were more than two fronts to the battle.And say, what accent was Cornel Wilde going for? |
tt0053320 | A Summer Place | Alcoholic Bart Hunter (Arthur Kennedy), his long-suffering wife Sylvia (Dorothy McGuire), and their teenage son Johnny (Troy Donahue) operate a crumbling inn on Pine Island off the Maine coast. The inn was previously Bart's elegant family mansion in an exclusive resort, but as his family fortunes have dwindled, the Hunters are forced to rent rooms to paying guests, even going so far as to move themselves into the small guest house so their own master bedroom suite can be rented out. Bart receives a reservation request from an old acquaintance, Ken Jorgenson, who was a lowly lifeguard on the island twenty years ago, but is now a successful research chemist and millionaire. Ken wants to bring his wife and daughter to the island for the summer. Bart dislikes Ken and feels that Ken is just coming to lord his new wealthy status over Bart, who is no longer rich. Bart nearly refuses the request, but Sylvia insists that he accept because they badly need the money.
Ken (Richard Egan) arrives with his wife Helen (Constance Ford) and teenage daughter Molly (Sandra Dee). Helen and Ken have an unhappy marriage, sleep in separate bedrooms, and frequently argue, including over the proper behavior standards for their daughter. Helen is a prude who disapproves of Molly's developing figure and healthy interest in boys, particularly Johnny Hunter, who is also attracted to Molly. Ken is much more relaxed and permissive, and tries to teach his daughter that her natural desires are not shameful. Helen also tries unsuccessfully to put on airs and impress the upper class residents of the island, while Ken is not interested in pretense and is even happy to talk with older people who remember him from when he worked as a lifeguard.
As it turns out, Ken and Sylvia were lovers twenty years ago, when they were teenagers. It soon becomes apparent that they still love each other and have missed each other for many years, and that Ken returned to Pine Island in hopes of seeing Sylvia again. They had broken up because Ken was a poor college student, while Bart was the son of a rich established family, so Sylvia married Bart, and Ken, after seeing Sylvia's wedding announcement in the newspaper, married Helen. Both marriages were unhappy but Ken and Sylvia stayed in them because of their love for their respective children, Molly and Johnny. Ken and Sylvia find themselves drawn to each other again and begin secretly meeting every night. They are soon spotted by the island's night watchman, who informs Helen. Helen initially keeps quiet, planning to catch them in the act in order to ensure a large divorce settlement.
Ken goes on a business trip for a weekend, during which time Molly and Johnny, with Ken's permission, go sailing around the island. Their boat capsizes in rough water, stranding them on the beach overnight. The Coast Guard rescues them the next day, but Helen is suspicious that the teenagers were intimate on the beach although they deny it. Helen sends for a doctor to examine Molly to make sure she is still a virgin (which she is) and Molly becomes hysterical and runs away, causing Johnny to threaten to kill Helen if she hurts Molly ever again. Helen contacts law enforcement and then in a fit of anger reveals Sylvia and Ken's affair in front of Bart, Ken, Sylvia and Johnny. The Hunters and Jorgensons each go through an acrimonious public divorce, and Molly and Johnny are sent to boarding schools several states apart. Molly and Johnny are angry at Ken and Sylvia and stop speaking to them, becoming increasingly dependent on each other for emotional support despite Helen's constant interference and criticism of Molly's morals.
Ken and Sylvia eventually marry and move into a beach house. They talk Molly and Johnny into visiting them there, to which the teenagers agree largely because it will give them a chance to be together away from Helen, who is unable to prevent the visit due to a court order. During their visit, Molly and Johnny secretly consummate their love. Ken and Sylvia suspect that the teenagers are sleeping together and are concerned about the possible ill effects, but in view of their own past teenage history, feel they cannot order Molly and Johnny to stop loving each other. Soon after, Molly discovers she is pregnant, and she and John run away together planning to get married. They seek Bart's blessing, but he is about to be admitted to the veterans' hospital due to ulcers from his drinking, and drunkenly tries to talk them out of marriage, later calling Helen to let her know what happened. The local justice of the peace sees they are under legal age to marry, and turns them down. In desperation, Molly and Johnny go to the house of Ken and Sylvia, who are supportive. In the end, a happy John and Molly, just married, return to Pine Island for their honeymoon. | melodrama | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0111708 | Wicked Games | Mike Strauber, a businessman with a history of mental illness, walks in on his wife, Sharon, having sex with Jerry, his best friend. Mike storms off, and wanders aimlessly as he contemplates suicide while flashing back to his time with Sharon, and a childhood incident where he cut himself with a razor while playing Truth or Dare? Mike picks up a female hitchhiker, and the two go to a campsite, where they play Truth or Dare? The game turns violent, and ends when a park ranger finds Mike, who had mutilated himself at the behest of the hitchhiker, who was just a hallucination.
Mike is admitted to the Sunnyville Mental Institution, and is released over a year later due to good behavior, overcrowding, and budget cuts. Immediately after being discharged, Mike tracks down and murders Jerry, and is readmitted to Sunnyville after being wounded while trying to kill Sharon. Once back in Sunnyville, Mike hallucinates playing Truth or Dare? with two disfigured patients, and cuts most of his own face off with a knife he had smuggled into the facility. Five months later, Mike, who has taken to wearing a frowning copper mask, goes berserk in his room after an employee taunts him by giving him a picture of Sharon. When an orderly tries to calm him, Mike stabs the man in the eye with a pencil, then escapes the institution, hijacking a car full of weapons on his way out.
Mike goes on a rampage, indiscriminately slaughtering men, women, and children on his way to Sharon's house. Realizing where Mike is going, Detective Rosenberg and Doctor Thorne head there, with Thorne arriving first. Thorne is unable to save Sharon, and is killed in a shootout with Mike. Rosenberg happens upon Mike, bleeding heavily from being shot by Thorne, and manages to talk him down, and disarm him. Mike is taken by paramedics, and placed back in Sunnyville. | violence, murder | train | wikipedia | null |
tt1867091 | The Reconstruction of William Zero | After accidentally causing the death of his son, geneticist William Blakely wakes in a house tended by a man who introduces himself as his twin brother. His brother explains that William was involved in a car crash. William can remember nothing of his life and must be taught basic concepts, such as how to walk and respond to knock-knock jokes. Together, they watch old footage of William and his twin as children. Though William does not recognize his estranged wife Jules, he is entranced by her. William's brother is finally called to return to work at Next Corp, and he leaves William alone in the house for the day.
At work, William's brother is revealed to be the real William Blakely – William 1. He stole material from the lab to create a clone, William 2. His assistant, Baxter, tells William 1 that their test subjects have been dying after mere weeks. Before William 1 can do anything further, his boss, Dr. Archer, takes him to see several security agents, who accuse him of stealing the lab materials. Dr. Archer supports him, but the security agents remain suspicious. At the same time, William 2 explores the house and discovers enough evidence that he becomes confused about his origins and identity. Further confusing William 2 is a phone call apparently from a haggard-sounding version of William (who is later revealed to be the original William, William Zero) who apologizes for leaving him and promises to return.
William 2 angrily confronts William 1. After interrogating William 1, William 2 ties him up and leaves to find Jules, who he hopes can explain further. Although overwhelmed by his first experiences in the world, William 2 quickly adapts and locates Jules. He awkwardly reestablishes contact with her, though she initially rejects him, as she feels abandoned and left alone to deal with her grief. William 2 secretly follows her around the city and becomes more smitten with her. Meanwhile, William 1 escapes his bonds and kills a Next Corp security agent who was investigating the house and its grounds. William 1 recovers a pistol from the agent's body and uses it kill Dr. Archer.
William 1 quickly returns home and pretends to be bound. When his clone arrives, he convinces William 2 to take over his life, as William 1 does not wish to return to it. William 2 reluctantly agrees, and goes to work at Next Corp, where he learns that the animal test subjects are second generation clones. Baxter explains that cloning a clone causes extensive genetic problems, and William 2, who is experiencing the described symptoms, realizes that he must be a second generation clone, too. Before he can return home to further question William 1, a security team detains him for further questioning. Baxter, dubious about the company's ethics, frees him and traps the security team.
After growing increasingly suspicious of his neighbor's activities, Lester confronts William 1. William 1 invites Lester inside, and, after pushing him down a flight of stairs, explains his origins. The original William Blakely, William Zero, was so overcome by guilt and grief that he abandoned his wife and created a clone, William 1, to replace him. However, William 1 felt abandoned by his creator once William Zero disappeared. As he struggled through life with no help, he became bitter and disillusioned, eventually attempting suicide. Unable to face his own broken life, William 1 created a clone to replace him – freeing him to seek vengeance on William Zero and the world.
After killing Lester, William 1 lures Jules to the house, planning to kill her to spite William Zero. Although confused by his cold demeanor compared to William 2, Jules does not suspect anything. William 2 arrives before William 1 can kill Jules, and he tells Jules that he loves her. After the two embrace, William 2 attempts to dispose of William 1's body, only to be confronted by William Zero. Knowing he will soon die, William 2 convinces William Zero to return to his wife and promise never to leave her again. William Zero tearfully agrees, and they arrange for his death to be faked. Some time later, William Zero is shown together with Jules and his now-cloned son. | home movie | train | wikipedia | null |
tt1322269 | August: Osage County | The action takes place over the course of several weeks in August inside the three-story home of Beverly and Violet Weston outside Pawhuska, Oklahoma.
Prologue
The play opens with Beverly Weston, a once-famous poet, interviewing Johnna, a young Cheyenne woman, for a position as live-in cook and caregiver for his wife Violet, who is being treated for mouth cancer due to heavy cigarette use for most of her life. Violet is addicted to several different kinds of prescription drugs and exhibits paranoia and mood swings. Beverly, who freely admits that he is an alcoholic, lightly converses about Violet's current problems, most of which Beverly concedes are the result of personal demons too powerful to be cured by drugs. Violet enters the scene clearly affected by her drugs. After an incoherent and combative argument with Beverly, Violet returns upstairs. Beverly hires Johnna, lends her a book of TS Eliot's poetry, and continues to drink.
Act One
Several weeks later. Beverly Weston has not been seen for five days. Several family members have gathered in the house to provide support for Violet including her daughter Ivy, her sister Mattie Fae and Mattie Fae's husband Charlie. When Violet is not making calls attempting to track down her husband or popping pills, she spends the time sniping at her family, particularly Ivy, whom she criticizes for her mode of dress and lack of a romantic life. The news comes that Beverly's boat is missing, furthering the fear that he has committed suicide. Ivy's older sister Barbara arrives from Boulder, Colorado with her husband Bill and 14-year-old daughter Jean. Barbara has not visited her mother in several years, and has mixed feelings about returning to the house because of the confrontational nature of their relationship. They fall into an argument almost immediately, during which Violet accuses her of abandoning her family and breaking her father's heart.
Later in the evening, Jean bonds with Johnna after the older woman allows her to smoke some marijuana in her room. She confides to Johnna that her parents are separated and are attempting to hide the fact from the family. Bill and Barbara argue over the cause of their separation as they make a bed out of the fold-out sofa in the living room: Bill is sleeping with a much-younger woman, one of his students at the university where he teaches. At five AM, the local sheriff, Deon Gilbeau (Barbara's high school boyfriend) rings the doorbell and breaks the news that Beverly has been found drowned. Barbara goes to identify the body as Violet comes downstairs in a drug-addled fog. The act ends with her spiraling into confusion.
Act Two
Several days later. The family has come from Beverly's funeral. Violet spends a quiet moment alone in Beverly's office, bitterly reproaching him for leaving her, and takes some more pills. Before the memorial dinner prepared for the family by Johnna, several family arguments and scenes arise. Ivy and Barbara's sister Karen has flown in from Florida with her new fiancé and can talk about nothing except her wedding plans, distressing Barbara. During an argument with her mother and Mattie Fae, Ivy unwittingly confesses that she is seeing someone romantically but refuses to say who. Mattie Fae and Charlie's son Little Charles has overslept and missed the funeral. His father is sympathetic but Mattie Fae is, as usual, rude to and critical of her son. Karen's fiancé Steve discovers that Jean is a pot-smoker and offers to share his stash with her, lewdly flirting with the teenaged girl. In a private moment, it is revealed that Ivy's lover is actually Little Charles, her first cousin.
Dinner is served, and Violet begins insulting and needling all of her family members. After inappropriately discussing Beverly's will at the table, she cruelly exposes Barbara and Bill's separation. When Barbara starts to fight back, Violet tauntingly reveals the full extent of her addiction, and the tensions develop into a violent confrontation, culminating in Barbara physically attacking her mother. After family members separate them, Barbara takes control of the situation, ordering that the family raid the house to discover all of Violet's hiding places for her pills.
Act Three
Several hours later things have calmed down, but the pain of the dinner confrontation has not gone away. Barbara reports that Violet's doctor thinks she has brain damage, and the three sisters share a drink in their father's study, discussing their mother. Ivy reveals that she and Little Charles are planning to run away to New York, and refuses to acknowledge the need for someone to take care of Violet. She reveals that it was Violet, not Beverly, who was heartbroken when Barbara left Oklahoma. Violet enters, now more coherent and off her drugs but no less incorrigible, is resigned to dealing with her demise on her own terms. She discusses a depressing story from her childhood with her daughters. In a private moment, Barbara and Violet apologize to each other, but it is uncertain how long the peace will last.
Mattie Fae observes a tender moment between Little Charles and Ivy, and begins taunting him again when the ever-patient Charlie finally loses his temper with his wife, berating her for her cruelty to her own son and promising her that unless she can find a way to be kind to Little Charles, he is going to leave her. The lecture is accidentally overheard by Barbara, who confirms when pressed that Little Charles and Ivy are lovers. She is shocked when Mattie Fae reveals that Little Charles is not just Ivy's first cousin but also her half-brother, the result of a long-ago affair between Mattie Fae and Beverly. Mattie Fae refuses to tell Ivy or Little Charles the truth, leaving it up to Barbara, who knows that the news will destroy Ivy, to find a way to end the incestuous affair.
Late that night, Steve and Jean share a joint, and before long, Steve attempts to molest Jean. Johnna walks in on the scene and attacks Steve with a shovel; the noise brings Jean's parents and Karen to the scene. An ugly argument follows when Jean defensively lashes out at her parents with hurtful comments about her father's affair, and Barbara slaps her. Karen leaves with Steve, choosing to lie to herself and mistakenly blaming Jean for what happened. Bill elects to return to Boulder with Jean and admits, when Barbara confronts him, that he is not going to come back to her. He leaves as Barbara tells him she loves him.
Two weeks pass. Barbara, now drinking heavily, offers Johnna a chance to quit and leave the toxic environment of the Weston house, but she chooses to stay. Sheriff Gilbeau drops by the house with the news that Beverly had stayed at a motel shortly before he committed suicide. He and Barbara nearly share a tender moment, but she is too emotionally exhausted and drunk to consummate it.
Several days later, Ivy has dinner with Barbara and Violet. Ivy attempts to tell her mother, over Barbara's objections, of her plans with Little Charles but Violet suddenly confesses that she already knows that Little Charles is Beverly's son. Ivy recoils in shock and horror, rebuffing Barbara's attempts to comfort her, and says that she will never tell him and leaves for New York anyway. Violet calmly reveals that she has deliberately destroyed Ivy and Charles' affair, which she knew of the entire time. Barbara and her mother have one last angry confrontation during which Violet blames Barbara for her father's suicide. Violet also reveals his suicide might have been preventable since she knew which motel he stayed in the night he left the house. Barbara, realizing that her Mother has slipped beyond her help, leaves the house. Violet breaks down and is left only with Johnna, who ends the play with a quotation from a T.S. Eliot poem: "This is the way the world ends, this is the way the world ends." | boring, storytelling | train | wikipedia | But the acting is so terrific, the roles so strong, that you don't want to miss it.It's the story of the Weston family: Violet, a drug-addicted cancer patient (Meryl Streep); her husband Beverley, a well-known poet (Sam Shepard); their daughters Barbara (Julia Roberts), Karen (Juliette Lewis), and Ivy (Julianne Nicholson); Violet's sister Minnie Fae Aiken (Margo Martindale), her husband Charles (Chris Cooper), and their son, known as Little Charles (Benedict Cumberbatch).When Beverley commits suicide, the family gathers and it's wretched from the beginning.
Violet is totally drugged, Barbara and her husband (Ewan McGregor) are in the process of breaking up, Ivy has a secret boyfriend and, though she stayed behind and has been caring for her mother, she's ready to leave for New York, and Karen arrives with her fiancée (Dermot Mulroney) who has been married three times and seems a little too interested in Barbara's 14-year-old daughter.
That's the bargain we've struck." Beverly Watson (Sam Shepherd)Let the acting begin: As if the race had begun to determine the most disaffected member of the most dysfunctional family ever depicted on film, August: Osage County is the most violent film this year without a drop of visible blood.In order to pull off this Eugene O'Neil-Tennessee Williamsl-Sam Shepherd-like dramatic version of Tracy Letts' play (Letts is the screenwriter as well), director John Wells needed to have an A-list cast; he does just that.
In arguably the best acting of the year, Meryl Streep plays Violet Weston, the drug-addled schizophrenic matriarch of a family where dinners end up with broken plates and hearts.
Although her performance is a tour de force (when are hers not?), the Oscar may elude her this time because her character is so unlikeable, and, well, she eats most of the available scenery.Heading the rest of the cast is Julia Roberts as daughter Barbara Weston, a soon-to-be-divorced realist absorbing the punches of mom and Barbara's Pippi-Longstocking-chasing husband (Ewan McGregor) until she almost can't take it anymore.
This is an exceptionally challenging film and most won't be able to stay with it as it hurtles, repeatedly, from hysterical comedy to blackest tragedy in almost the same breath - the term "tragicomedy" never fit a film so well ...There are some stupendous performances here, Meryl Streep in particular but Roberts is outstanding too amongst a superb ensemble cast - the script is firecrackingly terrific and the (less is more when you've got this much going on ...) direction is perfect too ...You know something?
Though nearly 40 minutes of Tracy Lett's Pulitzer Prize winning dramedy have been shaved for the screen version, "August: Osage County" still manages to deliver on the towering play's hearty laughs, gasp inducing shocks, and well earned tears.While it is hardly the best adaptation of a play to a film, as much of the film still retains it's indoor, staging setting, it is boosted by some sterling performances of actors at the top of their craft.
Julianne Nicholson is both quiet yet fiercely determined as middle daughter Ivy. Sam Sheppard is amazing in the even more truncated role of the Weston family patriarch who goes missing, and Misty Upham is so good with so little to say as the young Indian woman, Johnna, tossed into a family in turmoil.Of course the turmoil is led by the Medea-of-the-Midwest, Violet, played for every ounce by Meryl Streep in one of her most indelible performances ever.
Before I even start to talk about John Wells' new film "August: Osage County," I have to say I've never seen the stage play or read it by writer Tracy Letts.
I walked out of the theater feeling the same way I felt following the end credits of "Doubt." Streep excels in many areas of acting, but I feel when it comes to stage adaptations to the big screen, Streep doesn't live in the character as comfortably as she would in any other role.
As "Little Charles," he definitely has the narrative's most sympathetic story but more importantly, in a film that is full of despicable people, he manages to pull the audience in to root for him, even when you know he's doing something terribly wrong.I've longed for Juliette Lewis to get back in Oscar's graces following her nomination over twenty years ago in Martin Scorsese's "Cape Fear." She as dynamic as we've seen her in the last few years, delivering her best turn yet as Karen.
Violet Wetson (Meryl Streep) reunites with her three willful daughters, Barbara (Julia Roberts), Ivy (Julianne Nicholson) and Karen (Juliette Lewis) when there was a death in the family.
This time out, he adapts his own play for director John Wells' (The Company Men, TV's "ER") screen version of August: Osage County.With an ensemble cast matched by very few movies over the years, the screen version begins with what may be its best scene.
This extraordinary pre-credits scene sets the stage for the entire movie, which unfortunately only approaches this high standard a couple more times.Despite the film's flaws, there is no denying the "train-wreck" effect of not being able to look away from this most dysfunctional family.
Most of this is due to the screen presence of a steady stream of talented actors: in addition to Streep and Shephard, we get their 3 daughters played by Julia Roberts (Barbara), Julianne Nicholson (Ivy) and Juliette Lewis (Karen); Ewan McGregor and Abigail Breslin as Roberts' husband and daughter; Margo Martindale (Violet's sister), her husband Chris Cooper (Charles) and their son Benedict Cumberbatch.As with most dysfunctional family movies, there is a dinner table scene ...
Or it might have been because adapting a play to the big screen is even more difficult than a book; sometimes, what works on a stage with the actors live somehow becomes over the top and artificial when it's shot with the characteristic display of Hollywood affectations: the "acting duels", the screams and fuss to simulate emotions, the actresses who accept to look uglier in order to be nominated for the Oscar...
But it's a safe bet no one's family gatherings were as awful as the one depicted in the new film August: Osage County.The movie is based on the Pulitzer Prize winning play by Tracy Letts (who plays Sen. Lockhart on Showtime's Homeland), and it tells the story of the Weston clan, who come together after their alcoholic patriarch (played by Sam Shepard) commits suicide.
We understand that Violet, Meryl Streep in another (what-did-you-expect) virtuoso performance, let bitterness grow in the heart of her three daughters, each one proving that there can be more than one worst-case scenario.By the way, it's interesting that many dysfunctional families feature daughters.
No rewards to her good intentions except low self-esteem and bad luck (for reasons I won't spoil) that lead her heart to her first cousin (Benedict Cumberbatch).And in this drama whose witty and punchy dialogs are fueled by alcohol and unhealthy rainbows of pills, pain-killers and anti-depressants, each scene manages to be both entertaining and true to life, painting the live portrait of a family collapse, whose warning signs were the slow disintegration of its founding marriage.
Basically "August Osage County" is to Family what "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf" is to couple, and the film is driven by fantastic performances, all carrying their level of pathos with talent and authenticity mostly from women, but men have their words to say.Chris Cooper is the husband of Violet's sister Mattie Fae (Margo Martindale), a lighter version of the infamous Hillary Swank's redneck mother in "Million Dollar Baby", lacking compassion and empathy toward her only son.
Ironically, the only positive female figure is Johnna (Misty Upham), the Native maid hired by Violet's husband, Beverly (Sam Shepard) a once-renowned poet, a decent guy too.With these characters brought all together after Beverly's disappearance, you have all the ingredients assembled for these great family brawls, with their share of secrets, revelations and twisted plot twists, and you have the local Oklahoman touch, making the film a mix between "Cat on a Hot Tin Roof" (it was adapted from a play by Tracy Letts) and "About Schmidt".
It's greatly written, full of authentic moments such as the dinner scene, Cooper's graces and many mother-and-daughters truth-telling moments
it's an ensemble movie and I guess this is the role Julia Roberts should have won an Oscar for, not Erin 'gimme-a-break' Brockovich.And while I saw the film, I thought I already had the title of my review in mind, something like "one's end inspiring many new beginnings", something about the necessity of reuniting to finally come to terms with the past and take a new start.
I know "hope" is a big word but it's precisely because the movie didn't leave much for optimism in the beginning than I kept having in mind this "it can't be worse" feeling.I understand it was meant to be a realistic drama and in reality, many problems are left unresolved, if only because most people chose to escape or hide instead of facing their responsibilities, but maybe the reunion was a way to put an end to it, maybe there had been enough secrets in this family and it was time not just to let them out, but to make it worth it.
I will never see these characters again, so I wish we had a few glimpses of what would happen to them after.Besides, Tracy Letts meant the film as a tribute to his background, to show that Midwest isn't just populated by Rubes or Rednecks, like in the movies, I'm not sure the ending would reconcile a perplexed audience with the Midwest.
Based on a stage winning play this family drama involves the Weston family of Oklahoma and Violet Weston(the best in the business Meryl Streep)is a set in her ways high strong stubborn old woman getting ready to die of cancer she's in her final days and she's not gonna change her smoking and she's still somewhat of a bigot.
The trailer makes August: Osage County look like an uplifting family occasion, but it's a melancholic movie with open wounds on a tender spot.
But, adapting this to a Filipino film would work sans the drug problem.But this is a family drama, and worth the acting stunts pulled by Streep, Roberts, Lewis and Cumberbatch even the support would bag them an ensemble SAG all better than a remake or upgraded Steel Magnolias.
I went mainly to see the performances of some great actors whom I respect very much, but at the point where I wanted to yell at the screen and tell the characters to go home and let the movie end, I decided to leave myself.
It is Meryl Streep and Julia Roberts who gives a fine performance and heads the film on their shoulder.Overall, a disappointing film despite having a great star cast.
Terrible film, just terrible.I watched half of it, gave up but then because of my OCD and needing to complete things, I finished it the next day.Whoever wrote the script has obviously never heard anyone talk in real life before.There is far too much focus on Meryl Streep's character and she is given so much time to drone on and on about utter cr*p to ensure award nominations that none of the other characters are developed enough.
The ending was rubbish and people got irate over nothing or perhaps to ensure there would be enough scenes for the trailer and the movie poster.Every scene felt disconnected and I think the only good thing this film had going for it was Julia Roberts who is a total pro.
However, the movie itself was a statically filmed version of a wildly overpraised stage play - the supposed shocker elements have been done before to greater effect and with more aplomb, There were too many clichéd characters that even excellent attempts of bringing them to life by the likes of Ewan McGregor, Dermont Mulroney, Juliette Lewis and Abigail Breslin could not make them rise above clichés - and believe me, they tried.
Chris Cooper who starred in a much better movie with a far more interesting depiction and resolution of the most "shocking revelation" of August: Osage County is absolutely perfect as the brother- in-law who truly loved the deceased and who is sicked by the nastiness and pettiness of the female relatives - especially his wife's (Excellently played by Margo Martindale).
This negative focus on the pure dysfunction that festers and spreads throughout the family roots much like a disease that damages the potential of fruitful growth is the deep focus in playwright Tracy Letts' play August: Osage County, which comes to the big screen through the literal and figurative sophomoric direction of John Wells (The Company Men).
It wasn't a happy ending either.This was more of a training film for therapists to show the sorts of a mess people can make of their lives.It also shows how keeping family secrets will usually do more harm than good.As far as I could tell, not one member of the family was well adjusted.I'm trying to think of something I liked about the movie, but nothing comes to mind..
There is a line in Tracy Letts' Pulitzer Prize winning play he has transformed into a screenplay for AUGUST, OSAGE COUNTY that states 'Thank God we can't tell the future, we could never get out of bed.' And in many ways that is the mood of this grim examination of a dysfunctional family living in the plains of Oklahoma, in this case baked by the August heat and the suicide death of the patriarch.
Violet's family gathers including youngest daughter Ivy (Julianne Nicholson), middle daughter Karen (Juliette Lewis) with her new fiancé, the wealthy cannabis loving Steve (Dermot Mulrooney), eldest daughter Barbara (Julia Roberts) with her estranged husband Bill (Ewan McGregor) and their teenage daughter Jean (Abigail Breslin), and her fat sister Mattie Fae (Margo Martindale) with her husband Charlie (Chris Cooper) and son Little Charlie (Benedict Cumberbatch).
The cast is really what brings it all together, there is not a poor performance in the bunch, the likes of Julia Roberts, Meryl Streep, Chris Cooper, Ewan McGregor and Margo Martindale are all very believable as a close, dysfunctional family.
Ultimately, however, almost all films based on plays have the great strength of strong dialogue (there are some wonderful lines here) but the real weakness of a static location (in this case, a large house and most especially a crowded dinner table that provides an electric set of encounters).It is an ensemble piece of distinguished actors, but the male Letts has written the best roles for women: the family matriarch Violet (Meryl Streep), her three daughters (Julia Roberts, Julianne Nicholson & Juliette Lewis), and her sister (Margo Martindale).
August: Osage County If your elderly parent is turning into a pill-popper replace their daily dosage with Skittles.Unfortunately, the addict in this dark-comedy is cognizant.When their father (Sam Shepard) goes missing, the daughters (Julia Roberts, Juliette Lewis, Julianne Nicholson) of the cancerous Violet (Meryl Streep) return home with their significant others (Ewan McGregor, Abigail Breslin, Dermot Mulroney) for support.Eventually, their father's body is found and family secrets - a love child between him and Violet's sister (Margo Martindale) and an incestuous affair between the youngest daughter and a cousin (Benedict Cumberbatch) - are exposed.But instead of concealing these nuggets like her broken marriage, Violet's eldest daughter confronts her mother, physically.Boasting an epic ensemble, this adaptation of the play is certainly well performed.
It's not right that we should wait so long, but what a treat when films like this arrive.Adapted by Tracy Letts from her own stage play and directed by John Wells (The Company Men), August: Osage County throws a family of strong women at us with all their wrinkles, faults, foibles and tantrums, accompanied by the men who support them, manage them, tolerate them and, in most instances, love them.When Violet Weston's (Meryl Streep), husband, Beverly (Sam Shepard) disappears, her sister, Mattie (Margo Martindale), and daughters Barbara (Julia Roberts), Ivy (Julianne Nicholson) and Karen (Juliette Lewis) arrive at the Oklahoma family home to give support, offer unwelcome opinions and inflict damage in their own ways.
Based off of Tracy Letts' darkly comedic play, August: Osage County comes to the big screen in hopes of capturing audiences hearts with its strongly character-driven story and big names.
Julia Roberts almost matches her in the overacting stakes.The film is billed as a black comedy/drama, an adaptation of a stage play and directed by John Wells who wrote and directed many episodes of ER.The ensemble cast also includes Sam Shepard, Ewan McGregor, Chris Cooper, Juliette Lewis and Benedict CumberbatchSteep plays a bitter, sick, cancer ridden, drug addict whose drunk, poet husband hires a native American to cook and look after his wife and shortly later dies.The rest of the family arrives and what follows are brutal arguments where ghosts of the past are brought out in the open and wounds are opened up and laid to fester.However despite this the film is dull, overacted and certainly not funny.
The performances from Juliette Lewis, Margo Martindale, Chris Cooper, Ewan McGregor, Julianne Nicholson, Dermot Mulroney, Abigail Breslin, and Benedict Cumberbatch all hit the dramatic notes expressed from the thickly scripted characters, but the anchored supporting actor is Julia Roberts.
This movie had everything in it,starting with great performances by all, especially, the two queens of acting, Meryl Streep, and Julia Roberts.
They introduce each character at 'convenient' spots in the film and give the viewer time before jumping into their tragic back stories.As you know, the cast is star studded, plenty of familiar faces from Meryl Streep, Julia Roberts, Ewan McGregor, Abigail Breslin, Benedict Cumberbatch, Julianne Nicholson and more. |
tt1741684 | Bitmeyen sarki | Feraye (Berguzar Korel) doesn't believe in beautiful days, people & Miracles. Her ultimate aim is to find her son who was taken away from her by force 8 years ago. Although, she works as a singer in a night club, she manages to maintain her innocence. She is beautiful, young & decent girl in her difficult and dark world. One day, in order to save her work place, she reluctantly accepts an invitation to a dinner on a luxury yacht with a powerful businessman. However, dinner doesn't go on according to the plan and Feraye had to jump into the sea. On the verge of death, she is saved by a young man Yaman (Bulent Inal). This accident which is the beginning of the hope for a greater love changes both the life of Yaman & Feraye.
In this love story you will explore a difficult love of Yaman and Feraye, who are made for each other yet from different worlds. How will Yaman reacts when he learns that Feraye is a singer in a night club. Will the love of Yaman and Feraye stand by the secret buried in Feraye's past ? Will Feraye manage to find her son ? | romantic | train | wikipedia | null |
tt0265730 | Sethu | Sethu aka Chiyaan (Vikram) is a rough and macho college rowdy and also The Students Union Chairman of the college, who uses violence as the only way to deal with people. He lives with his brother, a Magistrate (Sivakumar), and his sister-in-law, who is the only person who seems to understand him properly.
The movie opens with Sethu winning the elections to the office bearers of the college's Students Union followed by celebrations and in-campus fight between the rival candidates.
Sethu has a staple diet of yes-sir friends surrounding him. He comes across a timid girl, Abitha, who is the daughter of a poor temple priest, and starts to woo her. When she initially rejects him, he kidnaps her and forces her to fall in love with him.
When the girl falls in love with him, Sethu is attacked by brothel goons and ends up in a temple ashram with brain damage With no memory of his past and having developed an unusual behaviour, he starts to recollect memories. At one point, he is completely back to his normal self and tries to escape by climbing over the gates. Unfortunately, he fails and ends up with serious injuries.
Whilst sleeping with his injury, Abitha makes a surprise visit. However Sethu is asleep and she leaves with this woeful memory of him. As she is about to leave the institution, he wakes up and realises that she had come to see him. As he calls out, she leaves unable to hear him.
Persistent to meet her he makes another attempt to leave the institution and this time he is successful. When he arrives at her house he is presented with his love unfortunately dead. He realises that she had committed suicide.
Distraught after what he saw, he just walks out and at that point he is met with the mental institution wardens who came chasing after him. The film ends with Sethu leaving with them as he has nothing to live for after his true love's death. | tragedy, violence, romantic | train | wikipedia | Awesome if you have heart. This movie will definitely leave a tear on our eyes at the end.The way the characters are depicted in the movie is excellent. The story, characters and the feeling they give to the viewers is something you cant forget in your life.You should have watched many a LOVE movies/stories in your life, but this movie is far different from them. Let me tell how it is different, you will not face even a Romantic (i mean a LOVE song with Hero and Heroine) Song, no vulgar language, no vulgar scenes, even this movie don't have any MESSAGE, except the feeling that we cant breath with out our loved ones. You can watch this movie with your family (though a LOVE movie). You will NOT ENJOY the movie, but damn sure you will LOVE and FEEL the message from the movie.. Pain of love has never been captured on screen like this in cinema. its a relatively low budget movie which no one wanted to release first for its strong emotional content.but it went on to become the biggest blockbuster of the that year its a experience which should be felt the music by illayaraja is a most important character in the movie since most of pain in this love story is expressed in the music of movie even if you don't like the 1 st half ...... wait for the second half you will not be disappointed ...instead you will see the one of the masterpiece in tragedy ever made on screenPain of love has never been captured on screen like this in cinema warning : see with sub titles for people who don't have patience to wait for the second half ( yes 2nd half you don't need sub titles ) |
tt1521197 | Anonymous | After a monologue delivered by Derek Jacobi, the film opens in 1603, with Robert Cecil, Earl of Salisbury, ordering a desperate search for a trove of manuscripts. Ben Jonson, who has the manuscripts, flees down the streets of London and into the theatre known as The Rose. Hot on his heels, the soldiers who have been sent to arrest Jonson, break down the doors and intentionally set the theatre alight. Successive flashbacks cast us back five and then forty years, as the film evokes the reputed life of Edward de Vere from childhood through to his entanglement in an insurrection, and later on to his deathbed.
The main action takes place five years earlier in 1598, a decade after the defeat of the Spanish Armada, as political intrigue flourishes between the Tudors and the Cecils (father William and son Robert), over the succession to Queen Elizabeth I. In flashbacks, de Vere is portrayed as a prodigious genius, writing at eight or nine years of age (1558/1559) A Midsummer Night's Dream, de Vere acting the role of Puck before the young queen Elizabeth. He is then forced to live in the repressive, puritanical house of William Cecil where, years later, he kills a spying servant lurking behind an arras, much like the death of Polonius in Hamlet. William Cecil uses this murder to blackmail de Vere into a loveless marriage with his daughter, Anne Cecil, compelling him also to renounce literature. De Vere later becomes the Queen's lover, and sires – unknown to him – an illegitimate son; the son is adopted, becoming Henry Wriothesley, 3rd Earl of Southampton, but his true parentage is hidden from all but the Cecils.
De Vere must struggle against a taboo that would forbid him to write; against his wife's impatience with his literary work as a dishonour to her family; and against the Queen's counsellors. Foremost among these is his father-in-law William Cecil, who believes that theatres are sinful. Cecil's plan to have James VI of Scotland, the son of Mary, Queen of Scots, crowned king is also threatened by the presence of de Vere's and the Queen's child, who would be an alternative contender for the throne, and also of pure Tudor lineage.
Almost four decades after his private premiere, de Vere visits a public theatre and is deeply impressed by the way spectators can be swayed. The play, written by Jonson, is halted mid-performance by the royal militia because of its allegedly seditious content. Jonson is arrested and imprisoned. Much taken by the propagandistic power of art, de Vere decides to employ his secretly written plays for the promotion of the Earl of Essex's cause (Essex being another of the Queen's illegitimate sons) over the candidate preferred by the Cecils, writing Henry V and, later, Richard III as propaganda designed to foment revolution. He contacts Jonson, who is confined in the Tower of London until de Vere uses his influence to free him, in order to have his play Henry V staged under Jonson's name. Jonson is unhappy about the plan, assuming that the play will be an amateurish effort that will tarnish his name. Jonson does not claim authorship, allowing an unscrupulous young actor, William Shakespeare, to step up on stage as author. It is this "drunken oaf" who takes on the role as de Vere's front man, while Jonson becomes de Vere's only confidant in the truth.
Shakespeare however, having discovered the real author's identity, extorts money from de Vere to build the Globe Theatre, and wangles £400 per year for posturing as a front. After Christopher Marlowe stumbles on the truth that Shakespeare's inexplicable talents hide the genius of another hand, he is found with his throat slit. Jonson later confronts Shakespeare and accuses him of the murder.
At the climax, de Vere uses the play Richard III as a thinly veiled attack on the hunchbacked Robert Cecil. The plan is to incite a mob to march against Cecil, and thus weaken his position at court. At the same time, Essex is to march with the Earl of Southampton to the Palace, to promote his own claim to the succession. Meanwhile, de Vere writes Venus and Adonis to remind the Queen of their old love. He hopes to see her again in an atmosphere of renewed intimacy, and to persuade her to dismiss Cecil.
The plan fails, however, as a jealous Jonson, unaware of de Vere's plan, betrays the plot to Cecil. Jonson soon learns of the plan, but fails to alert Francesco of his betrayal in time, as the mob is massacred by soldiers with muskets and artillery pieces, stopping it from joining Essex. The Queen, swayed by Cecil, thinks that Essex is trying to depose her. Essex and his men are lured into the Palace courtyard, where they are ambushed by soldiers firing muskets from the balconies above. Essex and Southampton surrender honorably. Essex is later executed, but not before screaming "God save the Queen!". Southampton is later released.
Robert Cecil then tells a broken de Vere that Elizabeth had other bastard sons – one of whom was de Vere himself. If true, it would mean that de Vere committed incest with his mother. He has a private audience with Elizabeth, at which the Queen agrees to spare Southampton, but insists that de Vere remain anonymous as the true author of "Shakespeare's" works.
After the Queen's death, James VI succeeds as James I of England, though Cecil's hopes for a more puritanical regime are shattered when James reveals himself to be an avid "theater man". Shakespeare retires on his ill-gotten gains to Stratford to become a businessman, and de Vere dies in 1604, having commended his manuscripts to the care of a repentant Jonson. Cecil, however, still wants the manuscripts destroyed. With the destruction of The Rose, he believes them destroyed, but he later discovers they have survived. Nevertheless, the "truth" remains concealed: that Edward de Vere, not the nearly illiterate Shakespeare, is their real author. | romantic, intrigue, murder, flashback | train | wikipedia | In his film of the same name, director Roland Emmerich seems to be suggesting that this idea is not exactly new, and that the plays and poems attributed to William Shakespeare were essentially motivated by the same desire.
He takes the age-old mystery of "Who really wrote Shakespeare's plays?" and turns it into a political thriller.If it's difficult for you to imagine a historical costume drama done by the director of "Universal Soldier," "Stargate," "Independence Day," "Godzilla," "The Day After Tomorrow" and "2012," you are not alone.
The cast is simply to die for: Vanessa Redgrave as Queen Elizabeth the elder; her daughter Joely Richardson as Elizabeth the younger; Rafe Spall as Shakespeare (a talentless clod of an actor); Sebastian Arnesto as Ben Johnson (a talented playwright, but not even in the same galaxy of greatness as the author of Shakespeare's plays); David Thewlis as William Cecil; Edward Hogg as Robert Cecil; Derek Jacobi doing the prologue; Jaime Campbell Bower (from "Camelot") as the younger Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford; and Rhys Ifans as the older Edward de Vere, and the real author of Shakespeare's work.As presented, the plot is not at all a scholarly argument for the Earl of Oxford's authorship of these plays.
I did find Rafe Spall pretty annoying as Shakespeare, but perhaps I should give him the benefit of the doubt as this was probably the aim of the character.With regards to the historical rewrite then surely if people are interested in what 'Anonymous' suggests they'll try to find out more about the subject in order to make their own mind up.
Looney proposed a somewhat forgotten nobleman named Edward de Vere, the 17th Earl of Oxford, as being the true identity of the poet/playwright William Shakespeare in a book called simply "Shakespeare Identified"."Anonymous" is a film based on Looney's original notion that Edward de Vere, the 17th Earl of Oxford, penned the plays which would become the greatest literary canon of the English language.
Unlike today, playwrights and poets lived on the periphery of society, and a nobleman of the rank of Oxford writing plays containing charged political rhetoric would have been scandalous, hence the Shakespeare-Oxford theory.The hero of the movie is actually his colleague Ben Johnson, the Elizabethan playwright who has always dwelt under the shadow of Shakespeare, especially in modern times.
However, as shown in the film, primary source evidence survives which speaks of Edward de Vere as an adolescent putting on a short play for the young Queen Elizabeth.So the film brings us back to the fundamental question: did Oxford write the Shakespeare Canon or was it the man from Stratford?
While it is clear that writer John Orloff and director Roland Emmerich believe that Edward De Vere, The Earl of Oxford, and not Will Shakespeare, wrote the infamous and iconic plays we have celebrated for 400 years, my advice is to watch this as a Hollywood movie and not a docu-drama.
Though talented writer Ben Jonson (Sebastian Armesto) was De Vere's first choice, the lack of morals by the illiterate actor Shakespeare allows him to seize a capitalistic opportunity and soak up the audience love.The best part of the film is the realistic look and feel of the streets, the Globe Theater and costumes.
"The most performed playwright of all time, the author of 37 plays, 154 sonnets & several narrative poems...and yet not a single manuscript of any kind has ever been found written in Shakespeare's own hand." A movie that explores the theory that Shakespeare didn't write any of the things that he is said to.
Under that logic, every millionaire person should be an artistic and scientific genius.The film Anonymous tried to examine that hypothesis about Shakespere, and even though I liked it, I think its screenplay should have been better polished, because its frequent chronological jumps, court intrigues and numerous characters make it occasionally a bit confusing and tiring.
They engage in dynastic and historical gymnastics in order to support the pathetically weak plot, mainly, that Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, wrote the 37 plays attributed to Shakespeare.
At the most basic level, ANONYMOUS does one thing right: It's damn interesting and entertaining.Even as a person who never liked Shakespeare's plays (especially the dreaded ROMEO AND JULIET), the film manages to be involving.
We're introduced to a world with many characters and time periods jumping all over the place, but it gets easier to grasp once you get to know the characters.Overall, ANONYMOUS is an interesting and entertaining film that will get people talking about who the real author of the plays are.
This film is not recommended.With apologies to Shakespeare, the true talent, thus, my feeble attempt at (mostly) iambic pentameter:Anonymous, a film of cheese and ham, Questions the legend of Shakespeare, William, Whose work it claims the sole property of, Edward DeVere's, Earl, and a class above, Theory and conjecture, Will's name to malign, A film not noble, literate, or refined, Its tale quite shallow, protesting too much, Spouting nonsense, drivel, dreck, and such.A production with much to admire, Before all logic begins to expire, Sensationally, a work of fiction, Unconvincing in its own conviction, Visual spectacle, or farce, perhaps, Intelligence and wit well nigh elapse, Although I may seem to kvetch and complain, This film ultimately doth entertain.The thespians display their skills and crafts, While unintentionally providing laughs, Over-emoting as they misbehave, The likes of Jacobi and Ladies Redgrave, Rhys Ifans well plays lover and writer, Were only Orloff's script a bit tighter, Rafe Spall's the bard as wretched sot, an eyeful, Poor Will should sue for slander and libel.Disaster, thine mainstay of Emmerich, Part director, part showman, his prime niche, For depth and clarity, he will not delve, Note: Independence Day and 2012, Whilst not the disaster we've come to expect, The film has little to awe or respect, It plays fast with the facts, and offers nil, Except sets, that in some measure, fulfill.With all its pomp and expensive wrappings, Lavish costumes doth not disguise its trappings, But thy foul temper and malaise spills forth, Yielding a vile film of lesser worth, A ill-conceived venture, shrill, and unkind, Outlandishly ornate and out of its mind, A stylish film, yet so misbegotten, One hopes Anonymous is soon well forgotten.GRADE: CNOTE: Visit my movie blog for more reviews: www.dearmoviegoer.com.
For the first part of the movie the audience doesn't sympathize with any of the characters: Ben Johnson is pointless, we might feel him only during the ending scenes, but I think is a hateful character and the Earl of Oxford that should be the protagonist doesn't seem to be it.Moreover, I HATED the reconstruction of London made by computer, it gave to the film this sense of artificiality and surreality, which didn't helped at all the plot.I admit, the acting was fairly good and the story itself is very interesting as a new vision of Shakespeare's fame and works.
I was riveted from start to finish.However, I see the Shakespeare-was-Shakespeare contingent of the reviewing press has the long knives out for this film and, not surprisingly, are not honest enough to admit that their real beef is the authorship angle.The New York Times typist, for instance, says that the Oxfordian theory, "sometimes granted the unwarranted dignity of being called a theory, is hardly new." I say, okay Mr. Smartypants Stratfordian, since you feel there's scant evidence in favor of de Vere, let's review how ALL Shakespearean biographies are written, inasmuch as we know about ten solid facts about the fellow from Stratford (including: his entire family was illiterate, and the only writing in his home other than the Bible were some business receipts).
The sonnets, in particular, closely correspond to de Vere's personal life in a way that cannot be easily dismissed.Now, the film takes liberties with actual facts of the Oxfordian theory in order to make a compelling drama, but a sound case is made in many good books--one of the best being "Shakespeare by Another Name: The Life of Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford, the Man Who Was Shakespeare" by Mark Anderson; also, good resources can be found on the internet at the Shakespeare Oxford Society website.
The film Anonymous attempts to be seductive, sexy, witty and adventurous- all of the attributes of any of Shakespeare's work, but it instead some across as troublesome, clique and annoying.Rhys Ifans I have been a fan of for some time, but here is his role of Earl of Oxford he is almost unrecognizable as an aging man who believes the world can change by force of words as opposed to force of sword.
I don't know and I cannot judge this, since I am not a Psychoanalyst, but there must be such a component beneath these efforts of theirs, to drag everything that is of some value (or at least has been until now) through the mud of their contorted and sick minds.I don't know what these people are smoking or snorting up their noses, but this, always in my own and very personal view, has absolutely nothing to do with true creativity, nor taste.It just shows us how jaded and ignorant some people, especially high placed people these days, can be, and how pretentious they can become when they reach the top.A nice dose of humbleness and a bit more wisdom would suit them best, but alas, they keep on coming with these preposterous and ill-fated (apparently not by a vast majority of viewers, naturally) subjects, stating facts that are not grounded in any serious publication, and which may probably be more suited in trash papers like The Sun or other gossip Newspaper of sad present fate...But then again, my opinion may not count much these days, since everyone is out for a shock-treatment, rather than using their own brains for something useful and truly constructive.How easy it is these days, to destroy the work of a lifetime of people who really did sweat their daily bread and butter, and how sad it is to see how other less talented (at least in my view) people, struggle to become the "talk of the town", for their own personal satisfaction.Oscar Wilde and Noel Coward would probably know this phenomenon better than I, and would probably have much more to say in this regard, certainly with a lot more style than I could ever muster, and even be able to add some very poignant notes to what I just described.Alas, such sublime authors do not exist anymore, and all we are left with are some comic strips and cheap literature that entices just the occasional reader to open a real book.
At most points I couldn't tell which character was which (I'm pretty sure there were at least five present in more than one timeline and only one of them was played by the same actor through each one) and I had no clue what was going on in terms of narrative.The basic plot will tell you that this is a fictional telling of the much-debated topic of whether William Shakespeare's work was written by the man himself or if they were written by Edward De Vere, Earl of Oxford.
Instead we focus more on things like the Essex Rebellion against Elizabeth I, which takes up a majority of the plot and doesn't fit fluidly at all within the Shakespeare storyline, where we get to experience a myriad of actors hamming it up in the most unfortunate of ways.In fact, the whole cast is pretty miserable here, with the one exception being Rhys Ifans as De Vere.
"All art is political," says Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford (the real Shakespeare) in this stunning movie and nothing could be truer for Anonymous.
Emmerich and Orloff have challenged the gods of Elizabeth History (the Virgin Queen is no such thing), the literary gods (Shakspere is no Shakespeare) and the gods of succession to today's English throne (most likely unconsidered by the author and director).The main question asked in a preview in New York City was "is this true?" And the answer to the question is overwhelmingly "yes." Orloff and Emmerich have changed some of the dates around to make it into a coherent story, but the relationship between the characters is exactly what happened during the Elizabethan era.
You would think, therefore, that Roland Emmerich's new film Anonymous, which promotes the theory that the 17th Earl of Oxford, Edward de Vere, wrote Shakespeare's plays would be about a tussle between de Vere and Shakespeare.Nope.In the two hours' passage of the film, Oxford (a wooden Rhys Ifans) and Shakespeare (played as a fame-seeking semi-illiterate bumpkin by Rafe Spall) meet rarely and then only in passing.
Opposing the conspirators is Robert Cecil, Elizabeth's Puritan adviser, played with appropriately gloating malice by Edward Hogg.As the plot develops, de Vere -- the father of one of the would-be usurpers -- occasionally passes manuscripts to playwright Ben Johnson (Sebastian Armesto), who arranges for their production.And that's about it for the controversy.As a piece of conspiracy drama, the film succeeds.
The acting was superb--Rhys Ifans was absolutely stunning as Edward De Vere, capturing so well his passion and pain as the real author (according to the story) of Shakespeare's works.
Such is the case with Anonymous.In this story, which furthers the case of a scholarly minority who do not believe William Shakespeare (Rafe Spall) authored all of those plays, Edward de Vere, the Earl of Oxford (Rhys Ifans), was the true genius behind the words.
However, Anonymous truly is historical fiction.Just as Shakespeare doubters gleefully point out the striking lack of evidence missing from his authorship such as original editions, lack of fame in his lifetime, no mention of the plays in his will, etc
there is also scant evidence Edward de Vere authored them either.
Visually it's a great movie to look at but other than that, this movie has far too little else to offer.Most people are hating on this movie because it's filled with historical inaccuracies and basically non of it is based on any facts, even though the movie presents itself as if its telling a true and historical story, concerning Shakespeare and his well known stage-plays.
in 2012.In 2011 he also gave us the film Anonymous, thankfully in time for us to enjoy before (at least according to Mr. Emmerich) the world ended a year later.Anonymous is a fantasy presented as historical fact, claiming that Shakespeare did not write Shakespeare's plays or poetry.
Like a true Shakespearean play, inbuilt comedy and tragedy come from Rafe Spall as the fraudulent Shakespeare and Edward Hogg as Robert Cecil, the film's second antagonist and the thorn in de Vere's side.
The movie is a political thriller in which they assume that Shakespeare didn't wrote his plays, but Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford did.
Director Roland Emmerich, best known for disaster films like Independence Day, recreates Elizabethan England in delicious detail, from dirty streets to robust theaters.What he doesn't do is convince me that the Earl, Edward de Vere, was the author (the Oxfordian Theory).I have to catalogue the notion in my head along with the claims for Sir Frances Bacon, Ben Jonson, and many others including a committee.
'All art is political, otherwise it would just be decoration.' ANONYMOUS is first and foremost a beautifully crafted film - script, direction, lighting, costume, music, cinematography, acting - and whether or not the viewer buys into the premise that the plays and sonnets of Shakespeare were the work of Edward de Vere instead of the apparently illiterate actor 'William Shakspar' is unimportant.
The plays have become the favorite entertainment of the aged Elizabeth I (now Vanessa Redgrave) and De Vere soon feels the need to protect his privacy and asks Jonson to accept credit for writing the plays, but Jonson in turn passes that authorship to an illiterate actor named William Shakespeare (Rafe Spall) who uses the lie to increase his popularity and wealth.Coloring the atmosphere is the palace intrigue of who will be Elizabeth's heir - and the Cecils (David Thewlis father and Edward Hogg son) decide it must be James of Scotland (not a choice Elizabeth would make).
Set in the political snake-pit of Elizabethan England, Anonymous speculates on an issue that has for centuries intrigued academics and brilliant minds such as Mark Twain, Charles Dickens, and Sigmund Freud, namely: who actually created the body of work credited to William Shakespeare?.
Set in the political snake-pit of Elizabethan England, Anonymous speculates on an issue that has for centuries intrigued academics and brilliant minds such as Mark Twain, Charles Dickens, and Sigmund Freud, namely: who actually created the body of work credited to William Shakespeare?.
Told through the eyes of aspiring playwright Ben Jonson, we watch as lecherous stage actor Will Shakespeare steps up to claim credit for the anonymous plays and land a place in history.Emmerich would've been the last person I'd ever expect to put together an interesting Shakespearean drama, but he actually manages to pull it off.
He directs a film that centers on the theory that Shakespeare's works were actually written by Edward De Vere, the 17th Earl of Oxford.
If this entire film is a fabrication then I also don't mind.I certainly found this movie to be enjoyable, the story was well written, the visuals seemed authentic, albeit somewhat theatrical, the acting was also good, I found Rafe Spall as Shakespeare to be quite a fun character, he truly is good at playing the fool.
I wouldn't venture as far as to say that I believe that myth, but I would say that it made for an extremely compelling film and I left feeling quite inspired to go read Shakespeare's complete works.Rhys Ifans played the Earl of Oxford, the "man behind the magic" in Anonymous.
The film takes as its premise that the Shakespeare plays were really written by Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford.
The movie Anonymous takes the position that Edward de Vere, the Earl of Oxford, a prominent figure in Queen Elizabeth's court, anonymously wrote Shakespeare's works. |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.